Gays get marriage licences in Utah on Friday

A federal judge ruling on Utah’s ban on same-sex marriages was deemed to be unconstitutional on Friday, December 20th. Judge Robert J. Shelby, of the United States District Court for the District of Utah, wrote that in his  opinion such a law “perpetuates inequality.”

“The State’s current laws deny its gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry and, in so doing, demean the dignity of these same-sex couples for no rational reason,”  Judge Shelby stated on Friday. “Accordingly, the court finds that these laws are unconstitutional.”

This ruling was released just hours after another southwestern state, New Mexico, became the 17th state to allow same-sex marriage on Thursday.  It's state Supreme Court ruled that a similar ban there was unconstitutional as well.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has softened its stance on homosexuality in recent years, stating that the known origins of sexuality are not fully understood.  The LDS church was not involved in any part of the lawsuit.

"The Church has been consistent in its support of traditional marriage while teaching that all people should be treated with respect," said a LDS Church spokesman.

Nation wide, public opinion on the matter has made an about face over the past 10 years. In 2003, 55%  opposed homosexual marriage, with 37% supporting marriage equality. Today, 58% are in favor with 36% opposing the bans -- this according to data compiled by The Washington Post.

In the state of Utah, public opinion on the issue has been slower to turn with 28% supporting legalizing gay marriage in a February 2012 (Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy), while a poll taken at approximately the same time period (CBS/New York Times) revealed 38% support for gay marriage rights nationally.

The large Mormon population is opposed to homosexual activity while supporting a persons right to live his own lifestyle making use of "agency", the ability to choose for one's self. Nationally, nearly two in three Mormons in 2011 said society should discourage homosexual acts, while only one third of those polled in other denominations agreed, (Pew poll.) 63 % of Utahans are LDS. (2007 Pew Religion & Public Life survey.)

I may or may not agree with homosexuals getting married, But I am not one to stand in their way.  The constitution seems clear.  Humans are born with certain inalienable rights, regardless of religion or public opinion.  As long as these judges are studying constitutional law, the law the LDS as a people say they support, Homosexuals must be allowed to marry.

Churches should still retain their right to allow such marriage in their denominations.  I would fight for that right right along with the gays right to marry.

What do you think?  What do you think the mormon people will do?  The leaders of the LDS church?  I'd love to hear from you.

How many of us are there?

How many gay men live in the United States, you wonder? Read on...

Historical estimates have ranged from 2 percent to 10 percent. Ten is what most activists lock onto, it's the number that pops up in my head.

Notoriously, men are not so forthcoming about their homosexual attraction.  With that in mind, how on earth are we supposed to get any data?  However, someone tried to pull information off of facebook and google and created this essay published recently in the New York Times. 

Here is a little map he created as well, indicating the states that are most "closeted".  His stats indicate that men are More likely to "come out" in a state that is more tolerant of gays.        

Multimedia

Where the Closet Is Still Common

Rhoade Island is the most tolerant, Mississippi the least. Orange and orangish, less so, purple and purplish more so. Click onto the article and then the map to see detail. Here is a snippet of the article:
      

"Using surveys, social networks, pornographic searches and dating sites, I recently studied evidence on the number of gay men. The data used in this analysis is available in highly aggregated form only and can be downloaded from publicly accessible sites. While none of these data sources are ideal, they combine to tell a consistent story."

      

"At least 5 percent of American men, I estimate, are predominantly attracted to men, and millions of gay men still live, to some degree, in the closet. Gay men are half as likely as straight men to acknowledge their sexuality on social networks. More than one quarter of gay men hide their sexuality from anonymous surveys. The evidence also suggests that a large number of gay men are married to women." against homosexuality remains strong, many more gay men are in the closet than are out."

      

"How deep in the closet are these men? Obviously, it is possible for a gay man not to acknowledge his sexuality to Facebook or surveys but to still have healthy, open same-sex relationships."

I read his article and had a few moments where I looked at things differently.  The take-away for me was this: "There is, in other words, a huge amount of secret suffering in the United States that can be directly attributed to intolerance of homosexuality."

Interesting, isn't it? "There is a huge amount of secret suffering in the United States that can be directly attributed to intolerance..."
 

Rise up, O men of God! -- Gentle Masculinity

What an interesting article  from "Religion and Politics".  The following excerpt is from "Why Mormon Men Love “Church Ball” and Are Scared of Homosexuality" By Kristine Haglund | September 10, 2012


GENTLE MASCULINITY

"When the women of the church convene for their annual meeting in Salt Lake City, they are likely to hear things like:

“Sisters, we love you. We pray for you. Be strong and of good courage. You are truly royal spirit daughters of Almighty God. You are princesses, destined to become queens.” And they may be gently admonished to refrain from gossip or increase their self-esteem.

Fine and not so fine lines

Yet men are often bluntly castigated over the same pulpit for using pornography, abusing women and children, and otherwise failing, as the late Mormon Church President Gordon B. Hinckley declared in 2006, to “‘Rise up, O men of God!’ and put these things behind you.”

Mormons learn early that “maleness” is by nature potentially sexually dangerous. These lessons begin with the Book of Mormon itself. “For the natural man is an enemy to God,” Mosiah 3:19 reads, “and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man.” This “putt[ing] off the natural man” requires a total prohibition of sexual activity before marriage and strong taboos against masturbation.

Obedient Mormon boys are thus excluded from their peers’ conversations about sexual discovery. Participating in the casual misogyny and homophobia typical of teenage boys’ locker rooms induces discomfort and guilt in a boy who regularly hears admonitions to abstain from sex of any kind before his wedding night—with himself or anyone else.

Mormon boys might laugh at or even tell gay jokes, but they cannot brag about how far they’ve “gone with the girl” or what they’re planning to do with their prom dates. For a Mormon boy, becoming a Mormon man means not becoming a man, at least not the “natural man” engendered by the adolescent onslaught of testosterone. This means that, perhaps paradoxically, while most

Mormons would assert that both biology and God establish gender at birth, Mormon men’s experience of masculinity is highly performative. They learn that the natural tendencies of maleness must be subjugated to religious principle.

This performance is taught most intensively during the two years of missionary service that devout Mormon men undertake, most often beginning at age 19. Two-by-two, Mormon men knock on doors or pass out church pamphlets and Books of Mormon on street corners. During their mission, they are instructed never to be apart from the companion. They eat, work, pray, and sleep “in the same room but not in the same bed” with their companion.

Missionaries are even instructed to conduct a weekly “companionship inventory,” the instructions for which read like a self-help book for married couples: “Discuss the strength of your relationship with your companion. Discuss any challenges that may be keeping your companionship from working in unity or from being obedient.”

This intense camaraderie combined as it must be among celibate 19- and 20-year-old men with sexual repression, is Mormon men’s induction into masculinity. In this context of profound homo-social bonding, they learn that masculinity is both a privilege and a danger. It is something to be controlled and sublimated to religious ideals of gentleness that are, in many other contexts, coded feminine.

If, on the one side, the danger is giving into the “natural man”—becoming promiscuous or abusive—on the other side the danger is that one might become too gentle and meek...

The performance of Mormon masculinity is a difficult balancing act, a tightrope walk between poles established by a brutish, hyper-masculine “natural man” and an effeminate gay man."

Slate Magazine wants to know “Why a religion, notorious in the gay community might be “evolving”

In a June article in Slate by Max Perry Mueller, Josh Weed is presented in a photo with his wife and three lovely children under the headline, "Can you be both Mormon and Gay?"

It's an age old question, and one that I have always felt warrants discussion.

Of course the answer people come to is "yes, and let me count the ways, names, faces of those gay and Mormon THAT HAVE COME OUT, let alone those who haven’t."

But that wasn’t what the story was about anyway, so I didn’t get all worked up. The focus was on whether the LDS church is, specifically, “evolving”. The implication: moving into a position of tolerance for homosexuals in full fellowship in the LDS church.

The quick answer is "No," the church is not evolving into a place where it will allow Homosexuals “full rights.”

I say this with important definitions in mind. Let’s run over them quickly…

If a homosexual is a man attracted to and has sex with his own sex, then no. The LDS Church will not evolve on this point. There is no sex before marriage in a stance of morality. Temple marriage privilege will never be allowed for same sex couples.

This is my opinion, though I don’t think it is much of an opinion. I think I was just stating fact.

If a homosexual is attracted to ones same sex, and does not have sex outside standard man/woman marriage (clearly), who remains chaste, morally clean as it were, he may have temple privileges. But, still no marriage of same sex couples. The only evolving here is that the guidelines have been clarified in the last fifteen years so that members and leaders understand that one can be sexually attracted to ones same sex and remain morally clean.

If this is categorized as evolving, then yes, the church has evolved in this regard.

However, this is not what Slate magazine has in mind.

As far as same sex marriage, the church is not in a position of authority (influence, yes) but they can control, and rightly so, temple marriages /sealings. And I think temple marriages /sealings will never be for same sex partners.

This from the article, “Last week, Josh Weed and his wife, Lolly, marked their 10-year anniversary by announcing together on Josh’s blog that he is gay. Josh works as a marriage and family therapist in Auburn, Wash. He and Lolly have three daughters, and claim to have a very successful marriage—one that includes, in their opinion, “a better sex life” than most heterosexual couples.

Weed says that this decision is an entirely satisfying one. “I am gay. I am Mormon. I am married to a woman. I am happy every single day.”

Since Josh had come out, several other men who have previously come out as gay and living their religious ideals have come our nodding their head in affirmation, such as blogger Andrew Sullivan, Catholic, and Ty Mansfield, a Mormon father and husband. His comments from LDS Living. Follow...

“After years of counseling focused on his depression and childhood insecurities—but not, Mansfield insists, on “reorientation” to heterosexuality—he “felt healthy and empowered enough that when I met my wife, it all came together.” Like Weed, Mansfield, who recently had his first child with his wife Danielle, does not identify as “straight.” “Why should I replace one socio-identity construct with another?” he asks. “My goal isn’t to be straight, but a man who is honoring my covenants and [has] a healthy relationship with my wife.” While Mansfield still experiences some attraction to other men, he says, “at some point you decide you’re going to commit to one person you love, just like mature straight men do. I don’t feel like I’m suppressing anything. I focus my energy into my marriage.”

Dear Mr. Mansfield. I have made the same decisions that the two of you -- Mr Weed -- have. Frankly, and I don’t want to put any pressure on you, but please keep your money where your mouth is. There are many LDS holding ya’ll up as an example -- me included.

Did I say, me included?

Thank you for sharing so publicly, and may your freak flag never wave.



Cal Thompson

Another SGA/Gay Teen Suicide

Jamey Rodemeyer, a 14year old from Buffalo, N.Y. added his own video to the “It Gets Better Project” last May - the Internet video site where adults share with LGBT teens, a minority likely to be bullied and that suffers a disproportionately high suicide rate.

On Monday, he was found dead outside his home, having apparently taken his own life. 

"People would just keep sending me hate, telling me that gay people go to hell," Jamey Rodemeyer said in his video.

Predictably, the abuse Jamey reportedly suffered wasn't just in public school. On Formspring, an Internet outlet popular among adolescents, Jamey received such messages as “JAMIE IS STUPID, GAY, FAT AND UGLY. HE MUST DIE!” and “I wouldn't care if you died. No one would. So just do it :) It would make everyone WAY more happier!”

When friends reported the Formspring taunts to their middle school counselor, according to Jamey's parents, bullies seemed to back off.

Jamey, who continued to write on both Tumblr and Formspring about the bullying he received for being perceived as homosexual had started high school three weeks earlier.  His parents told local news that he seemed to be doing better. Suicide and bullying, however, remained at the forefront of Jamey's mind and in his writing.

On Sept. 8 he posted online about Suicide Prevention Week of September 4-10, "No one in my school cares about preventing suicide, while you're the ones calling me [gay slur] and tearing me down."

"I always say how bullied I am, but no one listens," he wrote the day after. "What do I have to do so people will listen to me?"

Both his family and friends were aware of Jamey's suicidal thoughts for some time. His mother told the Buffalo News, "He was totally against bullying. He has had issues since fifth grade. He had suicidal tendencies back then." 

Although James was just 14 years old, and in retrospect, still in a bad place, this is the project to which he contributed his video, now viewed over 100,000 times since the time of his death.

For youth between the ages of 10 and 24, suicide is the third leading cause of death, according to the Centers for Disease Control – who also state that more young people survive suicide attempts than actually die. 

"Each year, approximately 149,000 youth between the ages of 10 and 24 receive medical care for self-inflicted injuries at Emergency Departments across the U.S."

What happened to this young man was reprehensible.  Gay suicide is hardly a new issue, and is certainly an issue that needs to be spoken about in LDS circles. Suicide happens to LDS as well. It happens to people who are going through very difficult personal times. And, if suicide has touched your life, either in your own thought or by the attempt or loss of a friend or a relative to suicide, please understand that you are not alone.

Here is a quick list of some warning signs of suicide – though certainly not conclusive:

• Talking about feeling trapped or in unbearable pain, about feeling hopeless or having no purpose, about being a burden to others
• Increasing the use of alcohol or drugs
• Acting anxious, agitated or reckless
• Sleeping too little or too much
• Withdrawing or feeling isolated
• Showing rage or talking about seeking revenge
• Displaying extreme mood swings
• Actually looking for a way to kill oneself

The more of these signs a person shows, the greater the risk. Warning signs are associated with suicide but may not be what causes a suicide.

If someone you know exhibits warning signs of suicide:

• Do not leave the person alone.
• Possibly remove any obvious firearms, alcohol, drugs or sharp objects that could be used in a suicide attempt.
• Seek help from a medical or mental health professional, another family member or church leader.  Don’t just let someone sleep on it.  Do something – let someone know, talk to the individual, take action, listen to the spirit.

Resources: 

·         Suicide hotlines by US state: http://suicidehotlines.com/

·         US National suicide hotline: 1800 SUICIDE (1 800 784 2433) &;1-800-273-TALK (8255) 

·         Lifeline Australia: 13 11 14

·         New Zealand suicide hotline: 1800 999 9999

·         UK suicide hotline: 08457 90 91 92 or 08457 90 90 90

·         Ireland suicide hotline: 1850 60 60 90

·         Canada suicide hotline: 1800 273 TALK (1800 273 8255)

For online support for LGBT teens, visit:

The Trevor Project, a national 24-hour, toll free confidential suicide hotline for gay and questioning youth.  www.thetrevorproject.org/

GLSEN: Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, an organization for students, parents, and teachers that tries to affect positive change in schools.  www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/home/index.html

There is no resource specifically for suicidal teens from the LDS church that I know of. A call to LDS Social services was not returned – though I will update if more information is found.

http://digitallife.today.com/_news/2011/09/21/7879728-teen-contributor-to-it-gets-better-project-takes-his-own-life?GT1=43001

What A Difference 15 Years Makes

I heard someone say today that there is no such thing as a gay Mormon.

Fifteen years ago that kind of remark would have made me freak-out. And right in the middle of me "freaking-out" I would realize that I was giving myself away - a "me thinks thou doth protest too much"  kind of thing.  To keep from exploding, I would have had to bite something - hard - and re-paint a wall.


Fifteen years ago "The Book of Mormon” musical would have thrown me for a loop. Half of me would be in fits laughing, and the other half would be burning in hell, and another half would be concerned that missionaries were pictured wearing white socks. Another half would have thought I should have used my math money on something more productive, like diet-coke.


This would have taken place in some air-conditioned giganto-closet somewhere because I once avoided anything gay – at least in public.

After having memorized the show, which would have taken me two, maybe three hours, I would have prayed for forgiveness because I would have felt guilty for finding humor and joy in something so frivolous and light hearted. Then I would have burnt the CD at midnight along with a spandex shirt and an issue of "Mens Fitness" in a reassessment ritual.  Weeks later I would have bought a new one to keep in my underwear drawer - a CD, that is.

Today, the thought of a spandex shirt makes me suck in my gut and snort a little. Thank heaven for those fifteen years. I can say now without laughing, that I have matured somewhat. Those little things no longer throw me. People and their opinion of Mormons, or opinions of gay Mormons, or gay opinions of Mormons (did I cover it all?) just don’t seem to matter to me anymore.

And in writing this, I just realized that I haven’t seen my bishop for SGA related issues for years. I barely know the guy! Honestly, in the previous fifteen years I could never have imagined living in the LDS church without having to be guided every step of the way – being a gay man who wanted to maintain priesthood rights and responsibilities. In past life, I made the pilgrimage at least once a month to the bishops office when I was deeply involved in what I refer to as the gay life.

But here I am.

I wonder what life would have looked like for me if I had been born into another religion or into religion at all. Would I have gravitated to something that kept me somewhat in tune to the spirit? Would I have found something that filled me spiritually somewhat in the way priesthood does?

I would like to be able to say that Same Gendered Attraction issues (Gay, homosexuality – what have you) are not in the picture for me anymore, but they are to some degree. I would like to say that I am no longer tempted by pornography. I don’t know how realistic that would be. Yes, I am still tempted. But I don’t feel the pull towards it like I used to. And I can say no.
I still identify myself, in this blog at least as a gay Mormon man. I don’t know how much of that will change in this life.

How I used to spend half my days

I am confident that I will have all wishes of my heart (the ones I am missing here) in the next life. I will be complete in a way I don’t feel I am here.

Is it that I am more mature with the passage of time (I won't mention age,) or is it that my sexual drive has diminished somewhat as I have gotten older?  Would I have been this calm fifteen years ago adding today's wisdom?  Would I be this calm as wise ol' me today with the sexual drive I had in 1995?

Should I be congratulating myself on self control and maturity, or lamenting youth?

My Own Damn Fault

He probably would have responded better...

Open Letter to a Facebook "Friend":


You got me. I thought you were just interested in knowing my POV. However it now looks like you googled "naive Mormon gay guy" until you found someone who would be kind enough to answer a question or two.


You led off your correspondence with “Personally (in regard to your mixed orientation marriage)I believe that you are incorrect.”  With a whole slew of differences between us, this may be the biggie. I do not claim to be in a position to judge anyone else – a task I am grateful that Christ has claimed for only himself. Though I am an arrogant, arrogant man, and even I wouldn’t dare.


For you to tell me over face book – without ever meeting me – that I am not fair to my wife because we don't seem to fit into your idea of marriage is downright silly and is reminiscent of the arguments we are used to hearing from those who oppose gay marriage.  What would you think if, in all my ignorance, I said something silly like your marriage is a sham because it doesn't fit into my notion of what a real relationship is? Would you be as upset as I am? Putting down/minimizing my relationship with my wife is uncalled for.


I have never said it is sinful to be gay, and for you to assume that because I am a Mormon I am anti-gay is rash - and mistaken.  I will never say such a thing. I do not believe that God makes mistakes. He made me what I am. I am betting He did the same for you. I believe in personal revelation. I believe that His son, the Lord Jesus Christ can guide me through the Holy Spirit, through modern prophets, and through scripture.


I am making no comparisons to other churches and their beliefs or observances, not do I use their practices to dictate or confirm my own beliefs. Another church may allow, permit or consent to a number of things. In my church, the men don’t make the rules. It is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We believe that Jesus Christ makes the rules. I am in the church I am in because I have researched and made a choice. Sounds like you have, too.


I appreciate your choice and honor your right to it.  Wither I agree with it or not is no ones business and I would never volunteer my opinion to anyone other than my wife, from whom I have no secrets.   By the same token, It is not your place to offer me unsolicited feedback concerning where you think I am wrong.  I may have to concede this argument because I have invited others, to a degree, into my personal life by the very nature of this blog.


Yes I am gay. I am gay, and so much more. I am a husband and a father and an artist and a writer. I am a softball coach and a choir director. I am an author and a blogger. I teach sometimes when they asked me in my church, and I strive to be worthy to use the priesthood (not just a calling but authority and power) actively by following the commandments/rules that God has asked of me. I know what he has asked of me because I listen to the words of his prophets.


I write a blog for gay Mormons because of what I thought of as a dearth of information available and I thought I could help those who feel as I do about their own lives and the direction the Lord wants for them. It is not for all, and it is not for many. But it is for a few.

I am not aggressively judging anyone one else. Including you. I would never tell you you are wrong, or smile and patronize and claim that you "just don’t understand", and I am a little miffed as to why you seem to take that stance toward me.


I am Gay.  I am a Mormon.  I have a temple recommend - meaning I am card carrying.  I'm not going anywhere.  Google that.


And, yes, I do feel better now.

Five, Six, Seven, Eight...

BYU recently "transferred" several men in the Musical Dance Theatre program to the University of Utah due to issues dealing with homosexuality.


I certainly will not be one to make humor at their expense being that I am a proud alumni of that same program. But, if I may say, who did the administration think they were getting when these talented men who can sing like the wind, dance up a storm, and act their way out of a paper bag were recruited with scholarships? Stereotypes aside, somebody knew these men were not loggers.


One could easily replace the MDT men in this scenario with football players when the occasional blue chipper is recruited from a non LDS background having been raised with a different belief regarding word of wisdom and chastity.


Of course MDTers should be held accountable for honoring the same code of ethics the football players honor. And when football players have moral issues, they are disciplined the same as anyone who committed a standard of behavior to the university--including the theatre guys.


However, there seems to have been no mention of any honor code violations, only issues dealing with homosexuality.


In 2007 the honor code was revamped and expanded to include recent differentiations between homosexual actions and homosexual behaviors; behaviors (having gay sex), versus homosexual feelings (being attracted to ones same gender).


Earlier this academic year, certain wordings (advocacy as one) were removed from the behavioral standard with little fanfare.


In the previous year, 2009-2010, the honor code had a section titled, “Homosexual Behavior or Advocacy”. This stated that “homosexual behavior and advocacy of homosexual behavior are inappropriate and violates the Honor Code.” It continued “Advocacy includes seeking to influence others to engage in homosexual behavior or promoting homosexual relations as being morally acceptable.”


Recently, however, references to "advocacy" have been eliminated. It currently reads, "Homosexual Behavior: Brigham Young University will respond to homosexual behavior rather than to feelings or attraction and welcomes as full members of the university community all whose behavior meets university standards. Members of the university community can remain in good Honor Code standing if they conduct their lives in a manner consistent with gospel principles and the Honor Code." (NOTE:Your being gay is one thing. Your being sexually active - not obeying the law of chastity - is another.) "One’s stated same-gender attraction is not an Honor Code issue. However, the Honor Code requires all members of the university community to manifest a strict commitment to the law of chastity. Homosexual behavior is inappropriate and violates the Honor Code. Homosexual behavior includes not only sexual relations between members of the same sex, but all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings."


FYI, the code had previously read (2007 through 2010): "Homosexual Behavior or Advocacy: Brigham Young University will respond to homosexual behavior rather than to feelings or attraction and welcomes as full members of the university community all whose behavior meets university standards. Members of the university community can remain in good Honor Code standing if they conduct their lives in a manner consistent with gospel principles and the Honor Code. One’s stated same-gender attraction is not an Honor Code issue. However, the Honor Code requires all members of the university community to manifest a strict commitment to the law of chastity. Homosexual behavior and/or advocacy of homosexual behavior are is inappropriate and violates the Honor Code. Homosexual behavior includes not only sexual relations between members of the same sex, but all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings. Advocacy includes seeking to influence others to engage in homosexual behavior or promoting homosexual relations as being morally acceptable. Brigham Young University will respond to student behavior rather than to feelings or orientation. Students can be enrolled at the University and remain in good Honor Code standing if they maintain a current ecclesiastical endorsement and conduct their lives in a manner consistent with gospel principles and the Honor Code. Advocacy of a homosexual lifestyle (whether implied or explicit) or any behaviors that indicate homosexual conduct, including those not sexual in nature, are inappropriate and violate the Honor Code."


I am not about to argue the honor code here. Nor do I generally respect the opinion of those who sign it, then enjoy the benefits of the university, and then make known their excuses for not following it.


You choose to sign the code, you choose to come to BYU, you follow the code you signed.


(Quick side bar to nowhere: There may be an occasional conscientious objector status--a peaceful demonstration within the law to further ones cause; but these when done deliberately as an act of true Thoreau Civil Disobedience as per his essay of 1849 are rare.  Rather than an organized distention to not allow governments to atrophy our consciences, we have turned it into a whine in Indian position on a sidewalk somewhere.)


Maybe these MDT men met with leaders and decided that the U of U was a better fit. As a group they all went to the honor code office. Voluntarily as a group. Uh Huh.


Maybe there was some type of sting that nabbed them as they all shuffled off to Buffalo in unison. I doubt it.


Possibly there was an Internet/blogging incident that brought them together, or these men decided to take a political stand where the only outcome was a change of educational venue.


What if several of them spouted off about a social life that was contrary to the code they signed? Possible. Frankly, no university owes anyone an explanation of facts on the files of these eight men (if my source is correct). If I was one of them or one in or out of any group in the public eye, I would be pleased at the university's protection of my privacy--as they have protected the privacy of many students many times in the past. (So 'in So was released from his scholarship today, or Joe Bob was dismissed due to honor code infractions and no, we will not be answering your questions.)


Could the reason be that these men were released and offered transfers be based on confessed Homosexuality alone?


I pray no.

Empha-Sex



Some say the world will end in fire,

Some say in ice.

From what I've tasted of desire

I hold with those who favor fire.

But if it had to perish twice,

To say that for destruction ice

Is also great

And would suffice.

-Robert Frost

I recently posted the question of what to do for Valentine’s Day. I wanted ideas of what would be original and fun. The responses I got were mostly hypo-sexual – the kind of references that, frankly, I wouldn’t use in front of anyone I knew and respected. It seemed clear that for a huge number of people, sex equaled love: Valentine’s Day was for sex: Sex was the main/only/most important expression of love.

Remember, I am somewhat a conservative Mormon talking here. (If a gay Mormon is considered conservative) With my conservative background, I have been skewered (deliberate word choice) in a different direction.

I have never been what I thought "real guys" were. I considered sex to be something kept underground, something taboo for the “kind” of person I wanted to be. It was not for the guys in black socks, khaki pants and white shirts. The kind of guy I wanted to be.

My kind of man knew what he wanted, and what he wanted was more of an eternal nature. He wanted love. He wanted a relationship, communication, cooperation, companionship and expression. Sex was none of these things. Sex was something different.

Sex was urges, physical passion, and gratification. Love was not sex. The men I knew didn’t have sex as I understood it. They had wives and families and had appropriate, neutral, controlled expressions of love. They had sex to procreate, and then they went and earned some money to pay the mortgage.

So I tried that. Both. At the same time. I tried to have one, which seemed incredibly incompatible with the other. I kept them separate.

Talk about the swinging pendulum. Even today I have a difficult time with sex as part of an expression rather than simply fulfillment of physical desire. Most people who say that love is more than sex are thought of as prudish, naive, or as one reader said, “He has obviously never had spine tingling sex”. The thought seems to be that if you can think of anything other than sex, you haven’t had the right sex.

I know what it is to have tingling sex. Am I allowed to say that it was wonderful, and then to add-in the same sentence - that I want that and more? I want the sex and I want the relationship. I want the tingles and a commitment and I don't want one for a couple years so I can say I did it and then move on.

Even PBS is against me. A recent documentary emphases that man is not meant to be monogamous. That even women’s menstrual cycles are timed to encourage promiscuity, and that man would be better off genetically if he spread his stuff around instead of sticking with one partner.

Is this really where we are as a people that we are still comparing ourselves to members in the animal kingdom? This seems like the equivalent of “everyone’s doing it”, which is an excuse doesn’t fly past Jr High school. So, everyone is doing it. And I have had my share.

It is true that I have work to do in becoming emotionally healthy. I get that. I get that views towards sex need to change.

And I don’t generally look to PBS for answers to my problems. But the questions this last week has presented beg questions. But what if, after all the counseling and coming to terms and prioritizing, I want, expect more from a partner than sex? What if I consider myself to be more than just a link in someone’s reproductive food chain? Sex plus relationship, plus commitment, plus understanding?

A heightened sense of mutual well being. That topic would not make it to PBS because that would be called religion. When sex is everything, the instructions are easy to follow. When sex is one forth or one fifth of a relationship, when there is something that has to be achieved, the PBS documentary during sweeps week becomes simplistic at best.

I don’t want a club, or a bobsled partner. I don’t think I need to have every sexual whim satisfied. I do want sex as part of the physical/emotional experience.

And I want to be part of something more than just me.

Blessings and SGAttraction

I was asked today by a non-family member to give a blessing.  My neighbor has been feeling poorly and she sent one of my kids who was playing outside to find out if I would come over. 

When I am poorly, a blessing is not the first thing I think of (not that her decision was off the cuff or flippant). I usually go for a pill and a diet coke. Actually, a pill and a diet coke sounds like the solution to most of life’s problems. That she would step outside herself and have the wherewithal to consider a priesthood blessing impresses me.

A little sad to say that I had to give pause.  My life has not been one clean and reverent and ready to assist in things of the spirit.  Maybe the mental listing is just a habit because I have not always been in that position to help. 

I am happy to report that, with a quick change of clothes and a little hair gel, I sit here waiting for a call to tell me when to come over.  Okay, with a fast run to my next door neighbor’s house to borrow a vile of consecrated oil, a change of clothes and hair gel I am sitting here ready to use the priesthood.

The power and authority of the Savior is the biggest reason to stay priesthood ready – to be worthy to use the power of God at the drop of a proverbial hat.  For me, it tops what I call the obedience factor (staying morally clean because the Lord himself or through his prophets says to). 

More specifically, as a worthy gay man I can access the same priesthood that the straight worthy men access.  As God created me, even with the SGAttraction that I have alternately despised and cherished, I am enough.

Father shares that power with us.  He shares it with me.

The best reason to keep my SGAttraction in check.








 

My Three Words

I am fascinated, repulsed and intrigued by stereotypes. Part of what repulses me is that I see a use for them. I suppose I find that intriguing because I don’t consider myself to be completely un-learned, and I am fascinated by the fact that I have still perpetuated their use.

I used to employ the excuse that stereotypes were a type of contraction that permitted us to quickly get to the point; an abbreviation that allowed us to be on the same page which would then allow us to delve into the intellectual heart of a matter. I considered them to be an easy way to get ideas across - used to simplify communication and support the occasion quick comebacks/ lame retort.

Stereotypes may very well be a short cut.  However, I think we should be taking the long way.  Discovering what a person is without simplifying or eliminating personality should be what the heart of the matter is regardless of the subject at hand.

I myself have been easily typecast, and honestly, I fit into many of the pigeon holes I have been crammed into. Some of them fit me comfortably I am slightly chagrined to say. Pushy football dad, stage mom, conservative (for the liberals), liberal (for the conservatives). I am a self centered blogger, coupon clipper, price haggler, artistic genius with no spelling skills.  I am a mood swinger the like of which as been little seen,  and a westerner/capitalist (if being poor is capitalistic). I am the guy who can fix everything except plumbing and automotive.  I am middle aged and good with hair dye and a paint brush.

I discovered another type I appear to fit into this last week. It came from a former co-worker I saw at a church I was visiting. He mentioned that he didn’t think I was the churchy type. Of course I asked him what the churchy type was. He back peddled and made a joke and changed the subject. Smart move.

So does he consider the churchy type as one holier-than-though? Or is the churchy type for him a zealot. Bigoted? Conforming? For me, the quickest image I get for the churchy type is someone who goes to church for any other reason but for self betterment; for social statues, or for reputation. Expectation. Obligation. Someone who has the need to demonstrate to others his level of “spirituality”.

While that may be somewhat true for me, I am also a repentant soul in need of guidance and affirmation from the spirit that I find at church. Take that you stereotype's.

Here is something I did in the front of a recent class I lead that, I’m afraid, polished the crown we have placed on stereotypes.  I asked everyone in the class to come up with three words that best described themselves.  It was a simple ice breaker I have seen done in many classrooms situations. But the last time I used it I was halfway through the exercise when I was floored by what I was doing. I was asking them to come up with the stereotypes that we would then use as tools to categorize them, to place into little neat squares.  The exorcise in and of itself is not necessarily horrifying if we are planning to get to know someone for who they are and delve a bit. The problem is that most of us are content to make take note of the three words and then slide along, pretending like we are personally involved.

Do you know Calvin?
Yeah, he sings, paints and likes Swiss cheese.

It’s true that I sing and like Swiss cheese. I’d like to think that there is more to me than that. And while I am complaining that people don’t really know me and that they peg me into little holes that are limiting, I spend no time whatsoever getting to know anyone else past their three words. Stereotypes are handy for quickly categorizing. For those who need to effectively place people in a cubical and move on to something better, stereotypes work wonders. Efficient. Final. And now that I’ve put you in your proper place, I can move on to what is important to me.

But what if you are the one important to me? If I am going to initiate anything more that the equivalent of an emotional drive by, then I am going to have to let you out of the box I placed you in. Once I do that, however, you will never fit in that box again.

That makes life a bit messier for me. I will have to make more space for people, or be comfortable with the overlap.

The use of the stereotypes was once briefly useful. However, they no longer contain us or those we love like a garage built in the 1950’s just can’t handle today’s minivans or SUV’s. So,we re-think and remodel and bust out a wall for new ideas. Maybe the only real use for the old stereotypes is as a tool to understand our own propensity to judge foolishly. Like a sledge hammer or a crow bar,  it is effective at busting down a wall that confines us.

And when we have busted down a wall we smile at the thought of the quaint and ineffective stereotype.

Cal Thompson and the Pseudonym - The Sequel

The responses to my essay on being SGA Mormon (homo to you, thank you) and incognito were heartfelt, wonderful and frightening, and I thank you for stepping out of your respective comfort zones - even if you didn't step far from the closet.

Many of reasons to stay "in" were based in fear.  Not unexpected.  A memorable comment was " I am afraid that there is more to fear than fear itself" a timely twist on Churchill. 


Many of us do not know exactly what we are afraid of, but generally it seems to be in not being accepted. We are living in fear that stemmed back to our grandfathers but for rare exceptions. We do not live in an age where we have not choice but to fear.  We live in a time when modern Davids in pasty skin brandishing rocks can stand up to  Goliath.  We live in a time when the corporate whistle gets blown when abuse hits the fan, when the little guy can get the house, the car, and the lovely companion.
 
As a SGAttracted man, I just may be the trophy husband my wife always wanted.

Am I afraid of my neighbors finding out my big gay secret?  Is that why I am in the closet?  No.  I generally have an arrogance problem and I tend to think I am better than everyone anyway which would work in my favor here in my "hood."  Would I have a problem coming out at work?  Again, no.  Frankly,  it may work to my advantage as everyone is trying to be so politically correct that they would error in my favor - no one wants to be liable for a law suit.  Family not accepting of my preference?  I do have a huge family, and those who know, know and those who don't know know, and those who really don't know really don't really care.  I am bold enough that I can hold my own. 

I understand the church policy, so I am not in fear of what any repercussions would be social/political/religious.  I have run upon a rogue bishop or two who doesn't understand, or who was not secure enough to step outside of himself- but I am wise enough to understand the difference between bishop-the He man and Bishop-the He calling. 

Is it a surprise when the voice of the BYU cougars comes out as a fan?  No surprise there. We understand that - even at his best he may be slightly biased.  Would I loose some political clout if I, a somewhat pro-gay Mormon were to come out as a actual gay Mormon?  Maybe, but I would live with it and make it work.

So why the heck am I in the closet? (if blogging and writing a Mormon/Gay book is considered closeted)

My wife.

She says it may be alright if I were to come out as SGAttracted.  She doesn't say it very convincingly, and I don't believe her when she says it.  Something tells me to keep my preference somewhat under wraps as far as my personal life goes.  Would there be added pressure for her and for my kids?  Without a doubt.  Could I handle the added pressure?  Yes.  But when I married I promised to look after her.  Marriage is also about committed mutual well being and I am committed to hers.

Maybe someday the spirit will say that it is right to be personally vocal about my SGAttraction while I am inhabiting a body.  I need to be at peace with the fact that it may always be something I guard. 

Whether I am "in" or "out", whether my neighbor is in or out, homosexuals deserve and demand the same respect as any other Mormon, as any other human.  There is no need to create a special post for them in the church.  The same posts and offices held by any other worthy member will do just fine.  My ability to assist, offer opinions, or teach a class is not affected by my sexual preference.


And on a personal note, the only thing different about my marriage may or may not be as different as you would think.  And on an even more personal note, I think she likes being
married to me.

Regardless, I am proud to be what I am, and to know that I am learning and growing and that I may yet become what father wants me to be.  I am becoming, hopefully, the man my wife would want to lead our family.  Oddly enough, it seems that we all want the same thing.