New Blog

No, I'm not doing a new blog. But I just ran across one that's worth your attention. There's one out there which went viral during October 2010 LDS General Conference after Boyd Packer's infamous homophobic speech about The Gay which he was subsequently required to edit for publication.

Its author, who refuses to identify himself, revels in the angst and torment of "struggling" to be a faithful Mormon while also being gay. He loves the adulation of hundreds of followers who laud his every post for his bright shining example of devotion to God, the prophet, and every word that proceedeth forth from The Church Office Building.

While constantly proclaiming his own humility and propensity to fall short of perfection, he holds himself out as a beacon of faithfulness and obedience and a savior of the lives of other strugglers. For example: "I've had the daily opportunity to touch people's lives and help them find the faith to avert suicide, fix broken marriages, and pursue lifelong dreams." Yes, that's actually a quote from his blog.

Hmmm. I seem to remember the Savior saying "when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what they right hand doeth; That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly."

Mr. Perfect Sufferer follows the same basic script for each post. It's the same model for inspiring introspective sermonettes used each Sunday morning by Lloyd Newell for the "Music & The Spoken Word" broadcast of the Tabernacle Choir. One need only read a few of his posts in succession to discern the pattern.

He also censors and filters every comment that comes in response to his posts. And he rejects any which disagree with his agenda. The result, of course, is an echo chamber into which none is admitted or allowed to speak except those who already see things exactly as he does--and who see him as a bright shining exemplar. It's no surprise that the overwhelming majority of his blog followers are straight women.

Fortunately this is not characteristic of the entire Internet. And somebody (not me, I had nothing to do with this) has now had the creativity to start a blog which answers Mr. Perfect Sufferer and actually allows the freedom to discuss and debate his Highly Processed Inspiration Packets which he himself does not permit. If there's any justice or fairness in the world, this one will catch on just as fast as his did after Packer's speech. In any event, it will certainly be a better tool for learning and discovering truth, since Mr. Perfect Sufferer seems to have forgotten the insight of the founding prophet he no doubt claims to revere: "by proving contraries is truth made manifest."

To see not only Mr. Perfect Sufferer's thoughts but also engage in actual free discussion of them, click here.

We've Already Won

Over there on the left sidebar amongst my favorite quotes is one from Cesar Chavez: “Once social change begins, it cannot be reversed. You cannot uneducate the person who has learned to read. You cannot humiliate the person who feels pride. You cannot oppress the people who are not afraid anymore. We have seen the future, and the future is ours.”

I’ve had a stressful few weeks and have gotten a bit down about some things. But I think I’m bouncing back. Obviously I’m well past high school, and I know it’s common to hear of more mature adults deriding teens and 20-somethings for all kinds of things, “the world’s going to hell in a handbasket if we leave it to them,” that sort of thing.

But I don’t see that. And one of the things that’s helped me do it is the story of James taking Josh to his high school prom. I don’t know where, and I’m not sure when (other than that it’s recent), but this story and this picture warmed my heart. It was unimaginable when I was in high school. It still is in some less enlightened, tolerant and accepting places. But the fact that it is possible, and even welcomed, in some places now gives me real hope for the future. The same hope that those in the early days of the civil rights movement saw for younger generations of African-Americans. And just 50 years later, look who’s in the White House. Only a hundred years after Teddy Roosevelt was so cowed by national outrage for inviting Booker T. Washington to dinner there that he never met publicly with Washington again.

Focus on the Family Chief Executive and President Jim Daly recently conceded that marriage equality opponents have “probably lost” the battle already. And he’s absolutely right. Demographics alone doom his and anyone else’s opposition to marriage equality nationwide. I’m sure pockets of resistance will remain long after it becomes law, but the tide has already shifted. Polls show that growing majorities of Americans support gay marriage. Homophobia will eventually become as odious as racism.

John Adams said “I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain.”

In the same vein, those of past generations who suffered through aggressive police round-ups at bars and clubs, and who finally started to fight back, they studied politics and war so that those of the next generation would have liberty to study demographics and philosophy. Those of that generation have been studying demographics, politics, philosophy, and debate so that those of James and Josh’s generation can have the right to finally and freely be who and what God made them to be, without the stifling shame and fear of the past.

And that’s why this picture warmed my heart. Because it told me that the battle has already been won. Like Chavez said, once social change begins, it cannot be reversed. You cannot humiliate the person who feels pride. You cannot oppress the people who are not afraid anymore. We have seen the future, and the future is ours.

Evensong

I love the Anglican tradition, always have. Many of my friends know that sometimes I like to go to the local Episcopal cathedral, where I know a bunch of people and get to practice on the organ sometimes and have even sung with the choir.

Part of the Anglican tradition is a late Sunday afternoon service called Evensong. It's kind of like an abbreviated church service, there's no communion or sermon, it's just a series of prayers and scripture readings and music. A wonderful way to end a Sunday with peace and contemplation and reflection.

I like this service a lot. So I thought I'd share it with you. The music you'll hear is Faure's "Cantique de Jean Racine", whose lyrics you can find with a quick Google search if you want. They're beautiful. This is an actual live recording from today's Evensong service sung by the choir of men and boys at St. Paul's Episcopal Cathedral in San Diego, with pictures of the cathedral and some of its people. I hope you'll see why I love this place.

Infringement or Illusion?

Sitting in Borders Books relaxing after a frenetic week. Realizing that recent life distractions have led me to almost ignore the blog for the last little while. Can’t imagine anybody has missed it much. I haven’t gone anywhere, I’ve just been engaged with real life. Kids and stuff. Priorities. But I do have some thoughts still percolating and have been meaning to write about this particular one for a while.

Starting way back during the Prop 8 debates and continuing on since then, I’ve seen countless commentaries from conservative people and groups, the National Organization for Marriage, various religious groups, etc., all hollering about threats to religious freedom if marriage equality becomes the law of the land. Their ability to practice their religion freely will be infringed, apparently.

And as with all the committed gay relationships and marriages I see around me which are thriving, I look at such claims and say “How? Why? How does this infringe your religious liberty? Why is it bad for you?”

So far, the answers are basically “We won’t be able to teach that homosexuality is an abomination to God anymore, we’ll be forced to perform gay marriages that are theologically offensive, and our children will be force-fed an immoral social agenda in the schools.”

People a lot smarter than me have demonstrated with abundant evidence that all three of these claims are completely bogus. So I won’t rehash them here. This leaves one objection which is never clearly stated as such, because when it is, its silliness is immediately apparent. But it seems quite prevalent nonetheless.

It’s the belief that religious freedom is infringed merely by confronting the phenomenon, the issue of marriage equality. Just having to think about and deal with it seems in many peoples’ minds equivalent to impinging on their religious liberty. This theme underlies much of Dallin Oaks’ speechifying as well as that of many other marriage equality critics affiliated with the LDS and other churches. They seem to assume a constitutional right to keep things “the way they’ve always been” without even thinking about changes.

I have tried to follow the thread of this “logic” through more possible twists and turns than a cat’s cradle, and it still makes no sense to me. How does just thinking about and debating a public policy issue restrict religious freedom? That makes sense only if you define religious freedom as the right to be unquestioned and unoffended. And that’s just silly. There’s no constitutional right to never be offended, or to never have to think about things you disagree with.

I like and respect solid logic and a well-reasoned argument. But this idea of religious freedom being infringed by having to debate this issue at all is just dumb. It’s bogus on its face. It rests on a false assumption that has no legal basis whatsoever. And in doing so, it inflicts a great disservice on its own adherents, by leading them to believe something that’s just not true.

Anybody that reads this and disagrees, please jump in. Tell me why I’m wrong. I’m all ears.

Mash-Up

I recently had a great time at a big party downtown, went with some friends and met a bunch of new people. In the course of talking with them, the subject of my growing up as a gay Mormon would frequently come up. And the reactions were consistent: raised eyebrows, slight drops of the jaw, words like “wow” or “OMG that must have been difficult” or “congratulations, you survived.”

I’ve gotten used to responses like this. What’s interesting is that they’re so uniform and predictable. Every single person says virtually the same thing. Now, it’s undeniable that life inside the LDS Church can be so all-consuming that one truly has no idea how people outside the church view those who are inside. So this has been a very interesting lesson, particularly in post-Prop 8 California, as to how so many view the Mormon Church: hostile territory at best.

I’m sure most active Mormons would react in ways ranging from mild disappointment to taking severe offense at hearing such opinions. After all, Mormons consider themselves followers of Christ and I know that many of them really do try to act that way. To have those efforts rewarded with such characterizations by outside observers can be hurtful, because Mormons reeeeeeeeeeeeeeally place a high priority on being nice and they reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally hate to be the bad guy.

But then I think of episodes that have happened in the lives of some of my own friends, in light of the Savior's admonition to judge things by their fruits. Parents coming unglued when a gay son well past legal adult age decides to spend a few hours with another gay friend who the parents haven’t vetted and pre-approved. Parents who know a son is gay and are helping with college expenses but cut him off financially when he makes the mature and responsible decision to get married (to another guy). Siblings de-friending a gay sibling on Facebook or flooding him with guilt-inducing messages about “empty chairs in heaven” or “shaming the family and breaking mom’s heart” and so forth. Family members clinging like barnacles to ideas about homosexuality that are scientifically unsound but which bolster familiar prejudices. I need not mention the countless times that the shame and the guilt and the criticism have gotten so bad that suicide has seemed the only way out.

A Facebook friend of mine recently said “Mormons have no boundaries.” And she was pretty much right. There is something about Mormon culture that makes its adherents blithely assume they can ask the most outrageously personal and intrusive questions of other Mormons, or treat them in the most incredibly insensitive ways, without even stopping to think whether they’re being impolite or nosy. Doing or asking things they would never dream of with a non-Mormon friend or neighbor. This is the flip side of the “eternal family” idea. If you come out as a gay Mormon, you are seen as choosing to get up and walk away from the heavenly kitchen table over which Mom & Dad preside and which they’ve been taught is the ultimate eternal goal worth aspiring to. You are choosing to destroy their eternal hopes.

When seen from that perspective, it’s no wonder that parents come unglued when an adult child just wants to go spend a few hours with a gay friend, or that siblings would unfriend their own sister or brother on Facebook, or that parents would pay big bucks to snake oil salesmen hawking various seminars or weekends or programs claiming to teach their gay boy how to be a real man and stop thinking about boys when he fantasizes. After all, these gay kids are threatening to destroy the eternal family, so extreme measures are justified, right? This threat must be fought. It can’t be accepted as legitimate, even if the kid is an adult. After all, the prophet and apostles said so.

And when I explain these realities to people I meet at parties who’ve never met a Mormon before, that’s when their eyes really get big and their jaws really drop. And the phrases change to things like “You’ve got to be joking” or “I had no idea it was that bad” or “what a hot house” or “I thought the Catholics and the Jews had the monopoly on guilt.”

And here’s why I mention the bit about Mormons having no boundaries. It’s because responses like that, from non-Mormons looking at Mormon behavior about this issue, are normal human reactions to the behavior I’ve described. But in my experience, countless Mormons would just brush off such reactions and say “well, they don’t really understand.” It’s that unwillingness to question the assumption that they have the full picture on this (or any) issue, and thus the right to do or say anything amongst other Mormons (particularly family members) necessary to promote and preserve The Officially Approved Goal. I saw it after my mission when almost immediately people began asking me why I wasn’t married yet. I saw it after marriage when people I hardly knew at church would ask why we weren’t having kids. Or after we started, would ask why we weren’t having more. It happened so often that I got to the point of rehearsing a couple of pre-packaged responses designed to put such people in their place and tell them “back off, you are being rude and insensitive.”

The disconnect is huge. Because, as I’ve said before, some of the most truly Christ-like people I’ve ever known have been Latter-day Saints. But there is something about modern Mormon culture and groupthink that is hostile to the basic Christian principles of freedom of choice and which rejects any individual belief that doesn’t conform to whatever was said in the last General Conference.

And that is why friends of mine, confronting this immense monolith of Mormon opprobrium, tearfully say things like “I just can’t understand what makes my desire so wrong, immoral or disorderly” when they know how that special guy makes them feel down to the core of their soul: happy, whole, complete, filled with every good and noble and positive emotion and aspiration, with love and a desire to be with, care for, and do every single one of the same things any straight couple would be praised and celebrated for within the Mormon culture. Yet, clinging to misinterpretations of six small verses out of the entire Bible and their uncritical adoption by LDS leaders as a basis, so many Mormons reject the evidence of the words and hearts and lives of their own sons and daughters and impose incalculable heartache rather than do the hard work of questioning their own received prejudices.

I should say here that this post is not prompted by my own family, but by a broader trajectory of experience, recently repeated, in which I’ve seen this kind of insularity inflict this kind of pain yet again on someone I care a lot about. I understand the pain that Mormon families feel when they believe one of their own is choosing to reject what the family believes is the only way for them to stay together forever. And I also understand the pain of being the one who can’t seem to get anyone to really listen to or believe everything he says.

And that’s why, as I recently told another friend currently struggling with this same issue, ultimately there’s no way to bridge this gap. The church into which he was born has framed the issue such that he must either give up all hope of the fullest happiness he is meant for in order to comply with the church’s demands, or else he must accept (as my own bishop and stake president freely stated) that the church has no explanations or answers for him and thus he must seek his own and make his own decisions for his own life. Some, including some of my own friends, choose to stay in circumstances where they try to balance between these two, and I fully respect their right to do that. I also believe that even such efforts at balancing will ultimately and unavoidably yield a choice of one of these two alternatives.

What will it take to cut this tragic Gordian knot? The only thing that will permanently change the Mormon mind is a new revelation through the president of the church. I can't help believing that God knows far more about this subject than we do. But a new revelation that would legitimize gay relationships would be far more earth-shaking than Spencer Kimball’s 1978 change in policy on priesthood. It would re-write LDS doctrine more radically than has ever been done since the days of Joseph Smith. I seriously doubt the risk-averse corporate managers who run the LDS Church right now feel any need to take on something like that, or want the responsibility for the outcome.

And so the helicoptering and the tears and the secret sorrowing and the misunderstanding will continue. And I will continue to meet people at parties whose jaws drop and whose eyes get big and who wonder how any gay Mormon guy keeps his sanity. And I will nod and agree. And I will also tell them that there’s always reason for hope; I survived, I’m doing great, others have done the same. And someday the church is going to have to change and catch up.

So a shout-out to the one particular buddy concern for whom has sparked this post, the one who faced such family outcry for wanting to just go hang out with a friend. You know who you are. Hang in there. You are stronger than you think. And it really does get better.

The Real Glee

Glee is a TV show with all kinds of social commentary drama and comedy. And everybody knows that its musical numbers are top-level Hollywood pro quality, not the sort of thing real high schoolers do. One must suspend some disbelief in that respect while watching.

But if you're interested in seeing a real world show choir, check out the Westminster Chorus. A friend of mine used to sing with them, and they are truly amazing. So Gleeks, set your show aside for a moment and have a look at some real stuff.

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!