If you can't stand the heat get out of the glass house

You are wrong to ______.  I do not support you.  However, you can believe whatever you like. It's a free country.

I get that all the time. It is true, I get it because I put my thoughts "out there" as far as posting a gay Mormon blog and links to it on Facebook.  I knew from the start that my POV would be considered odd, and that has proven to be true. Conservatives think I am a heathen for being gay, and liberals think I am a loon for choosing to marry a woman.  

• Being gay is wrong
• Being married to a woman is wrong.  
• Being gay and being married to a woman is wrong
• Being gay and married to a woman and being public (blog or Facebook) is wrong.
• Being Mormon is wrong. Blind obedience is wrong. Paying tithing is wrong. Brown shoes with a black belt is wrong.  Never mind that last one.

Let me answer those questions by saying...  blah, blah, blaaah. 

If I were to tell one of my friends that he can choose to do as he believed however wrong he was, but that I supported him in his choice -- would that be offensive?

What if I said "you are wrong to want to marry someone of your own gender." How would that fly? Or, what if I said "You are wrong to have sex with one of your same gender". There would be screaming.

How you choose to live your life is wrong. That sentence would cause a riot, and yet, somehow, how I chosen to live my life is "like"able or not on Facebook.

(For liberals, these neigh say-ers sure are being conservative.)

So, today's soapbox topic would be this, were I to have to stick a point on the post. It is not my position to judge others and the choices they have made or that they are making. By the same token, others are not in a position to judge me and the life decisions I have made or that I am now making. 

And as I type that last sentence, reality kicks in and I have to laugh at myself. The glass house I live in gives people a pretty decent view. And if, by some miracle, they didn't get a chance to see it all, I go and announce it from the rooftops. "Shout it out" as it were. And then I ask for feedback.

Bottom line is that I have chosen to put my "stuff" out there for others in my position to read, and in trying to find those who need this kind of a read, I have opened up my life to comment. 

Some of the comments are painful. Some are wonderful. Regardless, I do not need comments in order to support or justify my stance. I strive to do what the Lord has asked of me, Calvin Thompson. 

All I can say is that I hope that you strive to do what He has asked of you.

When I started posting in 2009 there wasn't so much out there for those who were gay and wanted to live according to the LDS churches standards. Now there is even less out there. Being gay and being an active card-carrying Latter-day Saint seem to be incompatible. Most choose to live quietly with their thoughts.

I made another choice.  Let's see how long I can take the heat.  

The future of the Mormon church -- Not what you think.

Just working a comparison to see if it makes sense without oversimplifying. I tend to simplify.  It's the primary teacher in me.  

If the Catholic Church says it is not right to speak ill of ones neighbor, and is outspoken about it in the media, are they taking away any one's agency to gossip? I think most would say no. The pontiff may not be happy with your blog on Brenda's bad hair color, but it is your choice just the same.

Do the Catholics still have the right to speak out against speaking ill towards ones neighbors?  Do they have the right to say no to that on principal?

How about the gossipers or one who reserves the right to say what he wants about Brenda's hair color. Do they have the right to protest the churches stance on gossiping? 

This isn't really working, is it?  It's to simplistic. Of course I am trying to make the comparison to the LDS church and their stance against Gay marriage in the church.

Right off the bat one could say that no one is trying to affect laws that would dis-allow gossip. It is considered free speech -- free speech that some would not take part in -- but free speech all the same. In a similar fashion the LDS church is not currently pursuing any same sex marriage legislation after prop 8.  

From what I saw, once the courts disallowed the vote based on constitutional right, the church followed article of faith nine and accepted the law of the land.

The LDS church says that they don't believe that gays should be allowed to marry. 

• They have the right to speak out. 
• Others have the right to protest their opinion. 
• Mormons have the right to not allow gays full fellowship in their organization. 
• Others have the right to choose their religion and there are many that don't even have full fellowship in their vernacular. 

LGBT people can be Mormon and be in full fellowship by following the standards of the church. Lately, it seems, LGBT people who do not adhere to the standards of the church can more and more retain their membership depending often on the covenants they have made in the temple -- covenants to remain morally clean. 

It seems to me that there are few possible scenarios for the future.

1) The LDS church changes its doctrine and allows gays to marry in the temple. This would involve instruction from the Head of the Church. The real Head of the Church. Mormons believe in revelation from the Lord. For a doctrinal change the line of authority would be followed. This would be monumental.

2) New knowledge would be received and taught to the church leaders and then directly to the general membership that would make plain current doctrine . Mormons believe that God will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God. Is there more information available concerning gay marriage? 

3) The LDS church is forced by US law to allow gay marriages. This seems to be the doomsday church leaders reasonable foresee - the reason I believe that there is a push for religious rights to be acknowledged and maintained.  But before this scenario could happen, members would be required to marry civilly and later get sealed in the temple. Hanging by a thread, anyone?

Article of Faith 11: We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

No gay rights or Mormon rights this year in Idaho!

This week Idaho lawmakers stopped a bill in its tracks that would have created protections for GLBT communities. The proposed legislation would have added sexual orientation and gender identity into Idaho’s Human Rights Act.  Idaho GLBT rights groups have been trying for nine years to get legislation before their lawmakers. 

All of this comes two days after the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- of which I am a proud and loyal member, announced that it supported much of the nondiscrimination legislation presented by various states and municipalities.This latest bill would have granted job and housing protections for gay and transgender people.

I have been at the top  of the Idaho State
Capital Dome looking down.  Almost puked.

Idaho is the first state with an established Mormon population to have considered such a bill since the LDS church's announcement. Idaho's House State Affairs Committee consists of the Legislature’s conservative lawmakers and includes several Mormons. They voted 13 to 4 to prevent the bill from moving to the House floor effectively killing the bill and sucking the juice out of it. 

Keep reading, however for the silver spud lining.

The vote was split right down party lines -- Republicans opposing it and Democrats voting in favor of the bill. Bills of this nature are usually not revised and presented again in the same legislative section, so we are probably looking for something similar to be presented next year.

Tangent Alert: Next year. Perfect for doing what will be needed to get this through Idaho's house and senate. "What will be needed to pass a non-discrimination bill?" you ask? Blessed little.  I think it would have passed had the Churches announcement not come out ironically.  I think Mormon Republicans quickly pulled back to make sure that the "religious legislation passed as well - so they will go back and add that section to the bill and it will pass with many rainbow colors flying. It will read something like this -- gays can't be kicked out of their jobs or their apartments for being gay, and neither can Mormons for being Mormons, or Catholics for being Catholic, etc. Yes, we have gotten to the point where we have to legislate kindness, and dang it if we aren't going to. End of Tangent. Amen.

Monday's testimony in Idaho's State capital included an account by a transgender teenager who told of having been referred to as "it" by grade school teachers.  Several heartfelt storied were presented to the lawmakers and to more that one thousand visiting the capital to support the bill.

And now for...whatever this is:

Republican Representative Ken Andrus said this concerning the bills failure to pass: "If we pass the bill today as it is worded, it would create a barrier between you folks in favor of adding the words and the so-called straight community and it will be a giant step backwards, not forwards."

Let me rephrase that statement for those of you scratching your heads.

"If we pass this law it is just going to annoy the straight folk."  

Coming from a long line of straight Mormon folk -- a lot of us/them deserve to be annoyed. Not making waves is no excuse for allowing discrimination based on race, sex, color, religion, sexual preference or gender identity in situations of housing or employment.

Republican lawmakers said they worried the measure would lead to lawsuits against those who refused services to gay and transgender people based on religious beliefs  Maybe so. Therefore, let's add them as well!  Sign us all up. Grant protections to everyone. (We should have just allowed rights and respect to everyone from the beginning, but, heck, we can do it now with very little skin off of our nose.)

So, add religious people to those who want rights, and why not.

Doesn't everyone deserve them?