don't extinguish love

This is compassionate, intelligent and inspiring.

Thanks Craig, for sharing it!

invites that make you go hmmm...

I received an invitation this morning to join a cause on Facebook ~ Protect Marriage: One Man, One Woman.

Yeah. I don't think so.

I've been discussing this issue on a Hatrack thread. It's reminded me why I stopped going there...very frustrating at times. This is one of my posts on that forum (bold = text quoted from a previous poster):

Originally posted by Scott R:According to the court that struck down prop 22, there were 9 ways that domestic partnerships in CA differed from marriage.I've already stated that I see no problems with equalizing marriages and domestic partnerships by granting those 9 points.So the discussion, at least as far as my opinion about California's laws are concerned, is that obviously, it is not about civil rights; in that regard, there is parity.

So you see no problems with that? How reassuring. Do you actually not see the arrogance there?

This is not just about the rights you are so generously willing to see granted. This is also about the right to use the word 'marriage'. Marriage is an "institution that conveys dignity and respect to the lifetime commitment of any couple". It's like the water fountain argument someone made earlier. It's not relevant if the water is the same, or if the fountain is the same size or in the same locations. It is in the implied need for a separate water fountain that the denial of a person's humanity begins.

What is it about homosexuals that prompts you to keep the word marriage from them? Why it is important that their unions not wear the same label as yours? Why can't they drink at your water fountain?

Many religions have a building they refer to as a temple. The LDS church doesn't lay claim to the word, even though the temple is its most sacred location. In Hindu temples, people worship a plethora of heathen gods. I've been to several Buddhist temples in Japan and the level of commerce in those places contrasts sharply with the purpose and environment of an LDS temple. I'm sure that not a single 'temple' worldwide exactly mirrors the LDS temple. But so what? LDS temple patrons lose nothing as a result of these alternative definitions of the word. Those other worshippers, however, gain something by using it for themselves. The word has not only meaning to them individually, but also is understood in society to convey a certain level of respect and sacredness, even from those who think their beliefs are strange or abhorrent.

You can't just say that you are comfortable with granting the rights you choose to grant and withhold one that makes you squeamish. That's the nature of equality and rights - what you are 'comfortable with' isn't relevant, because your comfort isn't the goal.

orson scott card is an idiot...oh sorry, was that unkind?

Craig posted this document (Disagree But Don't Be Unkind) from Orson Scott Card. It should not be understood from that sentence that Craig agrees with the document. I had too many problems with it to contain within one comment on his post, so I'm writing my thoughts here. I'm also including some TG/GID-related thoughts, because that's something I've been looking at a lot lately and I think there are some connected issues. This post is way long...apologies in advance.

From the document:

Legalizing gay marriage has huge legal implications far beyond letting same-sex couples enter into marriage contracts. Once "marriage" has been so radically redefined, it will become unlawful and discriminatory for schools or any other public facility to favor, for instance, heterosexual dating or dancing.

Okay firstly, as to the (largely misunderstood and sometimes made up) legal implications, OSC really needs to read this document. It is written by a member of his church and very aptly deals with the misconceptions under which he is clearly suffering. Secondly, same-sex marriage has already been legalised in many places and the things he is describing DIDN'T HAPPEN.

Homosexuality itself is simply not understood. The available evidence suggests that bisexuality is far more common than exclusive homosexuality, that same-sex attraction may be a phase in some individuals and is merely an option for others. Even where individuals feel they have no option except same-sex attraction, we do not understand the cause.

I agree. We don't know the cause. He is using that idea to argue that we shouldn't be 'rushing into' legalising same-sex marriage. In doing so he is really arguing that we cannot allow what we do not understand. I think he is missing an important point. We cannot identify the causes of sexual orientation (there are theories, but nothing definite) - which means that we therefore can no more identify how heterosexual attraction is caused than we can how homosexual attraction is caused. We understand the purpose of (hetero) attraction (to propagate the species...some people even think homosexuality is Nature's way of doing the opposite, though Nature should really take away the parenting instinct with it if it wants to achieve that goal...) but that's not the same as defining what causes a particular orientation to occur in one and not another. Card may consider heterosexual attraction a gift from God, but wouldn't that mean that, by implication, homosexual attraction is, too? Not that his religious beliefs are the defining marker here, even if he wants them to be.

According to some members and leaders in the LDS church, homosexuality is indeed from God, but not so much a gift as a burden that will bring reward if the person can only bear it long enough. (Being born with a disability is sometimes explained the same way, except of course for the major difference that acting on a handicap isn't considered a sin, whereas acting on a homosexual attraction is.) This is the most common explanation I have been given (that it's a test) and I've been a member almost my whole life. I've been thinking a lot about this issue lately - the concept that some things are just meant to be borne and do not instead indicate flaws in religious thinking- and not just in relation to homosexuality, but also in relation to gender identity disorder (the Mormon church also believes that gender is fixed, eternally. The official church handbook used by ward and stake leaders, I just found out today. indicates that persons who are considering an elective transsexual operation should not be baptized and that while persons who have already undergone an elective transsexual operation may be baptized if they are otherwise found worthy, such persons may not receive the priesthood or a temple recommend. I have no idea what the official policy is (if one exists) on people who are intersexed). Overall, the conclusion I have come to is that homosexuality (or GID) makes no logical sense as a trial, temptation or life burden. The implied personality of God in that scenario is disturbing.

In the interests of being honest, and also describing how my thinking has changed, I used to see these issues like this:
Homosexuality can be accurately described as unnatural because it denies the biological imperitive on which so much of our instinctual human behaviour is based. Therefore the LDS doctrine on homosexuality as a wrong seemed logical to me on the basis that it was unnatural. GID to me was also an anomaly, even an aberration, to nature, to the way things were supposed to happen. Often I felt that GID was caused by imposed conformity to unnecessary and often illogical society-defined gender roles (and I have to admit that in thinking this I pretty much ignored the relevence of how the Church teaches and continually reinforces traditional gender roles in its doctrine and policy). I knew very little about GID and had no understanding of the way the physical body itself (its shape, development and function, which of course is defined by biology not society) can be a major part of gender dysphoria. I think I just put both of these things in the 'too hard' basket and forgot about them. I think that was the wrong approach.

The flawed underlying premise in my previous thinking, whether I saw it or not at the time, was that 'difference is wrong'. Over the last several months I've come to the realisation that difference is...well, different. And that's all. Difference doesn't need to be threatening, or wrong. I knew that logically, and I didn't see myself as a person who feared or rejected difference, but I think I still believed it on some other level, perhaps because my belief system didn't make sense otherwise. I don't even think it (difference) is inherently good (though it is often positive and productive for various reasons).

Something that is different to the norm ('norm' defined only as what the majority of the population experience) can be described as an anomaly...it's technically accurate...but so what? I mean seriously, people born with six fingers used to be considered in some societies to be cursed or of the devil and killed at birth. In other societies these things were seen as signs of a person destined to be a shaman or spiritual leader. My point is, sometimes (often even) societies assign meaning to things that have no meaning. This is especially true in terms of religion. We want an explanation. We want to understand why things are not as we expect them to be. Because uncertainty ~ lack of a discernable reason for something happening or existing ~ makes us nervous or afraid. We start to contemplate just how little we really know or control in this life and we don't like it.

Some people think difference is to be celebrated, others that it is to be tolerated, and still others that it is to be shunned or hidden. I think it depends on the difference at hand. I also think that there is a big difference between believing something (which everyone has the right to do as they choose) and legislating it. I like to use Mill's harm principle for these decisions. It's not strictly applicable in the sense that the principle refers to personal choices, and there's no denying that homosexuality and GID in almost every case is not a choice (I say 'almost' only as an acknowledgement that the feminist movement in its more radical forms did spawn a small number of 'political lesbians'). But the point is that if it doesn't harm other people (and causing offence is not considered a harm), it shouldn't be legislated against. Even if people really believe that a person is hurting themselves in doing some particular thing, they should not legislate to prevent the action.

And to be clear, my understanding of these issues, apart from what I've already explained above, is now is more like this:
I do not know why some people are homosexual or experience GID. I have not seen any convincing evidence that either of these things are caused by environment or upbringing. I assume there is a cause just as there are causes for all matters to do with human development and exceptions to the usual course of human development, but I acknowledge that we may never be able to define what that cause is. I don't think it matters, morally, if we ever can. Regardless of whether or not they are statistically anomalous, these things are real. That is a truth.
Religious belief should not be legislated. The Harm Principle should determine whether or not an action is allowed or forbidden in the law. (For the record, this is not something that has changed. I've never believed that religious beliefs (mine or anyone else's) should be imposed on others by law.) Impact on religious belief is not a valid reason to prevent an action or state that does not violate the Harm Principle. As an example, the above reasoning would allow marriage between two adults of any sex (and actually more than two as well), but wouldn't allow marriage to a cat or a child, because neither a cat nor a child can give legal consent and others are responsible for protecting them from (in the case of children even self-inflicted) harm.

The best evidence is that children are most likely to be reproductively viable -- i.e., able to mate successfully in circumstances likely to produce children who grow up to be reproductively viable -- when they have two parents, one of the same sex, and one of the opposite sex.

Given that statistically most gay people have straight parents, I do not see how this can possibly be true.

Growing up with opposite-sex parents, but in a society that has normalized and actively promotes one-sex marriages, will certainly affect the children of opposite-sex parents, potentially tipping the balance for children whose sexual identity is still formable.

I am stomping my feet under the desk.
1. No-one is talking about 'actively promoting' same-sex marriage. And even if they were, they would only be promoting it to people who are already gay, because hello, straight people are not going to consider same-sex marriage just because the advertising is good ~ this isn't a decision between holidaying at the beach or in the mountains, for crying out loud ~ and that being the case they would actually just be promoting the idea of marriage, full stop. That's wrong how?
2. 'will certainly affect the children of opposite-sex parents'
By itself, I agree. They may become more tolerant and less likely to bully other children for their sexual orientation or for the situation of their parents. I'd be cool with that.
3. 'will certainly affect the children of opposite-sex parents, potentially tipping the balance for children whose sexual identity is still formable'
With the rest of the sentence, that's a crock. Sexual identity is not formable in the way he's claiming it is.

Yet we are proceeding headlong into a vast social experiment whose consequences, as far as we can see, risk serious damage to many in order to create only the most marginal benefit for a few.What's the hurry? Why the hostility toward even the slightest opposition? Can't our opponents wait to get their way until they have persuaded a clear majority?

Setting aside the obvious point that no, as far as we can see, legal same-sex marriage does not 'risk serious damage to many in order to create only the most marginal benefit for a few'...wait for what? How should that persuasion take place? Political action is appropriate and seeking rights and recognition in the law IS a form of persuasion. It brings issues to the attention of society and allows a decision to be made. If Proposition 8 fails in November, it will be because a majority HAVE BEEN persuaded.

Can't they listen to people with ideas that are different from theirs?

Can you, OSC?

ideas + a link for those interested in proposition 8

From a recent comment:

P.S. Please keep on blogging. I like what you have to say and need to come by here more often.

As lovely and appreciated as that compliment is, in the face of it I find myself completely unable...to think...about anything...at all.

This, I think, is why I do not write for a sitcom or a newspaper column. I think inspiration prefers to sneak up on me rather than being drawn to me by deliberate will. This phenomenon is also the reason I was hesitant to say yes when I friend recently asked me if I'd like to do some improv. When I imagine it I see myself standing like an idiot in front of other people with a completely blank face and mind. Scary.

Still, it's a course in improv, not a competition, so maybe I will be just one of many people trying to recall back when they had a shred of humour and imagination in them (about 20 min before they were asked to do improv in front of strangers instead of in a friend's loungeroom while mocking a particularly bad B-grade horror movie, or the like).

We shall see...

Abby also provided a link to a fantastic essay by Morris Thurston on Proposition 8. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in Proposition 8 and particularly to anyone in California who will be voting on the matter. Thurston says, in his introduction:

An anonymously‐authored document titled “Six Consequences the Coalition Has Identified if Proposition 8 Fails” is currently being distributed by a coalition of churches and other organizations in support of Proposition 8, an initiative on the November 2008 California ballot. The intent of Proposition 8 is to overturn the California Supreme Court’s ruling allowing homosexuals to marry.

Most of the arguments contained in “Six Consequences” are either untrue or misleading. The following commentary addresses those arguments and explains how they are based on misinterpretations of law and fact.

The piece is clear, understandable and succinct ~ a very good read and relevant.

rethinking my views on marriage

Sometimes you need a couple of days to think before you get a little more clarity. This post is actually a comment I added to my post on why I am opposed to Proposition 8, but I decided to post it properly (and I have reworked it a little as new thoughts have occurred to me). I'm not sure that even now I've come to some final decision ~ not on the Proposition (I definitely oppose that) but on the term marriage and how it is and should or shouldn't be represented in the law. Anyway, here it is...

How very interesting. I've just realised that I contradicted myself. In the post I described marriage as a deep and lasting bond that requires the fullness of the law to express but considering MoJo's comment I decided that if a civil union granted recognition as a couple (and all that entails legally) that whatever marriage ceremony the couple chose to have after that could be meaningless in the law.

I'd edit it, but that's kind of cheating, no? :) I guess it's more accurate to say that I believe there should be a way to express that you want to be bonded under the law and that aspect for me is about more than religion. It also about recognition of that bond by your society and of course the wider more boring recognitions that exist such as in tax and inheritance law and the like. I have called that bond marriage before and it still feels right to call it that, even if I am talking about a wholly non-religious legal union.

I know that some people see marriage as being a partnership between a (straight) couple and their God, but we live in too diverse societies for that to be the limit of the definition. I don't believe that it lessens marriage to use the word non-religiously. It has no less meaning in a religious context if someone else defines it differently from their own (different) religious or non-religious perspective. That's interesting to me, to realise that. I wrote the original post quickly because I was angry and I'm now maybe rethinking some of my own points.

I still do think that it is illogical and counter-productive to treat people who value the concept of marriage as if they are destroying it, and I definitely think that such a partnership should be labelled consistently in law - not marriage for some and civil union for others. Maybe it should be called civil union for all and marriage should be preserved for ceremonies with romantic and/or religious (but not legal) significance. Maybe it should be called marriage for all and any other meaning assigned to it is a matter for the individual couple and their religions if applicable.

Proposition 8 is definitely doing one thing I think is wrong - treating marriage as a religious term that can only be defined in one way. I say that not because the proposition mentions religion, but because the source of the desire to define marriage in the law as only being 'between a man and a woman' is a vocal few who see the term as a religious one imbued with only one meaning.

I think that that perspective divides the religious from the non-religious under the law (without any recognition that straight couples are deemed to fit that 'acceptable' profile, with no requirement to actually be at all religious). It also divides mainstream Christian religion from other religions or belief systems where marriage may be defined differently and yet be just as meaningful to those who choose to participate in it. True religious freedom cannot exist where one religious viewpoint is privileged in the law and civil (and sometimes human) rights take a beating in that scenario, too.

And in a related note...to all those California Mormons supporting Proposition 8, remember there is a reason that Alma the Younger resigned his post as chief judge in order to preach to the people. It's a little thing we like to call separation of church and state. His dual roles as chief judge and religious leader were not interconnected. So stop thinking that the church you belong to should define the status of others under the law...yes, even if the prophet said otherwise. Definitions under the law should reflect everyone's rights. There is nothing there that is going to change how Mormons define marriage in religious terms ~ civil marriage ALREADY differs from temple marriage in concept and wording. So marriage is already defined differently in law to the meaning that the LDS church assigns to it. Allowing the legal definition to reflect the broader and diverse society religious and other freedoms create is not going to hurt you or your marriages. Please bear that in mind when you vote on this issue.

california dreaming

I've heard a lot of rumours about 'the gays'. Haven't you? You know the ones about how promiscuous they are, out at the clubs all the time or in the park committing lewd acts with strangers and the like.* I mean, gosh, it's just all about the sex with these people. Isn't it?

Imagine my surprise then, to find out just how many loving, devoted same-sex couples there are out there wanting to stand before their family, friends and all the world, and marry. They want to make a beautiful and binding commitment that ties them together romantically and legally. What could these crazy folk be thinking? Why it's just like they're really in love or something...**

/sarcasm

I've been reading a lot lately on Proposition 8. Basically Proposition 8 will, if passed, define 'marriage' in California law as being 'between a man and woman'. I've heard various opinions on the whole same-sex marriage subject. Some people claim that civil unions afford gay couples all the same rights under the law. I've certainly heard much to the contrary.

I've also read that marriage is sacred and that any redefinition of the law will besmirch the sanctity of the union. This to me is an ugly claim. Did it hurt marriage when the law was changed so that people of the same race could marry? Did you know that the original suffragettes wanted the vote (and other things that represented independence and equality for women) because they felt it would improve the institution of marriage. They argued that if women were independent ~ able for example to work and own property in their own name ~ they would marry by choice and not because they were dependent on marrying in order to survive. Prior to these developments marriage was like a union between a man and his property (in terms of how it played out in law. Obviously there would have been good marriages, too). Does that sound sacred to you? Do you think we lost something when a husband ceased to 'own' his wife? Both of these legal redefinitions fundamentally changed the perception of what marriage could and couldn't be and caused an uproar among conservatives during their time.

Now you have to understand that this issue is a difficult one for me. I've been a member of the Mormon church for most of my life (my parents joined when I was six years old) and for most of that time I was willing to accept what I was told at face value. Although this fundamentally changed for me about a year ago, I'm still attending church and still feel strongly about many of the values I learned there. But the Church's stance on Proposition 8 makes me angry. And on reflection I'm angry about the history preceding it, too. The history of institutionalised preservation of prejudice and unfair denial of equality where equality should or does already exist.***

I was shocked several years ago to find out that the Church (and some of the women in it) had actively worked against the Equal Rights Amendment. The 'wisdom' there was that giving women equal rights (including equal pay for equal work) would encourage women to work outside the home and 'abandon' their families. The myriad insulting implications of that thinking I do not want to delve into, but the one that I will point out is the idea that a woman's decision in relation to her marriage/work/life should not be determined by her own choice, but rather by a legalised dependence on her husband's good will.

Even after 1978, when the status of black people changed dramatically in the Church, marriage between people of different races was openly discouraged. When I heard about this, sometime in the 80s at an Institute class, it was explained to me in terms of culture, and by a man who was himself married to a woman of a different race. He explained that their bishop had told them it was not advisable for them to marry (though he did in the end support their decision and perform the ceremony) because marriage was hard enough even when you were starting on the same page culturally. Because there really were some huge hurdles for them to overcome in their very different perspectives on marriage and raising kids, this had come to sound like reasonable advice to him. And to me at the time as he explained it. Now I look back and think 'wtf?' That was a crock of shit and the fact that a man in a mixed-race marriage was feeding it to me shouldn't have made it smell any sweeter. Race and the POSSIBLE cultural differences it implies is just one of a LOT of things that can cause chasms of misunderstanding to be overcome in a marriage (different views on how to handle money immediately springs to mind).

And what of marriage itself? In a world where morality seems to be disintegrating and many people (with the obvious exceptions we all know who did all they could) seem to prefer divorce to any kind of work or sacrifice or compromise in order to help a relationship function effectively and lovingly, it is perhaps those who have been denied marriage who show a deeper commitment to it. I'm not referring to the straight people out there who value and work at their marriage. I'm talking about the growing percentage of straight society that don't bother with marriage, who feel that they 'don't need a piece of paper to prove their love' and those who do marry but never really respect that marriage tie ~ whether by failing to do the hard work it takes to maintain a successful marriage or by refusing to stay faithful to their spouse even though they entered marriage with that promise and intent.

My point is not that 'everyone must marry' or even that everyone should value it the same way. But think it's true to say that marriage as an institution does not have the same value in our society any more. For those of us who still think it is a beautiful and valuable thing, this seems like a shame, this diminishing of marriage. Yet here are the lawmakers in California and other places, trying to discourage and hinder those to whom it means a great deal ~ people who want to both bear and enjoy that commitment and who prefer for their children to grow up in families where there is a clear and unequivocable symbol of their parents devotion to each other and to the family as a whole.

These are not the people, in my opinion, who are threatening the institution of marriage. They look a lot to me like part of a small group ~ gay, straight or otherwise ~ who want to preserve the ideal of marriage as being more than just a common law arrangement or civil union, and being rather a symbol of a deep and lasting bond that requires the fullness of the law to express. And the fact that Latter-day Saints have contributed, at the request of the First Presidency, a significant amount of their time and money to supporting Proposition 8, is something I find both saddening and disturbing.

A couple of times I've been struck by the similarity of the sound of 'Proposition 8' and 'Preparation H'. And I'm okay with connecting the two. Because I can tell you right now that if I lived in California and attended church only to have a bishop read me a letter telling me that I've been instructed by the prophet, despite whatever might be my own feelings on this legal and not religious matter, to vote against the court-established civil rights of others, I would certainly be telling him to stick it up his ass.



*Re lewd behaviour in parks, ironically many of the men doing this are married men who don't want anyone to know they are not quite as straight as they pretend to be. Dishonest men like that also help spread HIV because carrying and using a condom makes it look like you planned to be there, and then you can't pretend you 'just got drunk and didn't know what you were doing' when someone finds out.

**The couple pictured here are Phyllis Lyon (then 79) and Del Martin (then 83), the first same-sex couple to receive a marriage licence in San Francisco. At that time (2004) they had been together 51 years.

***Yes, the LDS church is not the only church with a jaded, bigoted or mysogynistic past ~ in some cases, the LDS church pales in comparison with churches whose history stretches back into more barbaric times. But this is my church, and it is its history that I feel I have the right to comment on the most.