To Anybody Still In The Closet, Listen Up

On a brief break this morning I skimmed a blog or two and ran across a friend's post that talked about his hours of chat with a 20 year old closeted gay Mormon guy from the Salt Lake area. Apparently the guy texted next morning and said please delete my number, I don't want to talk anymore, and "I need to do what I need to do not what I want to do."

I can't describe how sad that made me. Because I know what's ahead for this guy and I would save him from it if I could. I would at least try to persuade him to not be scared by learning from others' experiences, it could save him a lot of grief. But to put it bluntly as Will Rogers did, "some people just have to pee on the electric fence for themselves."

So I got to thinking. If I could talk to this young guy in Salt Lake, what would I say to him, knowing what I know and having experienced what I have? What would I say to any young gay Mormon guy in his position? And the thoughts came tumbling out. Here's what I'd say.

1. It's okay that you're gay. No, really. It's OKAY. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. God made you this way and countless others like you. You are a person of worth and value, just as you are.

2. The church and culture around you will try to define your life and your purpose for you, instead of letting you do it yourself. And their definitions won't allow you to be gay. They will set up this conflict within you and then expect you to comply with their definitions because, they'll tell you, God and your family will accept nothing else and if you don't agree, you'll be doomed for eternity. Recognize that this is extremely high-pressure, even if it's couched in the most apparently loving of terms. This will be very hard for you to deal with, because your whole life and family and identity and feelings of security and happiness may be wrapped up in your church and its culture. I know, I've been there myself. But remember also that even God Himself honors and respects freedom of choice.

3. As long as you yield the decisions for defining your life and your purpose to someone else, whether it be a church, or a parent, or societal pressures, you will feel conflict and unhappiness.

4. Shame and silence are deadly. They will kill your heart and hopes. The culture around you conspires to keep you silent and conforming and wracked with guilt just for being the way God made you. Don't give in to that! It's spiritual suicide. Please don't be afraid to reach out and talk to others. There is a huge new family out there waiting to welcome you with open arms, to support and comfort and teach and encourage you. I know what it's like to stay scared and silent in the closet for years. I was stupid. Don't do what I did. Check out the It Gets Better Project to learn about others' experiences, to learn that you're NOT alone, and to see what could be ahead for you. And check out Empty Closets too.

5. You're going to need courage. Things are a lot better than they used to be, but we still have a long way to go. As you reach out, talk with others, learn, grow, you'll get stronger. You'll be able to talk frankly with family and friends. You'll be able to stand up for what and who you are, without the shame and fear and guilt. You'll be able to define your own life and your own purpose instead of abdicating that privilege to somebody else or to an organization. And that, my friend, is when all that guilt and conflict inside you will finally stop. You will still have all of life's challenges, but you'll have them with a confident and peaceful heart.

Sunday Thoughts

After a frenetic week and a Saturday busier than expected, today is my one day to actually rest. And I found myself recreating a pattern from a while back when I would sometimes end spending weekends in the Bay Area. Drive up to the city for Sunday morning services at the majestic, awe-inspiring Grace Cathedral, then drive west on California Street across Van Ness to the Whole Foods market, get something healthy from their buffet for lunch, drive northwest to Lafayette Park (on a mid-city hilltop with views of the bay in two directions), and sit under some beautiful old trees, soak up the sunshine and the views, eat my politically correct organic natural lunch, read, savor the fresh air and sunshine. Those Sundays were truly days of rest.

And today I found myself doing almost the same thing without realizing it. Went to church here in San Diego, then ended up at Whole Foods for a bit of lunch and was planning a stop in the park. Ran out of time though, had a rehearsal. But it was fun walking through the Whole Foods after church, made me feel like I was back in San Francisco. I sure love that place. I don't know if I'll ever find the words to say how much I love Gothic architecture and its soaring sunlit spaciousness.

It's been unseasonably cold here lately. Today was more like the temperature we're used to. I love spring, because I love summer most of all. And anticipation is wonderful.

Hung out earlier this week with a buddy and his kids. They were all smart and funny and we had a delightful time. When we get both sets of kids together they will forget all about the dads, I'm sure.

One of the things I like about waking up in the morning is a bowl of Grape-Nuts, soaked to slightly soggy, and a ripe banana. I don't bother slicing the banana into the cereal, I just take alternating bites. One of the best breakfasts ever.

Simple pleasures are often best. A small group of us in the Master Chorale performed Ralph Vaughan-Williams' "Serenade to Music" with the symphony a couple weeks ago. I normally sing the low bass part but this time I was tasked with singing baritone, which meant I got to belt out the B natural that made the major chord at one of the climactic moments of the piece. I never get to do that. I felt like Pavarotti. We got a great review. Another one checked off the bucket list.

Found a great place to hang out downtown. Relaxed atmosphere, great food, great music. Spent an evening working there this past week. And another exploring some other places with friends. Walked into one last night around 11:30 and it was packed, but virtually silent. Every single person had a laptop or other screen-equipped device and was staring into it. The baristas were making most of the noise, other than occasional keyboard clacking from patrons. Weird.

I've been part of a discussion this week about Brandon Davies being kicked off the BYU basketball team. Friends from across the spectrum have participated and I've learned a lot about everybody that's taken part. In some ways I was reminded of the Proposition 8 campaign when tempers and tolerances were being pushed to extremes. And I was lucky enough to run across something very insightful from Salt Lake Tribune columnist Robert Kirby. He's the author of the classic humor piece Five Kinds of Mormons.

Only this time Kirby was a little more serious, and made some excellent points. It'd be nice to hear someone speak in church with these thoughts as their theme.

Basically, he pointed out how conservative religions--not just the Mormon Church--often end up enforcing a culture of facades and deception as everybody tries to look like they fit the orthodoxy they think everyone else expects. "Honesty can be a real liability at church, which is funny considering all that emphasis on love and compassion and truth. While a certain amount of conformity is expected in any group, you don’t have to step too far out of line at church before you start scaring people."

And then the money quote: "Ironically, few things scare us more than the possibility of not being completely right about something far too big for us to fully comprehend in the first place." Oh boy, how true that is. Especially for a lotta Mormons when they confront the gay people in their midst. Mormon culture fosters such a high-voltage attitude of "gotta be certain about as much as possible as often as possible", and the thought that The Gay could be anything other than All Kinds of Bad is, to quote Vizzini, "absolutely, totally, and in all other ways inconceivable."

But we know so little. The most brilliant inspired people can't explain most of what surrounds us in the world. Or what happens when we die. Or how/why the Big Bang started. Or why a beautiful rose is so beautiful. Or how a baby feels as he/she finally figures out how to walk for the first time. And they certainly can't explain what God might have in store for girls who love girls, or boys who love boys. And there have been millions of them. Yet so many insist on "being completely right" about this thing that's "far too big for [them] to fully comprehend in the first place."

I certainly stopped worrying about all of that a while back, and I find I'm much happier as a result. Focus on what I can do and influence. Do justly, love mercy, walk humbly. Seek justice, speak out against unfairness of any kind. Try to treat others as I hope they'll treat me. And let God sort out the rest of it.

Another of life's simple pleasures. Working away on something and having a chat screen pop up from a friend. Somebody actually cares enough to reach out. That's what it's all about, isn't it? Priceless.

Q&A: "I Was Married to a Gay Mormon"

The following article appeared today in the San Jose Mercury-News. It's worth reproducing here in full. I hope my LDS friends and family members who read this blog and who believe I've gone off the rails will suspend such judgments long enough to really consider these real-world results of what they believe. Remember, "by their fruits ye shall know them."


Q&A: 'I was married to a gay Mormon'
By Michelle Beaver
Correspondent

This woman, who was raised in the Mormon church and the Bay Area, was married to a gay Mormon and shares her story here. She requested her name and other details not be published, saying, "Please do not use my name, age, or city as it would be easy to identify me and church authorities would likely punish me and my faithful family members for my participation in this (article). You may mention that I am a 'disaffected Mormon who lives in the Silicon Valley, but cannot formally resign from the LDS church as it would likely result in irreparable harm to family relationships.'"

She continued, "I am willing to share my story in the hopes that it will help others going through the same thing, or help others to avoid ever falling into this trap."

Any further details, such as how long she was married, are not included.

Please give an overview of your marriage.

I was married to a gay Mormon who repressed his sexuality in an effort to fit in. Our marriage was a painful mess, and our religious authorities placed the blame on my shoulders for failing to have enough faith to make him turn straight. A seriously overlooked aspect of homophobia in religious cultures is the damage it does to the women they deceive and marry.

How much pressure is there on gays in the Mormon church to change their behavior?

I'm trying to think of a superlative that can describe it enough. Immense? Mandatory? Total? Is there a word strong enough? This is an organization that has heterosexuality written into its plan for getting into heaven. There is simply no place for homosexuals in LDS doctrine. My ex-husband knew he was gay since he was 12 years old. But the consequences kept him from opening up to his parents and religious leaders -- the first people he should have been able to turn to --and instead he learned to repress, deny, and go through the motions in the hopes that he would finally be "normal."

Once I discovered that my ex was gay, there was an immense burden on me to "fix" him. My bishop's exact words were, "I know this marriage can and should be saved. If you have enough faith then his confusion will vanish. You have a duty to stand by your temple covenants."

"Straightening out" my husband became my responsibility. The period of time in which I did everything my priesthood holders asked of me was the most miserable time of my life. I had no peace of mind until I was able to shake myself free of the idea that the men in charge of my soul might not be speaking for God after all.

I stuck it out and stuck it out until I found out my ex was meeting men on the Internet for sex. At that point, I wasn't going to stick around to wait for him to bring HIV home to me. I didn't care what my priesthood leaders said anymore. My male Mormon leaders and their male Mormon God could go to hell.

I knew in my heart that it was cruel and unfair to expect any woman to risk her happiness, health, and sanity for the sake of making sure that every member of the church fit into the exact same mold.

How were you treated by members of the church when it was discovered that you husband was gay, and that you were getting divorced?

Nobody ever discusses the collateral damage that is done to women because of religious-based homophobia. It's hard enough being gay and feeling deficient in God's eyes, but it's just as bad to be made responsible for curing something that can't and shouldn't be fixed.

In Mormon communities, women who fail to "pray the gay away" are viewed as failures. The implication is that you have no faith. The guilt and sorrow is crushing. My ex's parents to this day blame me for "giving him the idea" that he was gay, although he knew that he was homosexual long before he met me.

Shortly after leaving my ex and moving back in with my parents, an older woman at church pulled me aside and said, "I never thought that you would show such little faith and break your temple covenants. At least you didn't have any children in this mess."

It took me a long time to break free from the church's control over my mind. I had finally begun to feel that, having been married in the temple under false pretense, I was justified in walking away for the sake of my own health and safety. But this comment and many others like it really wounded me.

Being divorced brings enough stigma to Mormons and their family members, but divorce due to homosexuality is a truly gossip-worthy scandal. The Mormons in my life who really know me and what I went through do not blame me for what happened. They know I tried my hardest. But more general acquaintances have not been kind or understanding.

In your opinion, how angry is the gay population of the Bay Area toward the Mormon church for its involvement in Proposition 8, and do you think those feelings will change?

Pretty much everyone I know regards Mormons as backward, ignorant bigots who do what their cult leader tells them to. People generally acknowledge Mormons to be kind-spirited, family-oriented, clean living, but very deluded. Whenever I acknowledge that I am a Mormon, I am quick to explain that I am disaffected and my ties are familial and cultural rather than ideological. I am often embarrassed to be affiliated with such a bigoted organization, even if I was born into it and so had no choice.

In your opinion, is Evergreen -- a support group for Mormons who are having homosexual thoughts, and that coordinates reparative therapy for patients -- affiliated with the LDS Church?

Absolutely. Evergreen utilizes LDS-owned buildings for meetings, describes itself as a service for Latter-day Saints, and LDS authorities regularly speak at Evergreen meetings. LDS bishops are instructed to refer gay Mormons to Evergreen. I don't know how you could make the claim that the two organizations were not connected, any more than you could make the claim that the LDS Church and the National Organization for Marriage are not connected.

How did your family's involvement in the passage of Prop. 8 affect you?

It wounded me very deeply. When I saw that my own father contributed money toward Prop. 8, it broke my heart. My own parents opened their wallets and paid money toward a cause that will guarantee that more women will end up like me, unhappily married to a repressed homosexual who felt deception was the only option. I opposed Prop. 8 not only because I feel gays deserve full equality, but also because I feel it's pointless to attempt to legislate morality.

... Although I never publicly voiced my opposition, my failure to jump to attention when the Mormon leaders rallied the troops was obvious to my family. I received many hateful e-mails from aunts and uncles who said I had no faith and was under the influence of Satan. My counter argument, that the LDS Church was showing no faith in its members by ordering them to take political actions that, theoretically, they should have chosen on their own, fell on deaf ears.

Bucking The Trend

I talk a lot about Mahler and philosophy and stuff like that. Then I go and shock my own kids by telling them I love banjo music. So here's another something that may surprise some people. I really like this video a lot. I like the energy, I admire the skills on display, and I like the message. Wish I could have been part of it.

The Ills of Modern Society

Every once in a while I run across commentary elsewhere that is so good, so perceptive, so prescient, that I can't help mentioning it here. There's lots of commentary around about various reasons for societal problems, and particularly the effects of tolerating or accepting "the gay lifestyle". Perspectives differ, of course, but yesterday I read a piece that was remarkably insightful. Whether you agree or not, it's worth a read.

Click here.

Joyful Noise

Well that was one of the most unusual and delightful experiences I've ever had.

Today is Mardi Gras, the last big blow-out before the start of Lent's period of sober self-assessment and self-denial, leading up to Easter. Mardi Gras celebrations in the U.S. of course reflect New Orleans culture, and a key element of that culture is zydeco. Never heard of it? It's wonderful music, born in Louisiana, that mixes African rhythms with blues, rock, and swing, played on accordions, guitars, string bass, drums, and even washboards sometimes.

Religiously conservative readers, hold up your hands in horror now as I tell you of the zydeco mass I attended this evening at St. Paul's. It was a regular church service with music provided by Theo and the Zydeco Patrol, with clergy dancing up the aisle instead of the regular stately, slow procession, and congregation doing some dancing in the aisles too, many of them decked out in the most lavish Mardi Gras costumes. There to the right is my friend Chris, who's on staff at the cathedral and obviously a very good dancer, even in liturgical robes.

The dean of the cathedral gave a short sermon whose basic message was this: "We are all children of God, and children need to play. There are good ways and not so good ways to play. Tonight in our worship service we let loose the children within all of us for a little bit of the good kind of play, as we celebrate all the good things of life and all the blessings we have." A very good message indeed, I thought.

And with that, more music started, and more dancing in the aisles ensued. Spouses with spouses, parents with kids, friends with friends. Even your humble correspondent took the opportunity to dance in the aisle with the assistant dean of the cathedral, who also happens to be a 5th great-granddaughter of someone you may have heard of, one Joseph Smith. It was delightful. That's her in the center of that photo down below to the right.

The Bible speaks of singing and dancing "before the Lord" and making a "joyful noise." And that's certainly what we did tonight. And you know what? I came away from that delightful hour just as exhilarated and spiritually fed as I ever did from any other worship service anywhere. Church doesn't need to be somber all the time. Sometimes it's good to just bust out and do what King David did. We have so much to celebrate, why not let it loose once in a while?

Just down below there is how the service ended. No doubt some would call it irreverent and even sacrilegious. Meh. It was a delightful celebration of so many divine gifts. And I will definitely be going next year. In a costume.

More Random Thoughts

The kids having gone off in different directions to hang out with friends for a bit, I might as well make some productive use of the time, in case anybody actually still reads this blog. Warning, some stream of consciousness ahead. Don't expect linear progression along a single thematic line.

OMG, who actually talks like that, spontaneously? (looks in mirror, aghast)

One of the fun things about life is trying to figure oneself out. Most of the time I think I'm pretty ordinary. Then I stumble over a reminder that I may not be The Average American. I don't know anybody else who enjoys watching rugby matches on TV with a Brahms chorale ("Wo Ist Ein So Herrlich Volk") playing on the iPod speakers. And I'm still laughing at the kids' astonishment when I recently divulged my deepest secret: Not only do I love Bach, I love banjo music too. They couldn't believe it. I wish somebody would write some banjo fugues, or a concerto for banjo & orchestra. How sad Mozart isn't still around, bet he'd tackle it and have a great time too.

And true to form, I'm excited to attend the zydeco Mass at St. Paul's Episcopal Cathedral this Tuesday evening. Never heard of zydeco? Look it up. Then imagine a church service in that style. Now that's a joyful noise.

Dad and step-mom are coming for a visit week after next. He promised no surprises at the end of the visit this time. We both laughed. It will be nice to see them again. FB buddy arriving later this week on an impromptu road trip from frozen climes to the north so I'll get to play tour guide. Fun times.

Rugby season winding down. Baseball season revving up. Alles gut either way.

I've received inside information that during next month's LDS General Conference, the ridiculously named Jimmer Fredette will be named General Young Men's Program President and also a member of the First Quorum of Seventy as a reward for boosting BYU basketball to its highest prominence ever. But the church PR people are going to require him to go by James, because let's face it, "Jimmer" sounds like the little kid in 2nd grade with bottle cap glasses who was already reading Einstein, had snakes for pets, and couldn't find his own way to the bathroom.

OK, the male half of The Twins (a.k.a. "Thing Two") is home now so we're going to walk to the store for a few odds & ends, including supplies for another couple of batches of marzipan snickerdoodles which all his school friends are already willing to pay 50 cents apiece for. Evidently thanks to those things my fame at his middle school is growing, even amongst the faculty, and I'm being encouraged to turn myself into the next Mrs. Fields. Maybe we'll make the cookies 30% bigger so he can charge a buck apiece. Let him buy his own iTunes cards.

Peace out.

"American and Family Values"

Is Seeing Agreeing?

This morning I received a very interesting comment from someone called "Max Drax" to my previous post about Dallin Oaks' "example" of the New Mexico photographer who violated NM state non-discrimination laws by refusing based on religious objections to photograph a same-sex wedding. I thought the comment was thought-provoking enough that it deserved prominent placement and its own post for discussion, rather than burying it in a week-old comment string.

Max Drax thinks the New Mexico courts were wrong to draw the distinctions they did, and that it was wrong for the law to "force" the photographer "to witness and memorialize something that he fundamentally disagrees with." Apparently, to Max Drax, being forced to "witness and memorialize" something that one "fundamentally disagrees with" is enough to encroach on religious freedom.

I think Max Drax presents a viewpoint that many people hold, one which suggests a view of fundamental rights and liberties profoundly different than that held by many others, including, apparently, New Mexico judges. This time, rather than leading out myself, I'm going to invite readers to comment, and I may chime in at some point later. So here's Max Drax's full comment. Readers, I invite you to respond, and Max Drax, you too.

Now wait...as all good lawyers understand, just because a judge wrote it doesn't make it true (as judges are usually just mediocre lawyers).

The judge says that the photographer's religious views aren't compromised by having to photograph a lesbian wedding. That's nonsense. The photographer cannot photograph the wedding without attending and witnessing the wedding. And in photographing the wedding, she is memorializing the ceremony. Attending, witnessing, and memorializing an event will, in most cases, be seen by most people as supporting that event, and if a photographer is forced to support an event that she disagrees with on religious grounds, by sheer virtue of the fact that she decided to become a photographer, then her religious beliefs have most definitely been compromised.

Let's look at it another way. Say a group of young men want to torture and slaughter a pig. These fellas call up a local photographer, who also happens to belong to PETA, and ask him to take pictures that everyone will keep in order to remember the event.

You're going to say that the photographer's moral beliefs aren't being compromised by forcing her to take such pictures? Sure, he can still hold to her moral beliefs. His internal opinions about animal welfare aren't harmed. But he's still being forced to witness and memorialize something that he fundamentally disagrees with.

At a certain point, you have to ask whether the right to hold a belief gives you any rights at all to make any outward manifestation of that belief. If it doesn't, then the right to hold the belief isn't really a right to anything of worth. After all, it's not like the mind can be coerced anyway. The logical implication of the judge's statements is that the right to religious freedom is simply a right to think certain ways, without ever necessarily manifesting those beliefs in public. But that places no limit whatsoever on the government, because the government can't touch anyone's mind to begin with.

For heaven's sake, any good lawyer would have a field day with that judge's statements. Don't treat them as gospel.

Oaks Rebutted, Summing Up

A few weeks ago Dallin Oaks, LDS apostle, spoke at Chapman University about the alleged encroaching restrictions on freedom of religious expression in the United States. As one would expect from any lawyer, he gave what he claimed were examples of his theme, in this case, how various individuals or organizations had lost jobs, promotions, business opportunities, scholastic standing, and even had legal penalties imposed on them as a result of saying or acting on a religiously based belief that homosexuality, or gay behavior, was wrong.

Well, I’m a lawyer too. I dig up and look at details and consider their implications, individually and collectively. And that’s what Oaks—or his research staff, at least—should have done before this speech. Oaks’ claims didn’t pass the smell test for me, so I started doing just what I’d been taught to do. Something I actually saw him do once, when I met him doing research at the BYU library and we spoke briefly about our respective projects.

And guess what, Elder Oaks. The truth of your examples is quite different from the picture you seek to paint. So as a graduate of the law school you helped to found, I’m going to give you the benefit of the training your colleagues gave me.

You’ve claimed elsewhere that because freedom of religion is at the front of the list of 1st Amendment rights, it is therefore more important and should trump the others in case of any conflict. It’s perhaps not surprising that you’d take this approach as an LDS apostle. But the Constitution of the United States is not a religious text. It’s a legal document, the result of hard-fought politicking and negotiation. And you know, Professor Oaks, the basic rules of legal interpretation.

A law must be interpreted to give effect to the actual words on the page and to avoid any absurd result. Nothing in the words of the 1st Amendment establishes any prioritization amongst the various rights listed there. The idea that religious belief must trump any of the other 1st Amendment rights just because it happens to appear first in a list--well that's just fiction. It has no basis whatsoever in the Constitution. If the context (e.g. paragraphing or actual language) does not so indicate, then it's absurd to think that just because something comes first in a statutory list, it's therefore more important than the things which follow. There are easy ways to show such intent, of course. But if no such intent is shown, you can't blithely assume priority just from the order of recitation. And there is no showing of any such intent in the Constitution.

You’ve sought to paint a picture of freedom of religious expression as under increasing attack in the United States. But thanks to the skills your law school taught me, I’ve seen for myself that your stories don’t mean what you claim. Once the details are investigated, it becomes clear that in every single instance, every one of your “examples,” something else was going on—something else that makes all the difference. Something else that shows those examples do not mean what you said. Yet you lined them all up, omitting these crucial details, as alleged examples of something that just isn’t so. My posts over the last week have shown in detail how this is true.

When you were president of BYU, you gave a talk about honesty, in which you said this:

An individual who conceals and misrepresents, however small the matter, sows the seeds of his own corruption. . . A lie is not always told in so many words. It may be a creature of concealment or a misrepresentation by action or a half-truth.

Of course, everyone falls short of perfection. And I try to be as tolerant of others’ foibles as I hope they’ll be of mine. But when a man purporting to be a “prophet, seer and revelator” and an experienced jurist goes out of his way to speak publicly about such a potentially momentous topic, and he chooses over and over to say things which investigation shows to be "half-truth" at best, that’s something entirely different. That's not just human foible. That's something deliberate.

So with all due respect, I’m calling you on it, Professor/Elder/Judge Oaks. By your own description, you’ve lied. And you need to fess up, retract, clarify, tell the whole story. And you need to apologize to those whose trust you have abused and forfeited.

Oaks Rebutted, Chapter Seven

Today we look at “the Boy Scouts’ challenges in various locations” with . . . well, with something Oaks never really specifies, but apparently it has something to do with alleged restrictions on religious freedom.

Oaks: The Catholic Church's difficulties with adoption services and the Boy Scouts' challenges in various locations are too well known to require further comment.

Problem is, the Boy Scouts of American (BSA) is not a religious organization. True, they affirm faith in God in the Scout Oath, which I can still recite: “On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country, to obey the Scout law, to help other people at all times, to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.” And yes, I did type that from memory.

But beyond that affirmation, the BSA is not specific as to any particular religious belief. I remember looking in my Scout manual at pictures of the different medals awarded by various religious organizations for Scouting participation; in addition to the LDS Duty to God award, there were similar ones from the Catholics, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Unitarians, and even the Buddhists. Obviously the Boy Scouts don’t care what particular religion their participants follow, as long as they have some kind of faith in whatever God they choose.

So Oaks’ remark about “challenges” the BSA may have had in a “religious freedom” context is puzzling. In numerous cases which have gone as high as the United States Supreme Court, the BSA's freedom of association as a private organization has been repeatedly recognized and upheld by federal and state courts alike. The case which reached the Supreme Court, Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, confirmed that since they are a private organization, the Boy Scouts can set their own standards for participation. While those standards have been challenged in various cases, so far no court has found that they constitute illegal discrimination. Does Oaks suggest that an organization with the size and influence of the BSA should expect to be free of litigation and controversy? That’s unrealistic at best.

Research suggests that the alleged “challenges” which might have actual legal legitimacy arise from the BSA's active exclusion of homosexuals and atheists while at the same time retaining sometimes preferential arrangements for use of public lands and facilities that are subject to non-discrimination laws. Wikipedia has a good summary of these cases. In many cases the BSA has sought to do the same thing as the New Mexico photographer and the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association previously discussed in this series: try to use private religious or ethical opinions as a trump card to escape compliance with non-discrimination laws that apply to everybody else.

Oaks makes an oblique reference to the BSA's “challenges” as if they were a well-known and uniform string of lost battles to preserve religiously-based freedom of association. In fact they are anything but that. The Supreme Court of the United States has upheld the BSA’s right as a private organization to set its own membership standards. Nor is the BSA without success in its efforts to retain sometimes preferential access to public facilities for Scouting activities and events, including public schools for recruiting purposes, U.S. Army bases for jamborees (at public expense), etc.

It is true that the BSA has lost some court battles in this respect. But they have won many others, including what I suspect they would consider the most important ones. The record shows that Oaks’ reference to the BSA’s allegedly well-known “challenges” can be most charitably described as inviting false conclusions. I would expect far more of a former judge, law school professor, and senior authority of a church which regularly quizzes its active members on whether they are “honest in their dealings.”

Tomorrow, a wrap-up.

Oaks Rebutted, Chapter Six

Today we look at “the Catholic Church’s difficulties with adoption services” which Dallin Oaks holds out as yet another example of alleged restrictions on the free exercise of religion.

Oaks: The Catholic Church's difficulties with adoption services and the Boy Scouts' challenges in various locations are too well known to require further comment.

Real story:

The Catholic Church’s “difficulties with adoption services” are, as noted years ago by BYU law professor Morris Thurston, “another misrepresentation.” Oaks no doubt refers to the case, much-publicized and much-distorted during the Prop 8 campaign, of Catholic Charities in Massachusetts which allegedly “closed its doors” rather than place children for adoption by same-sex married couples. And, as with all his other cited examples, the real story is quite different.

Catholic Charities in Boston had contracts with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to provide adoption services and accepted public funding for those services. In effect, it acted as an agent of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, a governmental entity.

After Massachusetts implemented marriage equality, Catholic Charities of Boston's board of directors voted unanimously to continue providing adoption services to same-sex couples. However, four Roman Catholic bishops intervened and sought to stop it from doing so. They also sought an exemption for Catholic Charities from Massachusetts’ nondiscrimination laws. Eight members of Catholic Charities Boston’s board resigned in frustrated protest over this edict from above, which reputedly had support from the Vatican itself. It was also reported that they feared losing support from The United Way of Massachusetts Bay, the largest donor to Catholic Charities in Boston, if it were forced to follow the Vatican’s position.

While Oaks and others seek to frame this in terms of "the state oppressing religious freedom,” it’s really not. The conflict was between the Vatican and Catholic Charities in Boston, not between Catholic Charities and the law. If the Vatican had not intervened and forced a Hobson’s Choice on Catholic Charities in Boston, it would have continued providing adoption services. It was the Vatican, not the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or its laws, which forced the issue and tried to stop Catholic Charities in Boston from providing adoption services.

As noted by columnist Brian Cavner, “This is not the case of a church simply asking to be left alone in its policies, but rather an agent of the state seeking to break the law. Because, according to tax reports, Catholic Charities received $1 million of state funds to provide adoption services, its actions are subject to state scrutiny in ways that churches typically are not. The state is not paying the charity to espouse its religious beliefs, but to offer adoption services consistent with its laws. Any organization accepting taxpayer money with the mistaken assumption that it can later deny services to those same taxpayers is immediately suspect.”

So once again, Dallin Oaks perpetuates a myth in a way that I'm sure he never would have tolerated from his law students or law clerks.

Tomorrow, we’ll look at the Boy Scouts’ alleged “challenges in various locations.” Any suspicions on what we'll find?

Oaks Rebutted, Chapter Five

Good morning all. Today I will tell you the story of The Valiant Little Pastor who spoke God's word and was persecuted for it.

Well, actually, it didn't quite happen that way. First the Oaks version, then the truth.

Oaks: A Los Angeles policeman claimed he was demoted after he spoke against the wrongfulness of homosexual conduct in the church where he is a lay pastor.

Oaks’ source for this statement in February 2011 is a single news article dated 31 July 2008 in the Washington Times, a newspaper known for its far-right conservatism.

Sergeant Eric Holyfield of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) is also pastor of the Gospel Word of Life Apostolic Church. In September 2006 while serving as a “senior lead officer” of the LAPD’s community relations bureau, he gave a eulogy at the Whittier, Calif., funeral of LAPD Officer Nathaniel Warthon Jr.. Sergeant Holyfield had been Officer Warthon’s supervisor. He was not on duty as a policeman at the time, was dressed in clerical garb, and gave the eulogy at a private chapel at the invitation of Officer Warthon’s family. However, he also introduced himself as “Sergeant Eric Holyfield.” A number of senior LAPD officers attended the funeral. It wasn't held at Holyfield's own church, as Oaks claims.

During the eulogy, Sergeant Holyfield quoted a passage from 1st Corinthians that says “the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God” before going on to list such and talk in detail about the specific types of unrighteous people referenced: adulterers, homosexuals, thieves, drunkards and others, and to discuss their ostensible eternal prospects, e.g. men should not lie with men, women should not lie with women, doing so was sinful and anyone who did must repent or be condemned to hell’s “lake of fire,” etc.

According to his Complaint filed with the Los Angeles Superior Court, Sgt. Holyfield’s supervisor contacted him shortly thereafter and said “I have received a number of complaints concerning you in regards to the funeral. People are very upset. Police officers, community members, clergy people, and as a result I’m going to have to move you.” Sgt. Holyfield was then transferred from his position, which he repeatedly described as “coveted,” and offered the choice of becoming a detective or a patrol officer.

Sgt. Holyfield filed a lawsuit against the Los Angeles Police Department on June 19 2008, nearly two years after the funeral. He alleged anti-Christian discrimination, violation of his First Amendment free speech rights, and retaliation for expressing his religious views in what he characterized as a private setting with no relation to the workplace. His suit claims the LAPD demoted him and refused him further promotions.

The complaint confirms that Sg. Holyfield and his superiors disagreed over whether the funeral constituted an “extension of the workplace.” His supervisor allegedly told him the problem was the “perception” which Holyfield’s remarks had created, that “this thing is buzzing, it’s all over the department citywide,” and “has gone all the way to the top, it’s like bees to honey, it’s all over.” His supervisor indicated that in the circumstances, the funeral could have been considered an extension of the workplace. Holyfield disagreed.

Holyfield’s complaint goes on to accuse William Bratton, LAPD Chief, and essentially the entire department of systematic anti-religious discrimination and bias, of allowing “discrimination and other forms of prohibited misconduct to take place despite an official policy prohibiting such actions,” and called such conduct “willful, despicable and malicious.”

Holyfield apparently filed a separate administrative action with the LA Department of Fair Employment and Housing, which was closed on 26 June 2007.

On 12 January 2011, the LA City Attorney recommended to the City Council that the city proceed with settlement discussions to resolve Holyfield’s claims.

Oaks was partly truthful in stating that Holyfield “claimed” he was demoted for speaking against homosexual conduct. However, Oaks omits the crucial facts that the statements were made at a funeral for an LAPD officer by a police sergeant/lay pastor who introduced himself as a police sergeant, in the presence of numerous other LAPD officers. He also fails to acknowledge the impact Sgt. Holyfield’s statements had on the LAPD and that the administrative action was taken against him as a result of that effect.

Oaks also fails to acknowledge that the merits of Holyfield’s claim have not yet been decided. Having read Holyfield’s complaint, I believe he damages his own credibility by accusing the entire LAPD, from its chief on down, of systematic and intentional discrimination, misconduct, and cover-ups. This is the borderline paranoid language of someone with a hypersensitive propensity to accuse first and check facts later.

In light of the above, and the fact that no court has yet found Holyfield’s “claims” to be true, Oaks would have been wise to ignore Sgt. Holyfield’s case in his speech. It is hardly a credible example of any alleged nationwide growth of infringement on religious freedoms.

Tomorrow we turn to the Catholic Church's and the Boy Scout's issues in this area which, according to Oaks, are "too well known to require further comment." Are they really? We'll see.

Oaks Rebutted, Chapter Four

Today we turn to the stories of two counselors who allegedly suffered professionally for their beliefs that homosexual relations were wrong. And once again, things aren’t quite as Oaks paints them.

Oaks: Candidates for masters' degrees in counseling in Georgia and Michigan universities were penalized or dismissed from programs for their religious views about the wrongfulness of homosexual relations.

In the Michigan case, Julea Ward, a graduate student, refused to counsel a homosexual student as part of the required practicum in her Eastern Michigan University's graduate program for becoming a high school counselor, because doing so would allegedly "validate" homosexual conduct which she believed was immoral and prohibited by the Bible. She asserted a First Amendment right to speak or decline to speak as she wished, and that the school's requirement that she counsel a homosexual student would violate that right.

It is settled law that a public university does not force a violation of the First Amendment when requiring students to comply with the terms of an academic assignment. As a former teacher of constitutional law, Oaks knows or should know this. A federal court held that Ms. Ward could not insist upon being excused from training to counsel gay people due to her religious beliefs, and that the school did not violate the 1st Amendment by insisting on a curriculum reflecting the counseling profession’s ethics code concerning non-discrimination in serving clients or requiring students to fulfill curricular requirements.

Oaks tries to paint this case as a penalty for trying to exercise religious freedom. It is not. The federal court's ruling says the following, and Oaks should have known this too, at least in principle:

"Plaintiff [Ms. Ward] has distorted the facts in this case to support her position that [EMU] dismissed her due to her religious beliefs. While [the university] may have been indelicate in their inquiry into Ms. Ward’s beliefs, they never demonstrated a purpose to change her religious beliefs. [The school was] at all times concerned with [her] refusal to counsel an entire class of people whose values she did not share. [The school] acknowledged that [her] beliefs motivated her behaviors, but always made the distinction between the two, and in no way attacked her beliefs. Even [Ms. Ward] is forced to agree that Drs. Callaway and Dugger never told her she needed to change her religious beliefs."

Oaks is therefore simply wrong to claim that Ms. Ward's dismissal from her graduate program represents a restriction of religious freedom. It was instead the predictable consequence of a student's deliberate refusal to fulfill all elements of the graduate program to which she voluntarily sought admission.

Once again, as in all the earlier cases Oaks cites, the federal court granted "summary judgment" for the university and against Ms. Ward. In real person language that means the court said "Ms. Ward, you have no case and there's no reason to take this to trial because the law is absolutely clear." Another reason to say "shame, shame" to Dallin Oaks, the former law school dean. He knows what summary judgment means, and it doesn't mean what he claims in this case.

In the Georgia case, Marcia Walden, a contract counselor with the Centers for Disease Control, referred an employee in a same-sex relationship to another counselor because of Ms. Walden's religious objection to what she believed would be facilitating a same-sex relationship. Although the second counselor was satisfactory, the employee “felt ‘judged and condemned’” and “”that [Ms. Walden]'s communication also indicated disapproval of her relationship.” After investigating the complaint, Ms. Walden was laid off. She sued, alleging (1) a violation of free exercise of religion, (2) a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and (3) a violation of Title VII’s prohibition of religious discrimination.

The court found no evidence in the record to suggest that the CDC removed Ms. Walden from the contract because of her religiously based need to refer clients seeking same-sex relationship counseling. Rather, the court found that “the CDC removed [Ms. Walden] from the contract because of the manner in which [she] handled the situation involving [the client], and the CDC’s reasonable concern about how [Ms. Walden] would handle similar situations in the future.”

Thus, said the court, the firing created no substantial burden on Ms. Walden's free exercise of religion. Since the CDC’s decision was “not based upon [Ms. Walden]'s religiously based refusal to provide same-sex relationship counseling” but on “the manner in which [she] handled the situation," there was no violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act or Title VII. In addition, the CDC offered Ms. Walden employment reassignment services which was a reasonable accommodation of any religious objection she may have had.

In the Walden case too, the federal court issued summary judgment for the CDC and against Ms. Walden. "You've got no case, ma'am." This means that in every single case Oaks cites so far, each court has considered the claims of "infringement of religious freedom" (also made by Oaks) so groundless that they weren't even worth having a trial for.

At this point I should stop to say I'm astonished that Dallin Oaks, the former law school dean and state supreme court justice, has been so sloppy and distortionary with his research. He either does or doesn't know the real facts of these cases. If he does, then he's deliberately misrepresenting their implications in his speech. That's called "lying." If he doesn't, then his research has been inexcusably slipshod in a way I'm sure he would never have allowed for any of his law students or law clerks.

Tomorrow, the story of an L.A. policeman allegedly demoted after speaking against homosexuality in the church where he is a lay pastor. Stay tuned!

Oaks Rebutted, Chapter Three

All right folks. Back from our Valentine's Day break, today we resume our examination of Dallin Oaks' jeremiad about threats to religious freedom. Next on the list is the sad tale of university faculty disciplined ostensibly for merely saying they thought The Gay was bad.

Oaks: Professors at state universities in Illinois and Wisconsin were fired or disciplined for expressing personal convictions that homosexual behavior is sinful.

Real story:

In the Illinois case, the "professor" was actually an adjunct lecturer who, like all others, was hired on a semester-by-semester basis with no expectation that his employment would continue. A practicing Catholic, he wrote a lengthy e-mail to his students in which he discussed Catholic teachings on how utilitarianism and natural law theory would judge the morality of homosexual acts, and said that "sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same." Some students protested [note, this wasn't action initiated by the university itself] and complained to the university. In response, the head of the religion department expressed concern that such remarks would "hurt the department," and the associate dean for the UI College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, stated her belief that the e-mail violated " university standards of inclusivity, which would then entitle us to have him discontinue his teaching arrangement with us."

In the Wisconsin case, Tom Hilton, the chairman of the university’s information systems department, received an e-mail from a student organizer of a local gay film festival, seeking support for the festival. He replied, saying "I decry attempts to legitimize [homosexuals'] addictions and compulsions. These, our fellow humans, deserve our best efforts to help them recover their lives. We only hurt them further when we choose to pretend that these walking wounded are OK the way they are, that their present injuries are the best they can hope for in life.” He copied that e-mail to a staff member in the university's women’s studies department. Called on it, Hilton himself said he was sorry for the e-mail and acknowledged it had been worded “very badly.” The University said "administrative action" would be taken against Hilton but would not be made public. I've found no further indication of what "discipline" may have been imposed.

These are two cases out of how many universities, faculty members, film festivals, etc. across the country? One was sparked by student protest, not direct retribution by the school, and in the other, the faculty member himself admitted wrongdoing. This is hardly a rising tide of irrational restriction on freedom of religious expression.

Oaks is in no position to criticize two public universities for such actions when the private university over which he presided has dismissed, denied continuing status, or censured far more than two faculty members and students who have taken critical positions relating to official LDS church policy or leadership as well as those who for personal reasons did not pay a tithe to the LDS Church, and which even today will expel an LDS student solely for joining another church.

Tune in tomorrow for the dolorous details of two candidates for masters' degrees in counseling who were penalized or dismissed from programs allegedly because of their religious beliefs that homosexual relations are wrong.

It's About Love

Today we'll take a break from the Oaks series.

This is a re-post of my piece from Valentine's Day last year. It got nearly 400 hits, far more than any other post I've ever written. I was encouraged to post it every February 14th and I think that's a pretty good idea. So here goes.



On this Valentine's Day, I wanted to re-visit and clarify something referenced in my last post. The reason will become clear in just a moment. I've decided one thing my correspondent mentioned needs more attention: the huge issue they had with the biomechanics, with "the fit" of genitalia as deciding the morality of being gay. So to that person I'd like to say this.

It's not about sex. Let me repeat. It's not about sex. Getting hung up on that issue puts the cart before the horse. Like I said before, deep down inside, everyone wants love, intimacy, security, appreciation, commitment. Optimally, sex should be a result of all that. True, some treat it like a casual playground activity, but it can and should be so much more: an expression, a manifestation of that love and care and appreciation and commitment. This is true whether a person is gay or straight. The sex is a consequence, at best a corollary. It is not a cause or catalyst.

Understanding this should help my correspondent get over the mental roadblock they have with what they imagine is misfit physiology. They need to understand that one of God's gay sons who truly loves another isn't just fixated on the other guy's equipment. He feels a spark, a connection, a pull like a magnet toward the spirit of the boy he loves. His heart will feel the same warm thrills and his tummy the same butterflies as any straight person would feel for their beloved. He will have hopes and dreams and longings when he thinks about that one special boy that are no different than what my straight correspondent would feel for their special one. He too will be unable to sleep or eat sometimes, preoccupied with thoughts and daydreams about them being together. Not about the sex, just about basking in the glow of the love they share. It is a connection of the heart, the mind, the soul, the spirit.

My correspondent may not be able to comprehend that this is possible between two guys, but I assure you it's true. One can accept that gravity, or relativity, or black holes, do exist and work--obviously--without comprehending just how. I have seen this kind of love, happiness, commitment in many gay couples myself. The love and commitment are obviously there. I've included with this post some pics of two wonderful, delightful friends of mine who will be married later this year. I defy anyone who doesn't have a heart of stone to look in their eyes and not see the delight and happiness and love they have for each other. Only the most sordid minds would look at them and still insist it's just about physical gratification.

So to my correspondent, let me say again on this Valentine's Day. It's not about sex. It's about love.

Update: I was privileged to officiate at Dan & Michael's wedding last June in Massachusetts. It was just as joyful and profound as I expected. They are truly married in every sense of the word, loving and faithful and committed to each other. I've seen lots of M/F married couples who should envy what Dan & Michael have. Why, why, why do so many still refuse to even consider the possibility that this is a good thing? Jesus said we should judge things by their fruits, their results. Dan & Michael are living, breathing evidence that it really is about love, and that same-sex couples not only deserve but are just as capable as straight couples of the commitment and the blessings of marriage.

Oaks Rebutted, Chapter Two

Today we examine the second of Dallin Oaks' faux examples of restriction of religious freedom.


Oaks: "In New Jersey, the United Methodist Church was investigated and penalized under state anti-discrimination law for denying same-sex couples access to a church-owned pavilion for their civil-union ceremonies. A federal court refused to give relief from the state penalties."

Real story:

The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association (OGCMA), a Methodist organization but NOT the Methodist Church itself (Error #1 to Oaks), had a New Jersey state property tax exemption for a boardwalk pavilion in the seaside town of Ocean Grove. The exemption's purpose was to reward organizations for opening their buildings and facilities for public use. The OGCMA knew this, amd had opened the pavilion for a wide variety of public events that had nothing to do with the Methodist Church or Christian belief. It was used for band concerts, skateboarding, debates, and even Civil War re-enactments. The OGCMA also made it available for marriage ceremonies by people of any faith. But when a lesbian couple who'd been together for over 30 years (each partner in her 70's) wanted to use it for a commitment ceremony (not a marriage ceremony), the OGCMA said no.

The chairman of the OGCMA at the time was Scott Rasmussen, one of the original founders of ESPN, who subsequently became a Republican campaign consultant, founder of Rasmussen Reports, and business associate of at least two convicted felons. For more details, see http://therasmussenretort.blogspot.com/.

The New Jersey real estate commission ruled that if OGCMA wanted the property tax exemption for their pavilion which was open to the public, they could not discriminate as they had against the lesbian couple.

The lesbian couple filed a complaint against the OGCMA with the state Division of Civil Rights. They were joined in their civil rights suit by a second Ocean Grove lesbian couple who had also been denied use of the pavilion for their civil ceremony for the same reason.

The OGCMA tried to pre-empt the state action by filing suit in federal court asking that the civil rights case be dismissed. The federal judge refused, saying he had no authority to interfere with this particular issue of state law. (As a former law school dean and judge, Oaks surely knew this was the right result under well-settled law, yet he sought to give the opposite impression in his speech.)

The OGCMA appealed, and the 3d Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Philadelphia said the U.S. District Court was correct to dismiss the OGCMA's suit. The New Jersey Division on Civil Rights found that the OGCMA's refusal to rent the pavilion to the couple for their commitment ceremony violated the public accommodation provisions of New Jersey anti-discrimination laws.

Oaks represents this case as an assault on religious freedom. The real story is far less simple. Ocean Grove is a diverse town, not just a religious ministry. OGCMA had public funding and a special property tax exemption for the pavilion based on a representation that it would be open to the general public, rather than restricted to use by the Methodist religious group. The property tax treatment exemption was not a function of OGCMA’s religious status, but rather a result of its promise to provide open public access to the site.

Until it denied the lesbian couple's request to use the pavilion, OGCMA consistently treated the pavilion as public space and accepted secular and religious reservations for its use, subject to payment of a standard fee, and when not so reserved the pavilion was open for all to use. The OGCMA had never put up any signs or other public indication that the pavilion was private property.

At best this case shows competing public and private interests that must be balanced and reconciled. The balance tipped in favor of public accommodation and the application of laws prohibiting discrimination because OGCMA itself had sought preferential tax treatment for the pavilion based on its own conduct of opening the pavilion to all and sundry for virtually any public use—until a couple with whom the OGCMA had private religious disagreements sought to use the facility.

Similarly to the New Mexico case discussed yesterday, the OGCMA had chosen to enter the public sphere by opening its pavilion to public use by anyone willing to pay a fee. It expressly promised, as a condition of its tax exemption, that the public would have equal access to the pavilion. By so doing, it characterized the pavilion as a "public accommodation" and subjected itself to state civil rights laws governing public accommodations. Its effort to bar the lesbian couple from using the pavilion was a classic case of trying to have its cake and eat it too.

OGCMA always had and ultimately did exercise the power to withdraw the pavilion from public use and refuse all reservations of the space. But as long as they chose to open it to public use, the OGCMA—like the New Mexico photographer—couldn't claim that purely private religious reasons exempted them from compliance with statutes that applied to everyone else in a public activity which the OGCMA had chosen to pursue. Oaks, a former law school dean and judge, surely should have known that.

Again, Oaks paints an overly simplistic—and ultimately misleading—picture. His legal background means he should have known better than to do this. There was no "restriction of religious freedom" here. If the OGCMA didn't want to allow gay couples to use the pavilion, all they had to do was withdraw it from public availability. Which they ultimately did.

Tomorrow, we turn to alleged assaults on personal free speech, with the woeful cases of two university faculty members who Oaks says were disciplined for expressing personal convictions that homosexual behavior is sinful. As you may have guessed by now, the real stories aren't quite as Oaks would have us believe.

Oaks Rebutted, Chapter One

Someone called "Trev" made an interesting comment on my last post about Dallin Oaks' misrepresentations. He quoted my observation that "those who are not attorneys probably won’t take the time to research the cases (or even know where to find them) or see the distinctions" between what Dallin Oaks claimed and what the truth really was, then said this:

You're right. I don't want to take the time. But I *am* interested. I kept waiting for the substantiation of your claims of misrepresentation to surface, but they never did. Could you educate us readers on the actual details of those cases and what they were? I always question these cases they bring up when they speak, but, as you say, I'm lazy and don't want to take the time to look them up. If you've already done the work, do share, rather than just saying you did it and leaving it at that."

It's interesting that he thought I'd called him "lazy" when I didn't, and then flat-out admitted that he was. Couldn't help chuckling at that.

Truth is, my life is pretty packed right now. Those who follow this blog have noticed I'm not writing nearly as much lately. I've resolved a lot of the conflicts that drove my previously more frequent and lengthy posting, and I have a lot going on personally and professionally which take priority. Result: blog posting drops off a bit.

Part of me wants to say "Trev, if you really are that interested, you should be willing to take the time to look something up!" But maybe he's as busy as I am, that's possible too. So "Trev," I went back and did the research for you and for anyone else in your situation. As often happens, the real story is not packaged in quite the same neat little soundbites used by Oaks. So I'll do a separate post for each of his examples of "threats to religious freedom," one a day for the next week. Any non-lawyer who finishes reading these will not only have my admiration for endurance, but is also likely to get more of an education in the legal realities of "freedom of religion" than they ever would from Oaks' speech.

Okay, here we go. First one.

Oaks: "In New Mexico, the state's Human Rights Commission held that a photographer who had declined on religious grounds to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony had engaged in impermissible conduct and must pay over $6,000 attorney's fees to the same-sex couple. A state judge upheld the order to pay."

Real story:

The case arose after Vanessa Willock of Albuquerque contacted Elane Photography about photographing her commitment ceremony. Its owner Elaine Huguenin told Willock by e-mail "we do not photograph same-sex weddings," but gave no explanation for the refusal.

The next day, Willock's partner, Misty Pascottini, asked Elane Photography via e-mail if the studio would photograph her wedding. Pascottini didn't identify herself as Willock's partner. Huguenin responded that she would be willing to travel to photograph Pascottini's wedding, and sent her pricing information.

Willock filed a discrimination claim in December 2006 with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission, seeking attorneys fees but no damages.

The Commission heard the matter and decided against Elane Photography because its admitted "existing policy that excludes same-sex couples from its wedding photography services" violated the state's Human Rights Act. That law prohibits a business dealing with the public from making any "distinction in offering or refusing to offer its services" on the bases of race, religion, color, sex, sexual orientation and several other factors. The decision went up to the New Mexico Court of Appeals which affirmed it.

Oaks suggests this was an encroachment on religious freedom. The New Mexico court disagreed. It correctly noted that neither the business nor its owners' own religious beliefs or practices were restricted in any way by the state's law against discrimination. "At most, they have been directed to respect [the couple's] belief system and religious observation. They are not being asked to participate in the observation or to adopt or even defend [the couple's] religious beliefs. They are merely being asked to photograph it, for an agreed fee in the ordinary course of their business."

The New Mexico Court cited an Alaska Supreme Court decision in a similar case brought by a landlord who "refused to rent to roommates of the opposite sex because of the appearance of immorality." The landlord insisted he was not discriminating on the basis of marital status, but even if he was, he was only discriminating based on conduct ("hate the sin, love the sinner," anyone?) and in any case he was exempt from state anti-discrimination laws because he was merely exercising his freedom of religion.

The Alaska Supreme Court disagreed. "When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity." Put simply, your religion doesn't give you a free pass to ignore laws applicable to others who are in the same business you voluntarily chose.

In fact, the New Mexico court found the issues to be so clear that it granted what's called "summary judgment" against the photography business. That's legalspeak for "this isn't even worth having a trial, the result is so clear so here's the ruling right now."

This was such a predictable outcome, based on well-established legal federal and state legal precedent, that it didn't even need a trial. The photography business violated the state anti-discrimination law. Period. Religious belief doesn't get you an exemption, and that's not a new rule. And it's not a "restriction on religious freedom" either. Unless you think that religious bases for defending slavery are valid, because the analysis is the same.

How can I put this politely? Oaks "misrepresented" this case when he cited it as an example of encroachment on religious freedom.

Tomorrow, the equally exciting case of the poor persecuted New Jersey church that refused to let a gay couple use their facility for a commitment ceremony.

Not Again

Sigh.

Living in an LDS congregation and region that was particularly active with personal and financial support for Proposition 8, I saw up close and personal what Mormons actually think of gay people. I also heard over and over the advice of LDS leaders on the subject, their jeremiads about encroaching loss of religious freedom and societal degradation that—they said—must inevitably follow if marriage equality becomes law.

As an attorney I’m trained to be skeptical of just about everything, and to demand, or find, proof for any claim anybody makes about anything. So when I heard LDS apostles talk about specific cases of religious liberty being infringed by “the gay agenda,” I checked those cases myself.

I found that every single time, the LDS leaders had misrepresented the facts. Not their predictions or extrapolations, but the facts of the stories they told. I’m being kind with my description of what they did, of course. I could use stronger words. I was stunned. How could these men I’d been taught to revere as “prophets, seers and revelators” do that? Facts are facts, and they’d not been truthful about facts. Yes, I know it's one thing to be mistaken about details on occasion. But that's not what happened here. This was consistent, repeated misrepresentation with the goal of persuading the flock that a danger loomed large, when in truth the "encroachments on religious freedom" were a total myth, completely unsupported by the actual cases LDS leaders cited. That’s when trust evaporated.

I would have thought that, over two years later, the myths spread about those alleged cases of infringement of religious liberty being infringed by “creeping secularism” or “anti-religionism” or “the gay agenda” or the bogeyman du jour would finally have succumbed to the readily available truth.

Alas, no. This past week Dallin Oaks, LDS apostle, gave a speech at the known-for-its-conservatism Chapman University law school in SoCA in which he reiterated some of the same myths about these alleged instances of encroachment on religious freedom which had “already happened.” I won’t bore you with the details, they are easily found through Google search by anyone who’s interested. The bottom line is that once again, Oaks’ speech spun the facts in such a way as to completely misrepresent what actually happened.

I won’t go into a detailed analysis of whether Oaks’ predictions of encroachment on LDS religious freedom are valid. But in sum, he essentially says LDS religious freedom should be given carte blanche but not necessarily the freedoms of other religions, e.g. those who want the religious freedom to perform legally binding same-sex marriages in their churches—a freedom which LDS intervention in California actually took away.

What is most dismaying to me, however, is that this man who I know many of my family and friends revere as having a special right to higher levels of insight and inspiration nevertheless persists in spreading falsehood. I’m not talking about his predictions for the future. I’m talking about his use of examples, actual reported legal cases, in which the facts and implications are completely different from what he wants his audience to believe. Yet those who are not attorneys probably won’t take the time to research the cases (or even know where to find them) or see the distinctions. They will simply rely on Oaks’ opinion, ex officio, and believe his conclusions without question.

With all due respect to Oaks, gentle reader, it’s irrelevant whether you believe he is a prophet, seer and revelator or not. The bottom line is that he has spun facts in a way that completely misrepresents the truth, in order to support his pre-determined conclusion. How can his position in the church justify that? Giving him a pass on this just because he’s an apostle means you think a different standard of honesty applies to him than to others outside the twelve (or fifteen). Do you really want to go there?

How many times does this have to be said? How many debunkings does it take to kill a myth that reinforces religious prejudice? I’m beginning to understand what Hercules dealt with when he tried to kill the Hydra. Sheesh.

Random Sunday Thoughts

Today at church the theme was meekness and humility. Not particularly popular virtues in today’s self-obsessed society. But I’m glad I went. It has been an extremely demanding couple of weeks and I really needed the spiritual refreshment.

This past week the twins told me they missed being in elementary school. So comparatively carefree and innocent, they said. Not much homework, little responsibility, not nearly as many demands as in middle school. It was a bit of a shock to hear my own kids reminisce about the good old days! They’re not even teenagers yet. But we had a good conversation about stages of life, and escalating responsibilities, and the freedoms and privileges that maturity bestows, if one is wise enough to manage them.

I told them the story of King Henry V (the Shakespeare version) as he walked through his camp the night before the battle at Agincourt, ruminating about who had the better life, a farmer or a king. And when I explained his logic to the twins, they agreed with him that in many ways, the farmer had it better. I told them of one of my favorite scriptures, Ecclesiastes 1:18, “In much wisdom is much grief, and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.” That didn’t go over very well! Until I explained what it meant, then they understood.

This is a fascinating stage of life. My kids are just starting to be old enough to have these more serious conversations, and actually comprehend a more mature perspective on such questions. It’s delightful, really. And a nice contrast from last weekend, when we had their friends here for another sleepover, so the house was buzzing with noise and energy and shouts and kitchen cupboard doors banging and food foraging and video games and trips to the pool and all that stuff. It was all great fun, of course. Especially the early morning trip to our favorite beachfront donut shop, then we drove back down the coast, savoring the sea breezes, the view of the waves, the sunshine. With four sugared-up tweens in the car, it was quite a ride.

This morning as I listened and pondered meekness and humility, I was struck by something I heard earlier in the week. Or was reminded of, rather. With the rise of Correlation that’s taken over the LDS Church in the last 40 years or so, more and more the focus has been on obedience obedience obedience as “the first law of heaven.” Lots of encouragement to do things for no other reason than the leaders say so. Fake it till you make it. Don’t stray from the approved lesson materials. Don’t talk about “the mysteries.” Stick to the pre-packaged, pre-approved, nice vanilla flavors that Salt Lake sends out. This will be familiar to every active Mormon.

But wait a minute. The LDS Church sees itself as the modern restoration of part of the House of Israel, doesn’t it? Each person with a patriarchal blessing is told their “lineage” and it’s usually Ephraim, one of the ancient Twelve Tribes. Mormons think of themselves literally as another part of modern-day Israel.

Does anybody remember what the word “Israel” means? It means “struggle with God.” Yeah, that’s right. “Struggle.” Not “obey.” Not “stick to the manual.” Not “don’t discuss the mysteries.” Abraham’s grandson Jacob was renamed Israel because he “struggled”—wrestled, even fought—with an angel of the Lord, and he won.

So it strikes me as supremely ironic that the corporation which asserts that it’s today’s earthly vehicle for gathering the House of Israel should have morphed into a culture so antithetical to the origin of the name. I’ve always taken comfort from the fact that earthly covenants are not made with the organization but directly with God Himself. So I’m sure He will forgive me if I indulge in some of the same struggling, questioning, wrestling even, that Jacob did. After all, Jacob was rewarded for it. And as a parent, I know I am proud of my kids when they ask questions, try to reason things out, demand answers, struggle to understand new things, don’t take pat answers as sufficient, but ask why, what next, what if. How else will they grow? How else will any of us grow?

Seeing that I am straying close to ponderous philosophizing again, I will now veer back toward lighter stuff.

Dinner with a good friend Friday night, his first time with Korean food, which he loved. It won’t be the last time we go there, I’m sure.

We are out of bread again. This means I get the pleasure of waking up real early tomorrow morning and walking to the local bakery for something fresh and warm right out of the oven. It’s less than a buck more than a similar loaf of wheat bread at the grocery store, and it’s made on site just hours before, not in some factory hundreds of miles away two weeks ago and then frozen for shipment. Plus I like supporting local businesses. And the bread from this place is awesome. We had cooler weather, clouds and even a brief downpour this afternoon; hope it’s back to sunshine tomorrow morning. I like morning walks like that, they’re one of the little pleasures that make life great.

The last of the Christmas stuff is finally put away. I love Christmas but I don’t like Christmas decorations in February. And the house looks a lot cleaner. Well, at least till the kids come back. It’s remarkable the places I find kids’ dirty athletic socks sometimes.

I am grateful for washing machines. Imagine if we had to wash all our clothes by hand with a washboard.

The kids love my homemade chicken noodle soup with chicken stock I make from the remains of a roast chicken from the store. I made a particularly good batch today and then proceeded to spill most of it all over the floor. I’m glad I’ve learned to laugh at myself.

And I’m grateful for talented friends, one of whom appears in the video below playing the postlude from church today. I’ve played this piece myself and it’s riotous fun, like a roller coaster. A joyful and fitting end to a wonderful service.