Married Mormon Homo

I print something like this every three months or so because I want people to know exactly where I stand...and exactly where I do not.

I am a Married Mormon Homosexual man. A MarMoHo. I have to hold my breath after saying those words. Someone usually makes a break for it or coughs up a lung.

I couldn't have mentioned my sexuality openly in the recent past without the women gathering their young-ones to their side or the men folk brandishing their muskets. The none-pioneer, modern day 3-D equivalent is just as bad: Distrust, Disdain, and Disinfectant.

And I am in the closet. The walk in to be exact. That is where my office is since I had my oldest daughter move back in with two and a half grand kids. Don't ask.

Add cottage cheese and pineapple

I have always been a homosexual Mormon man, though the specific age has varied – man child, young man, college man, taxpayer man, and now sorta old ma... never mind. By the same token, I have always been a Mormon of the “dyed in the wool, true blue, through and through” variety. 

So far, I can't be shaken (knock on wood or wood by-products). I was born into an LDS family and through pain, pride and prayer I have always come back to my Church - sometimes from a great distance, sometimes not.

I am so proud of my religion that I don’t care what others call it; Mormon, LDS, or Latter-day Saint, nor do I care about the popular misconceptions. I was once asked on my mission if I was embarrassed that the Spanish definition of the word "Mormon" was “a polygamous sect”.

No I wasn't embarrassed. I was a Mormon, I knew what it truly meant to be a Mormon, and I was proud of my heritage – regardless of what others thought. This made it easier to take when I was asked about my wives ( I rattled off some horribly ugly made up names until they laughed, and then I told them, to my companions disdain, what chores I had assigned them. I responded in a friendly way to "hey you J-dub", or “Hola CIA.”

Once I was asked if I would put 100 Lempira on Honduras in the World Cup -- like I had a special gringo bookie.

Call me anything these days – as long as you call, and I will tell you how vital to me my membership is in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

By the same token, my homosexuality – like my religious beliefs, has never been a question for me. I am tall, I am a Mormon, I am slightly arrogant, I like tangy taffy and I am homosexual. My attraction, regardless of whatever popular semantic assigned it, has been such from the beginning.

I am proud of who I am. And yet, you may have noticed that I am writing this blog, and an upcoming book, anonymously. Why do I go by Calvin Thompson and not my real name?

It is true, I haven't gone to much length to keep my identity known, and anyone who wants to putting in the effort could figure it out in a hurry.

Frankly I am more than OK putting my name out as a MarMoHo but my wife is not, and while she does not, I will not do it. But I have been around the proverbial block and someone should benefit from all the millage.

Do Mormons have the right to discriminate?

I am sure you have heard by now. Several general authorities, who are leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints called for legislation that protects “vital religious freedoms”.

After you have read this, move over the site and see what was actually said. Don’t Google the fake news channels to see what someone thinks about what was said and why the church is wrong. That is like listening to a Ute fan describe the good points of BYU co-eds.

The LDS Church also said it would support legislation where it is being sought to provide protections in housing, employment and some other areas where LGBT people do not have protections Here are three key points from that press release.

1) The Church supports “fairness for all” including LGBT people while protecting key religious rights

2) People are being publicly intimidated, retaliated against, forced from employment or made to suffer personal loss because they have raised their voice in the public square, donated to a cause or participated in an election. This is just as wrong as persecution or retaliation against LGBT people.

3) The church seeks a balanced approach between religious and gay rights.

The church also admitted that this is a highly polarized discussion and that neither side, politically, may get all that they want. As per the site “We must all learn to live with others who do not share the same beliefs or values". This seems very straight forward

It is crucial to point out that the LDS church was not calling for changes internally to the Law of Chastity, a requirement of the LDS church for full membership that discourages sex outside the bounds of marriage, nor were there changes to the status of gay marriage within the policies of the church. There was no shift in doctrine.

Some people are claiming that the LDS church is looking for special privileges and rights. I spent parts of two days arguing this on a Facebook site. The gentleman I spoke with was smarter than I and he used troglodyte in a sentence which was impressive.

Here is a statement made on social media sometimes in the last two days, and I will paraphrase:

"By extending special legal protections toward a group one can belong to by choice, (the Mormon church) society effectively allows anybody to choose to receive the benefit of the special status granted to that group."

If this statement is true, then what is the special status that will be allowed to Mormons or any other religious group if such a bill is passed?

The law would support the free exercise of religion, prohibit any infringement of freedom of speech, or infringement of our freedom of the press. It would also prohibit interfering with the right to peaceably assemble.

Sound familiar? It was adopted on December 15, 1791 as one of the ten amendments that constitute our Bill of Rights. Which brings us to these two thoughts.

1) So, why are we re-establishing the amendments?  I'm not sure, but it is all the rage. Laws have been created that make crimes against certain groups worth more time in jail than the same crime against your standard Joe. Maybe we, as a society, need reiteration of current laws in order to have significance. If this is true, then that doesn't bother me. Lets re-ratify them all --  as long as it means that we are treating people with love and respect.

2) Why is there a loud contingent of social media that do not support the idea of religious rights as recently stated by the Mormon Church?  

I don't know this either, but me tell you what I think. "They" will not support anything that allows the church to publicly state standards that do not appeal to the majority or to their sensibility. 

There is a huge issue with tithing. There are people who do not want to be forced to pay it. Others are not OK with the law of chastity, and if the Mormons have that standard and they do not want to follow, they are opposed to it. Not allowing non recommend holders to witness temple ceremonies is another.

Then their are the big ticket items. Women not being allowed to hold the priesthood and subsequently not being allowed into many leadership roles. Huge. And gay people, sex, chastity and not being able to be actively gay and be in full membership. Huge issue.

Yes, this is over simplistic and is a generalization.   

So, Mormons hitching their issue to the gay rights star?  I don't have a problem with it. Rights for all, I say. At least someone is getting hitched.

Popular Questions, unpopular answers

Popular question:  Does the Mormon Church allow gay people full benefits of participating in their organization?

My answer:  Yes. I am gay and I have a temple recommend. To have "temple privileges," and full membership status, one needs to follow the law of chastity. They must also pay tithing (10 percent of their income) to the church, and must attend church regularly on whenever possible.

Many do not choose to qualify for temple privileges for whatever reason, and no one is going to put them down or consider them faulty or unbelieving. Mormons do not look down on anyone who is not interested in attending the temple. 

OK, there are a few people who do but they are, for lack of a better term, ignoramuses and one is not concerned about their opinion. These are often the same people who look down their noses at tattoos, the smell of cigarette smoke and tube tops. 

I have no problem with a tube top or a correctly punctuated tat.

Being able to enter a LDS temple is something most members of the LDS church look forward to and prepare for. The qualifications to enter the temple in question form are available on the internet. I tried to put a few of them here, but it just didn't feel right.

Know this: If you follow the rules regardless of color, race, sexual preference, or political persuasion (I am probably leaving somebody’s category out) then you can have a temple recommend. It’s that simple. 

It’s not simple at all, but it's that universal.

Is someone who chooses not to follow these rules discriminated against or subjected to unequal treatment? I say no. If I want a driver’s license, I know what rules I need to follow. If I want a Labrador, I know what hoops I need to jump through to get one responsibly and maintain the pet legally. It is not an injustice perpetuated toward me if I am not willing to do what it takes. 

If I do not follow the rules, should I have the license or the pet? I say no. 

A temple recommend is not a right.  Membership in the LDS church is not a right. It is an option, an opportunity and a privilege for those who value it.

Choosing to do or to do otherwise is a right.