Where Are They

Several friends have recently told me of numerous e-mails they’ve each gotten from schoolmates or mission companions who’ve essentially come out in those e-mails, either explicitly or implicitly by asking questions that only a closeted person would think of. It’s startling, really, how many. Active, faithful Mormon guys. And these are only the ones I’ve heard of. Obviously there’s got to be more.

Statistics I’ve seen from various sources say that between 1% and 10% of any given population will be gay. In 2007, 80% of all Mormon missionaries were young single elders. I’ll assume that proportion is still current. As of the April 2011 General Conference statistical report, there were 52,225 missionaries serving at the end of 2010.

Combining these statistics suggests that somewhere between 400 and 4100 of the LDS missionaries now serving are gay. And these are just the guys (I couldn’t find statistics for how many single female missionaries were serving). They will come home and, if they’re strong enough, start looking for people like my friends who are out and who can answer questions about how to reconcile who they are with what they’ve been taught.

I admit, I envy these guys. Things still aren’t where they should be, but they’re a lot easier now. When I returned from my mission, before the days of widespread acceptance of civil unions, growing acceptance of marriage equality, and the openness that now prevails, I intuitively understood that coming out of the closet was unthinkable. So I did what I was told was my only hope for happiness: stifled and tried to kill off that part of myself, got married to a beautiful girl who did not deserve what ended up happening, and learned to be a very good actor.

Imagine living your life as if you were on a stage 24/7. Every waking moment having to monitor your own actions, words, nuances, thoughts, even the way you move and dress, for fear of tipping someone off to who you really are because if they found out, you’d be at risk of losing everything. That’s what it was like. Exhausting. Ultimately the marriage ended and that made it possible for me to get off the stage.

So now I’m hearing all these stories about gay Mormon guys popping up right and left. Some more traditional types think it’s an “epidemic” of people who have “decided” to be gay. That’s silly, of course; it’s well-settled that nobody “decides” to be gay. Or straight, for that matter. You just are what you are. All we’re seeing is more gay people who are comfortable de-cloaking and being at ease with who they are. And that’s a good thing.

But it makes me wonder, too. According to everything I’ve read, the proportion of gay people in any given population has always been fairly constant. That means back when I was a missionary, and just afterward when I was at college, there were hundreds of gay guys serving and at school with me too. Yet I look around me and see how many in my demographic there aren’t as compared to, say, the missionary age guys, and I ask myself “Where are they? Surely they’re somewhere. Where?”

The only thing I can think of is they’ve already drifted away from the LDS church, or they did what I did and are still there, but padlocked in a basement below the closet door. Married, with kids, working jobs and in the church, set in careers and being husbands and fathers and doing all that normal Mormon stuff. And probably just suffering in silence. Still on stage, like I was. Perhaps they’ve already given up any thought or hope that things could or should be different. Too invested in marriages and kids and reputations and careers now, fearing it’d cost more to disentangle than they’d recoup by coming out and being true to who they really are.

Some of them may be content with that. Some may still be suffering, perhaps even agonizing, over the what if’s. Some may have gotten so numb from the suffocating that they can’t imagine ever changing things. On auto-pilot. It’s easy to do in the Mormon church, where virtually every aspect of your life can be dictated for you, if you let it.

It was tough when my marriage ended. It’s still difficult sometimes. I feel awful for what happened to both of us because I, trying to be the faithful priesthood holder, trusted the “inspired” counsel of leaders who obviously didn’t know what the hell they were talking about.

That’s past. Now I’m able to build a new more authentic life. And it’s been great, wonderful, exhilarating. I can’t imagine going back on stage. Nothing would be worth carrying that burden again.

But I look around at my demographic on the road of life, a ways ahead of those friends who are getting all the e-mails. And there are far fewer of us I can see on the road at this stage than at theirs. I know there must be just as many of us in the world. But it looks like most of them are still cloaked. And if they’re still cloaked at this stage, chances are that’s where they’ll stay.

If they freely choose that, then okay, that’s their prerogative. But I freely chose it too, and I know how I ended up feeling. And how I feel now. So my heart breaks for those of them who are staying silent and invisible out of duty, or fear, or inertia, or apathy. Because I know how they’re feeling and what they’re missing. I wish there were some way I could find them and say “I know. I understand. I’ve been there. It can get better if you want it to. It’s really not as scary as you think. There are so many of us waiting to welcome you.”

Everyone has to decide what's best for their own life, of course. But I think Professor Dumbledore was right: “It does not do to dwell on dreams and forget to live.”

What's The Difference

I've actually gotten this question from friends and family. Why do you have to shove this in our faces? Why do you have to advertise it? Why do you force us to confront something we find distasteful? Why can't you just keep it to yourself? Why can't you be satisfied with civil unions and leave marriage alone?

Well, with Davey Wavey's help ("borrowed" from his Break the Illusion Blog), here's what I hope will be a new perspective on those questions.

The Heterosexual Privilege

As I’ve mentioned more than once, I think being gay is pretty awesome – and it comes with a number of benefits, including never having to deal with tampons. But let’s face it: When it comes to privileges, straight people definitely take the cake.

The Heterosexual Privilege Checklist is a list that helps straight people get a better understanding of what it’s like to be gay in a very hetero world. It makes it a little bit easier for straight people to put themselves in the shoes of their gay friends and family. I encourage you to share this article, which I’ve reproduced below, with your nears and dears in the hopes of facilitating some meaningful dialogue.

On a daily basis as a straight person…

I can be pretty sure that my roommate, hallmates and classmates will be comfortable with my sexual orientation.

If I pick up a magazine, watch TV, or play music, I can be certain my sexual orientation will be represented.

When I talk about my heterosexuality (such as in a joke or talking about my relationships), I will not be accused of pushing my sexual orientation onto others.

I do not have to fear that if my family or friends find out about my sexual orientation there will be economic, emotional, physical or psychological consequences.

I did not grow up with games that attack my sexual orientation (IE f*g tag or smear the queer) [I actually heard one of these phrases from a friend just a week or two ago. He realized what he'd said and immediately apologized. Just goes to show you how entrenched this stuff is.]

I am not accused of being abused, warped or psychologically confused because of my sexual orientation.

I can go home from most meetings, classes, and conversations without feeling excluded, fearful, attacked, isolated, outnumbered, unheard, held at a distance, stereotyped or feared because of my sexual orientation.

I am never asked to speak for everyone who is heterosexual.

I can be sure that my classes will require curricular materials that testify to the existence of people with my sexual orientation.

People don’t ask why I made my choice of sexual orientation.

People don’t ask why I made my choice to be public about my sexual orientation.

I do not have to fear revealing my sexual orientation to friends or family. It’s assumed.

My sexual orientation was never associated with a closet.

People of my gender do not try to convince me to change my sexual orientation.

I don’t have to defend my heterosexuality.

I can easily find a religious community that will not exclude me for being heterosexual.

I can count on finding a therapist or doctor willing and able to talk about my sexuality.

I am guaranteed to find sex education literature for couples with my sexual orientation.

Because of my sexual orientation, I do not need to worry that people will harass me.

I have no need to qualify my straight identity.

My masculinity/femininity is not challenged because of my sexual orientation.

I am not identified by my sexual orientation.

I can be sure that if I need legal or medical help my sexual orientation will not work against me.

If my day, week, or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether it has sexual orientation overtones.

Whether I rent or I go to a theater, Blockbuster, an EFS or TOFS movie, I can be sure I will not have trouble finding my sexual orientation represented.

I am guaranteed to find people of my sexual orientation represented in my workplace.

I can walk in public with my significant other and not have people double-take or stare.

I can choose to not think politically about my sexual orientation.

I do not have to worry about telling my roommate about my sexuality. It is assumed I am a heterosexual.

I can remain oblivious of the language and culture of LGBTQ folk without feeling in my culture any penalty for such oblivion.

I can go for months without being called straight.

I’m not grouped because of my sexual orientation.

My individual behavior does not reflect on people who identity as heterosexual.

In everyday conversation, the language my friends and I use generally assumes my sexual orientation. For example, sex inappropriately referring to only heterosexual sex or family meaning heterosexual relationships with kids.

People do not assume I am experienced in sex (or that I even have it!) merely because of my sexual orientation.

I can kiss a person of the opposite gender without being watched and stared at.

Nobody calls me straight with maliciousness.

People can use terms that describe my sexual orientation and mean positive things (IE “straight as an arrow”, “standing up straight” or “straightened out” ) instead of demeaning terms (IE “ewww, that’s gay” or being “queer” ) .

I am not asked to think about why I am straight.

I can be open about my sexual orientation without worrying about my job.


All of this isn’t to say that straight people have it easy by virtue of being straight. We all have our challenges and obstacles. But the heterosexual privilege may help some straight people get a better and deeper understanding of what it’s like to be gay in today’s society.

An Amazing Day

Last Friday. Wow. It's gonna be hard to beat that one.

A year ago on 24th June I stood on a stone jetty on the shore of Cape Cod and had the privilege of officiating at not one but two marriage ceremonies, both read from an iPhone. It was picture-perfect. Blue sky, blue water, clear sunshine, smiles and happiness as you'd expect at any wedding. All four new spouses dear friends of mine. So Friday was their anniversary. I can't believe it's been a whole year!

I will always remember that day as one of the highlights of my life. Not only that, it was my birthday as well. How many guys can say that on their birthday they performed two weddings for four friends? How amazing is that? What a birthday present they gave me. Thanks guys!

And then this year, not only do I get a flood of birthday greetings from friends far and wide, and not only do I have the happiness of thinking of those weddings, but the New York state senate gives us all a gift and passes marriage equality. On my birthday. And on friends' anniversaries. Of all days! What are the odds?

A friend in Tennessee had a power outage at home for about 3 days, and on Friday, his lights came back on. He posted a Facebook status about it, to which I replied that thanks the NY state senate, the drive for equality across the country can say the same thing: "My power has come back on."

One of the ways we celebrated was with a trip to the annual Highland Games yesterday. My family's sense of Scots tradition is strong and we enjoy attending these events. I wore my kilt the whole day, though, not just at the games, including for morning excursions around downtown San Diego. You wouldn't believe how many compliments I got on it, including while walking down the street, a guy driving past slowed down, rolled down his window, honked, gave me a thumbs up, and shouted "love the kilt!" I shouted back "Thank you!"

I pity any guy who's never worn a kilt, or who doesn't have the guts to do it in public. It feels great. And imagine all the adulation they're missing out on. Plus you get the fun of being playful with brazen women who ask the predictable question. This actually happened to me yesterday. I told her nothing was worn, everything was in perfect working order. She said she still wanted to verify for herself. I told her take a number and call my admin, there were others queued up ahead of her. She laughed and got the message, I think.

I amused myself yesterday morning by reading through the comments to a news story about New York marriage equality in Salt Lake City's Mormon-owned newspaper. There weren't as many Chicken Littles predicting impending doom of civilization as I expected, a nice surprise. Sure there were some, trotting out all the old arguments that they don't know have been thoroughly debunked already. And I was surprised at my reaction most of all. A couple of years ago I would have jumped into the fray and started jousting with these people. Now I just shrug and smile. Not worth the effort. They won't be persuaded, their fears are groundless, and marriage equality is inevitable anyway. My challenging them won't change any of that. Demographics alone are turning the tide and bending the arc of history toward justice, as Dr. King said. I'm glad I'm along for the ride.

And now it's a beautiful perfect summer Sunday, quiet and relaxing. Time to catch up on sleep, go to church, relax and read, chat with friends, blog. I have a lot to be grateful for.

To LDS Friends & Family

I'm about to ask you to do a difficult thing. It is to read something. Something you probably wouldn't otherwise run across, or choose to read even if you did see it.

So, with respect, I will remind you that Joseph Smith himself said "by proving contraries is truth made manifest." That means we can learn truth by comparing and contrasting competing, disputing and opposing positions on things. And so in that spirit, that's what I'm about to ask you to read. This will challenge some of your beliefs. But remember that Pres. J. Reuben Clark said if the church has the truth, then it can't be harmed. So there should be nothing to fear.

This article was written by a friend of mine and it's been picked up by a national news blog. Please read and give good faith consideration to what it says. It may make you uncomfortable. But it seeks to do what Joseph Smith said, make truth manifest by examining contraries. Nobody should be afraid of that.


---------------------

Timed for the annual gay pride celebrations, the LDS Church’s official magazine, the Ensign, has an anti-gay manifesto in its current issue.

The article is written by Elder Bruce D. Porter a General Authority who was formerly a political science professor at BYU. The article’s subject is political, not spiritual.

Placing political op-ed pieces in the Church’s educational materials is not a good idea. In fact, mixing politics with religion, in general, is a bad idea. It results in bad politics and bad religion.

Three things struck me when reading the piece. First, there’s the virulence of its anti-gay sentiment. The article contains no words of compassion, just condemnation and a call to political action against families the Church doesn’t approve of. Then there’s the cowardice. The article doesn’t mention gay people by name, and it doesn’t use the term homosexuality. It is written entirely using code words. And finally, the article repeatedly claims victim status for the Church. It evades all responsibility for the disaster that was Proposition 8.

You can read the essay for yourself, but I will respond to a few of the most egregious parts.

The first four paragraphs lay the foundation of a straw man argument. Porter presents as controversial the completely uncontroversial position that the family is an important social institution. (Can you see where this is going yet?) After this set up, Porter gets ready to attack his straw man:

[M]any of society’s leaders and opinion-makers increasingly seem to have lost their bearings when it comes to understanding the vital importance of the family.

…

We live in a day … when good is called evil and evil good. Those who defend the traditional family … are mocked and ridiculed. On the other hand, those … who seek to redefine the very essence of what a family is, are praised and upheld as champions of tolerance. Truly, the world has turned upside down.

Sigh.

For the record, those of us who are on the receiving end of the Church’s political campaigns do not mock the Church. We disagree with the Church’s political actions, and we are harmed by the practical consequences of those actions. There’s a difference between disagreeing and mocking, even if the Church doesn’t see it.

As for the argument that proponents of marriage equality want to “redefine the very essence of what a family is,” one can also ask if President Kimball redefined “the very essence” of LDS priesthood in 1978. Extending the rights and benefits of marriage to a small minority of people has no effect on existing marriages, just as giving the LDS priesthood to blacks did not “redefine” the priesthood already held by others.

As usual, just exactly how same-sex marriage is an attack on the traditional family or on traditional marriage is not explained, it is merely taken for granted. For a thorough discussion of these issues, I would recommend to Elder Porter the transcript of the federal court case that overturned Prop. 8 in California. (Why was Elder Porter, an expert from BYU, not a witness at that trial?)

Next, Porter dismisses tolerance as a virtue while simultaneously accusing any who engage in debate over gay issues as intolerant:

Latter-day Saints are often accused of narrow-mindedness or lack of tolerance and compassion because of our belief in following precise standards of moral behavior as set forth by God’s prophets…. Until recently in our national history, tolerance referred to racial and religious non-discrimination. It meant civility in the political arena; in other words, respecting the right of others to express their views, even if we do not agree with them. It meant treating all people with decency and respect. Such tolerance is an important and vital part of our American heritage.

Today, however, the world is in danger of abandoning all sense of absolute right or wrong, all morality and virtue, replacing them with an all-encompassing “tolerance” that no longer means what it once meant. An extreme definition of tolerance is now widespread that implicitly or explicitly endorses the right of every person to choose their own morality, even their own “truth,” as though morality and truth were mere matters of personal preference. This extreme tolerance culminates in a refusal to recognize any fixed standards or draw moral distinctions of any kind. Few dare say no to the “almighty self” or suggest that some so-called “lifestyles” may be destructive, contrary to higher law, or simply wrong.

When tolerance is so inflated out of all proportions, it means the death of virtue, for the essence of morality is to draw clear distinctions between right and wrong. All virtue requires saying no firmly and courageously to all that is morally bankrupt.

I don’t know where to begin with this kind of twisted and self-serving statement. First of all, the Church is hardly in a position to bring up racial tolerance. Its racist policies were firmly in place within recent memory (I grew up with them), and it used virtually the same language in arguing against civil rights for blacks as it now uses for gay people! The argument, then as now, was (mis)framed in terms of morality and supporting families.

Now, as then, the Church seems unable to distinguish between what influence it should exert over civil laws and the influence it has over religious laws. Why isn’t Elder Porter railing against the evils of alcohol and coffee? Where’s the Church’s support for a referendum that would outlaw alcoholic beverages and Starbucks? And if religious views are so important to respect, where’s Elder Porter’s support of gay-affirming churches who want to bless gay unions?

The theme of Mormons-as-victims continues:

Curiously enough, this new modern tolerance is often a one-way street. Those who practice it expect everyone to tolerate them in anything they say or do, but show no tolerance themselves toward those who express differing viewpoints or defend traditional morality. Indeed, their intolerance is often most barbed toward those of religious conviction.

In other words, Porter thinks the right of free expression is stifled by open political debate. Porter confuses the right of free expression with an (imagined) right to say whatever one wants without having others who disagree get their chance to present their own arguments. But, apparently, the opinions of others (including those actually harmed by the Church’s political actions) don’t matter. According the Porter, the Church knows better than the people whose lives it seeks to disrupt:

By defending the traditional family [i.e., legislating against families the Church doesn't approve of], Latter-day Saints bless all people whether others recognize it now or not.

Excuse me for not extending my thanks as I watch my partner lose his right to live in the same country as me due to the Church’s efforts to “bless” my life whether I recognize it or not. Please, spare yourselves the effort! The Church is accruing some pretty bad karma with its effort to ‘bless’ people like me by attacking the one thing in our lives we care most about: our families.

In the middle of all the politics, Elder Porter does bring up one religious point. However, it’s the heretical idea that has recently been introduced by LDS leaders to the effect that God’s love is conditional.

God’s love is sometimes described as unconditional…. But while God’s love is all-encompassing, His blessings are highly conditional, including the very blessing of being able to feel and experience His love.

[This is an example of bad religion, and it's not coincidental that it is linked to unjust politics.]

Finally, it’s back to politics for the wrap-up, with a call to political action:

The Church is a small institution compared with the world at large. Nevertheless, the Latter-day Saints as a people should not underestimate the power of our example, nor our capacity to persuade public opinion, reverse negative trends, or invite seeking souls to enter the gate and walk the Lord’s chosen way. We ought to give our best efforts, in cooperation with like-minded persons and institutions, to defend the family and raise a voice of warning and of invitation to the world. The Lord expects us to do this, and in doing so to ignore the mocking and scorn of those in the great and spacious building, where is housed the pride of the world.

The sense of persecution is just breathtaking, and in case you missed it, the call to “give our best efforts” means to donate money, and to do this “in cooperation with like-minded persons and institutions” means to give money to groups like the National Organization for Marriage, a political organization that was created by the Church to get Prop. 8 on the ballot in California. (Elder Holland’s son Matthew was a member of the original board of directors.)

But there’s more:

May we as members of the Church rise up and assume our divinely appointed role as a light to the nations. May we sacrifice and labor to rear a generation strong enough to resist the siren songs of popular culture, a generation filled with the Holy Ghost so that they may discern the difference between good and evil, between legitimate tolerance and moral surrender.

Many younger LDS people are not okay with this message. It is not “popular culture” that makes young Mormons sensitive to the plight of their gay peers; it is an emerging sense of justice. I know many devout members of the Church who are heartbroken over the harmful ideas that Elder Porter repeats here. Many members are ashamed of what their Church is doing, and rightly so.

Elder Porter, please know that demeaning someone else’s family does not strengthen your own.

I thought things were changing with these folks. Apparently, they are not. Is the Church warming up for the fight in Minnesota in 2012?

There is a silver lining here. It’s clear that Elder Porter’s op-ed sermon is very defensive. He knows that the Church’s position is unpopular with many members of the Church and that its involvement in Prop. 8 was a PR disaster. The subtext of the article is a sense of panic that the Church is losing this one.

To All Christians who Oppose Marriage Equality For Religious Reasons And Say They're Defending Marriage And Religious Freedom For Our Own Good

To such Christian friends:

If you ever wonder why your protests of love and concern and "defending the family" and "we're watching for your souls so you must try not to be or at least try not to act gay" and "we're not discriminating,we're defending morality" ring oh so hollow, just consider the words of one of your favorite Christian theologians:

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals."

—C. S. Lewis

Is that how you would want to be treated?

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.