It is not enough. I don’t forgive you.

I try not to be angry with the Church–not because there is no reason to be, but because there is no point to be.  I feel that my frustration will not change anything but myself; it will only make me a sorrier person.

There is one exception to this.  I know that regardless of how angry I am, the Church will not change their position on homosexuality.  No matter how hurt I am, or how hurt others are, the Church will not reverse their stance.  No matter how badly we want it, there will be no apology for their actions.

Yet, I cannot help being angry.  I cannot help being hurt.  And I cannot help hoping for things that will not come.  Yes, it is futile, but I can’t help it.

And then this happened: An official release from the Church in support of two nondiscrimination ordinances for the city of Salt Lake–one setting up protection against housing discrimination, and one against employment discrimination, both of which were acknowledged by the church representative as “common-sense rights”.  And that’s exactly it.  This is no great sacrifice on the part of the Church.  This is not a ground-breaking civil rights move.  This is common sense, a simple acknowledgment that gay people shouldn’t have to be homeless.

Yet the praise for this move is endless.  It is being hailed as a “huge step for the Church,” “truly breath-taking,” and some truly disillusioned person said  “this shows that the Church isn’t about discrimination.”  No.  This move doesn’t show a thing except that the Church is willing to budge a millimeter when they face a PR nightmare.  “Oh, so we’ve been party to one of the biggest American civil rights violations in the past thirty years?  Ok, lets give the gays the right (that they already had) to have a roof over their head.  That should make us look good.”

As one popular blogger put it, “This was a ruse from the Mormon church. Plain and simple. And most of us should see right through it. You can’t strip rights from thousands and then say ‘um, ok you can have a house’ and then call yourself a champion of civil rights.”

So for all those who suggest that this should mitigate the Church’s anti-homosexual actions, I’m sorry, but no.  Hell no.  This action is a slap in the already sore face that had to endure the fist fight of Proposition 8.  Honestly, the Church shouldn’t have even said anything.  If they’re not going to apologize for what they’ve done, they should just disappear back into non-political oblivion and wait for the anger to blow over; not remind us of their bigoted stance through acknowledgment of what is already “common-sense”.

I’m sorry, Church.  It is not enough.  I don’t forgive you.

Stupid.

Reasons why homosexuals should not be allowed to have children, according to a Utah father:

Parents need to “raise kids in a multicultural environment, meaning a mom and a dad.”

So “multicultural” now means man and woman?  How lucky his kids are to be raised so multiculturally (in Utah)!  Ha.

I loooooooove reading things like this.

Hell must be frozen over and pigs must be flying…

I don’t support a pro-gay marriage initiative!

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/08/massachusetts.marriage.lawsuit/index.html

Don’t get me wrong, I still support gay marriage, but I get an uneasy feeling about this. For those too lazy to read the article (I can’t blame you; I only skimmed it), it tells of how the state of Massachusetts plans to sue the federal government over the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). So, this issue will be taken to a federal court, and regardless of which side wins and loses, it will undoubtedly be appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court.

To me, this is bad news. It is easy to forget in our current liberally-controlled federal government that the Supreme Court is the exception to the rule. They epitomize the “checks and balances” thing that the Framers were trying to go for. With a 5-4 split, the Court leans conservatively, and as such, has recently made many bad decisions (Ledbetter v. Goodyear, Morse v. Frederick, Brigham City v. Stewart, Samson v. California, Rice v. Collins, Gonzales v. Carhart, etc.) and few good ones (Hamden v. Rumsfeld, Safford v. Redding, uh…. I can’t think of any more).

So is it wrong for me to not trust the Roberts Court with this decision? Granted, it might take a while for the gay marriage issue to reach the Supreme Court, and the chances of one of the numerous old conservatives with an apparent disdain for their cholesterol (I’m looking at you Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy) retiring creates a small beacon of hope, but it’s not enough for me.

Pushing the matter too soon could end in disastrous results. Even if God does answer my prayers and the Court becomes left-leaning again, it would be difficult for them to reverse any decisions that were previously made by the bigoted Justices we now have. Due to Stare Decisis, Court rulings are supposed to respect the precedent of previous decisions.
If the current Court decide to uphold DOMA and set the precedent that gay rights are not mandatory, how long would it take before a later Court could reverse it with out being accused of being “activist” justices? How long did it take for Brown v. Board of Education to reverse the precedent of Plessy v. Ferguson?
Let’s hope it will not be a similar situation that will wrongly excuse prejudice for another fifty+ years. We’ve gone through this before, and we don’t need to go through it again. We already know better.

A Response

So, I received the much anticipated response from David. It was actually a response to many people who disagreed with him, so there are some things that he addresses like Mormonism which were brought up by other people (I’m only including the relevant parts):

“well let me clear a few things up. Mormonism produces no hateful agenda whatsoever, nor do I. I do not, nor have I ever said, that I hated gay people. I really hate what they do quite a lot, but I DO NOT HATE GAY PEOPLE.

And by the way, I don’t care what you say to me, I will NEVER believe that people are born gay. It’s just not true. It may even seem like it to them but it is not true. It is never true.

Now about the issue of me speaking my “opinion” as “fact”, I do this because I know these things that they are true. Go ahead and say that I believe them to be true if you want. Just please understand what I am saying.

My tools here are logic, common sense, and simple right and wrong. All three tell me I am correct in this instance..”

Then, he kindly (or cynically?) referred to us as “You forward-thinking collegiate young people, you!” So here is my response:

Ok, David. Since you can’t keep up with us “forward-thinking collegiate young people,” I’ll put this in terms that you can understand– Mormon ones. Have you read the latest information put out on homosexuality by the Mormon church? There’s a pamphlet put out by the church entitled “God Loveth His Children.” In this pamphlet, it says that some MAY overcome their same-gender attraction (SGA), but “others may not be free of this challenge.” So when you say, “I assure you it can be overcome,” you are not speaking in accordance with the church.

Also, in an article written by Elder Oaks in the March 1996 Ensign, he states while talking about homosexual feelings, “Some kinds of feelings seem to be inborn… All of us have some feelings we did not choose.” But then, later in his talk he says the same exact point that I made earlier: ” Wherever they fall along the spectrum between outright rejection and total acceptance of biological determinism of sexual orientation, most scientists concede that the current evidence is insufficient and that firm conclusions must await many additional scientific studies.” So when you say, “I will NEVER believe that people are born gay. It’s just not true… It is never true,” you are disagreeing with an Apostle of God and you are being arrogant by saying that you know the answer when it is widely accepted, even by leaders of the church, that nobody does.

David, I agree with you when you say “Mormonism produces no hateful agenda.” The pamphlet, “God Loveth His Children” tells me this. The Bible and the Book of Mormon tell me this. Righteous, non-judgmental members who practice the Gospel tell me this. But it is everyone else that is responsible for spurring along this misconception of hate. There is quite a disparity between the Gospel and the Church, David. The Gospel of Mormonism preaches love and acceptance. Many members of the Church, do not. They distort the Gospel in an effort to appear more righteous than the next, and that is dangerous.

“So the church leaders don’t believe in homosexual marriage?” they think to themselves, “Then I’m going to disagree with homosexuality. I’m going to take the higher law, hate gays, and spread lies about them and their feelings.” This is not a gospel principle. This is a common distortion that breeds contention. And we both know the Gospel says contention is bred by Satan. These intolerant thoughts are not of the Gospel, they are not of God, they are of Satan. “God Loveth His Children” clearly states, “No member of the church should ever be intolerant.”

So next time you use your “logic”/ what members of the Church tell you to think, do your research before perpetuating the distortions of narrow-mindedness and bigotry. There is a reason why Mormonism is perceived as producing a hateful agenda, David. It is not a lie pulled out of thin air by more people trying to persecute the Church. It is a misunderstanding of people who, sadly, only hear the opinions of the distorters and not the opinions of people who exemplify the teachings of the Gospel. If they were to hear the opinions of these people, they would know that one of the basic principles of Mormonism is charity, something which we should have for all mankind. And charity, according to the Bible Dictionary, is “The highest, noblest, strongest kind of love; the pure love of Christ.” This–having the pure love of Christ for other men–is the aim of the Gospel.”

So, what do you think? I might have been a bit mean, especially seeing as I was talking about charity, but I wanted to get my point across. And later he referred to it as “enlightenment” and “teaching.” So maybe I did get the point across? Lets hope so because, in between blatant patriarchy and underlying racism, I really do not feel like the Church has room for that kind of ignorance inside of the controversy closet.

I love knocking self righteous people off of their high horses.

My friend, Andrew, is an excellent political writer. Like me, he is very liberal, and as he is part of the Opinion staff for his school newspaper (the Arizona State Press), he writes mostly of his liberal opinions. Each week, he posts his column on Facebook for people to read, and each week he gets some interesting responses. However, nothing compares to this week’s article on gay marriage.

http://www.asuwebdevil.com/node/5898
Andrew wrote a very informative piece comparing gay marriage to other civil rights movements, and it was very well written as well as very well evidenced. He used Supreme Court cases, Legislative Acts, and election results to add to the article–not just emotional appeal and his own personal opinions as to why gay marriage is not wrong.
He posted it this past Sunday at 11:57 at night, and almost immediately, he got a message in his inbox from his friend (for Leah’s added enjoyment, this friend was Justin Clement) who just recently got off of a Mormon mission. This message essentially said, “Andrew, I’m disappointed that you couldn’t wait three more minutes to post this, so that you wouldn’t have to spread such lies on Easter Sunday. Your article is wrong, and I’ll be happy to tell you why next time we see eachother.”
Awesome, right?
And then today, he received a comment on it from a kid named David who was in my Seminary class. The comment said,
“I got through a few paragraphs and, assuming the rest of your article built on your previous alleged logic, I chose to skip it and post the mistake I found. There is one fundamental difference between interracial marriages and gay marriages. Well, two. The obvious one is that gay marriage is wrong, and interracial marriage is not. The other one, which I also consider obvious, is that you are born black, white, red, or yellow – you cannot change that. Gay people, however, are not born that way – it’s a lifestyle. There may be some unfortunate circumstances that make you think it’s just the way you are, but I assure you it can be overcome. The bottom line is that it’s something you can change. You seem to have missed that very essential difference.”
I never liked the kid very much. And obviously, I thought his argument was bull shit, so I responded as such:
“David,
It is only an opinion that gay marriage is wrong. To go around touting your opinion as fact is invalid. Now to go around touting the opinions of Supreme Court cases and legislative acts, such as Andrew does, is legitimate. The only “alleged logic” that I’ve read here is yours.
Also, how do you know that people are not born homosexual and that it can be overcome? There are are no studies that answer either of these questions.
As there is no conclusive evidence to support your or my side, I will share my opinion (not fact). I don’t believe homosexuality is a choice. For many, I believe it’s a natural tendency. Although these opinions do not come as a result of a scientific study, they come as a testimony of many homosexual people. As my gay friend put it, “Why would a person choose to be a second class citizen? Why would they choose to face the constant discrimination and hate?”
Your “fundamental differences” are certainly not “obvious,” David. They are only obviously fallacious.”
Anyway, I’m anxiously awaiting his reply. And meanwhile, I have noticed that I no longer have access to David’s Facebook profile, as I am no longer his “friend”… what a shame.

General Conference thoughts so far:

So far it has been pretty good. I have not heard anything that I was hoping to hear yet–at least, not in the time I was awake–but that really does not surprise me. If they do choose to address anything, especially Prop 8, I’m hoping it will be addressed by President Monson (which means I’ll have to wait until tomorrow morning’s session) instead of passing the buck to some unfortunate pawn. That way, if something controversial is said, responsibility will be placed on the Church, not just some Primary President on her soap box.
I guess I’m thinking of the “Mother’s Who Know” talk. It was an upsetting talk, but I’ve had so many people tell me that it was not the position of the Church, but rather the position of Sister Beck. Really, though, is it a stretch of the imagination to think she could have been set up by the progression-fearing leadership who knows that the best way to stop progress is by oppressing women? Maybe I’m turning into a conspiracy theorist, but I wouldn’t call my “theory” ungrounded. As my sister put it in an article she wrote for The Exponent:

“The neo-traditional mindset of the correlated church is slowly dying. With every passing of a member of the Greatest Generation, the strangle-hold of “Father Knows Best” patriarchy loosens. And so it should surprise no one that we are seeing one last push for patriarchy.”

The rest of her article (It’s a really good one) can be found here: http://the-exponent.com/2009/02/02/the-times-they-are-a-changin/

Anyway, I’m ranting now, so I should end this soon. However, I did want to commend the church on having two talks from this morning’s session on living within one’s means. I believe that is very important, so I’m glad it was so immediately stressed by the Church. And I also want to commend the Church for not saying anything too offensive as of yet.

My General Conference Conflict

Four days from today General Conference will commence. Growing up, I never really enjoyed this biannual experience until I was around fifteen years old. It was then that I began an unspoken competition with my sister to have the best General Conference notes. Leah has always been very artistic, and although I never mentioned this to her, I envied everything about the notes she took. Her handwriting that was so sloppily slanted yet perfect at the same time. The delicate flowers and other doodles she would draw around the margins of her page. The colors she used to add interest to an otherwise dull sheet of loose leaf paper. Everything. As one of the vainest children to ever walk the face of this earth, I decided that that year, my notes would be better than hers. In order for me to do that, though, I had to listen very carefully to everything that was said. Each speaker’s name and title would be written in purple, then I would leave exactly one space between that line and the one where my bullet points would begin. To make my notes cuter, my bullet points would be little stars carefully drawn in yellow. For each speaker, I required myself to have at least three written observations, even if that meant I wrote down (in a sky blue colored ink) something painfully obvious. It makes me laugh to think of how frenzied I was at the end of a particularly boring talk about prayer where I had spaced out for a little bit, leaving me short of one bullet point. I hurriedly scribbled down, “Prayer is important,” just to fill the space. Although these meticulous notes still didn’t look as good as my sisters, I was proud of them because I had something substantial written from each talk. These notes were evidence that for the first time in my life, I did not fall asleep in General Conference, and I actually got something out of it. After Leah left for college, General Conference just wasn’t the same. I had lost my motivation to listen.
Putting aside the fact that I was a total brat who was overly competitive and always did everything for the wrong reasons, I can’t decide what I want to do for General Conference in a couple of days. Every time Conference is approaching, I am told by some church leader that if I make a list of things I want to hear and then pray about it, those things will be addressed.
Unfortunately, I think I’ll be sorely disappointed if I expect this. The thing that I really want to hear is an apology. I want to hear an apology for the stance that was taken against gay marriage this past year. I want to hear leaders admonish the members for fanatically distorting not only the Church’s position on homosexuality, but on pretty much everything. I want to hear an apology to the women of the Church for raising them in a culture of oppression. Along with this apology, I’d like to hear a resort to do better. That is what I want.
Here is what I expect: I expect women’s issues to be completely ignored like usual. I certainly don’t expect anything profound in a positive and progressive way to be said on this matter. Perhaps they will say something that puts the women’s movement back another ten years, but I suspect they’ll shy away from that until people forget about the “Mother’s Who Know” fiasco. If women are mentioned, I believe it will be in relation to homosexuality, perhaps with a not-so-subtle dig saying that both a man and a woman need to be in the home because each has their own prospective roles. I do expect the church to address homosexuality, stating that we love and accept our LGBT brothers and sisters, but emphasizing that we do not want to give them the sacred right of marriage. I expect that at least one speaker will talk about following “our beloved Prophet,” and that our willingness to do so is a “separating the wheat from the tares” sort of test. This last expectation is one of the main reasons I don’t want to go. I do not want to feel chastised by more self-righteous people about something that is so personal to me (or am I just being hard-hearted? And yes, I am saying that facetiously).
Another reason I do not want to go to Conference is because homosexual organizations, in a brilliant PR move, have decided to gather in Salt Lake to do service over the weekend. They are hoping to show the LDS community that they are productive and contributing members of society that do not need to be feared. I feel that this is the epitome of “turning the other cheek,” and I would love to be a part of it to show my support. And, to clarify because I already had my mother rudely ask me this question, I do not want to go because I am a lesbian. I want to go because I am an ally.
So those are my options: Go to General Conference hoping to be uplifted and hoping to hear my problems addressed, but most likely leaving offended, upset, and resentful; or try to find a gay group and pull weeds out of a flower garden in some random public park.
Any insights?

Common Ground Initiative HB288

Today the Common Ground Initiatives made their way to the Utah State Legislature. These initiatives were put in place to fortify civil rights for Homosexuals in Utah. These bills proposed things such as creating job security, visitation rights, inheritance rights, housing rights, etc. for the Utah Homosexual community. All of these were great initiatives securing for the LGBT inhabitants of this state basic rights, something that the Mormon Church, during the Proposition 8 times, said they supported (For those who don’t remember, the Church said they did not object to certain rights being offered to all human beings, marriage just wasn’t one of them). Because there was no controversy created by the Church in regards to the Common Grounds Initiative, there was actually some hope for success in them. Even Governor Hunstman, the extremely Republican Governor of Utah, supported these initiatives–a good sign that others of his party in the Legislature would be more open minded and possibly even supportive.
Unfortunately, that wasn’t the case. These initiatives were rejected in the committee meetings, not even getting the chance to be voted upon on the floor.
I guess I should not be suprised; These are the kinds of things you come to expect in the state of Utah. However, I still found it unfortunate… especially HB288, dealing with adoption of children. This undoubtedly was the most controversial one, and as such, didn’t even have a chance to be passed, but that still makes me furious. Here’s a description of HB288:
This bill would have given married couples priority in adoption, but would also have allowed other couples to apply to adopt a child when no married couple was available or interested, provided the child’s biological parent or parents consented (or if the child was in the legal custody of the state).
Because I was so upset at the rejection of this Bill, I decided to send an email to the five Representatives who shot it down. Here’s what I sent them:
Dear Representative,
As a concerned citizen, I wanted to express my disappointment at your vote on this proposed bill. To deny to any child born into the unfortunate circumstances where adoption becomes necessary the opportunity to have a loving family is truly an injustice. A family is a family, regardless of marital status or sexual orientation. To deprive a child of the loving bonds provided there in based off of your narrow-minded views is selfish. When you think about the vote you made today, who does it really benefit? The child who is placed in the often times neglectful custody of the state or unfit foster parents, or does it benefit you and you anti-homosexual agenda?
Surely you cannot be naive enough to think that neither single adults nor homosexuals with the potential to adopt are incapable of raising a child in a decent matter. Any adoption process is long and tedious, but the ample obstacles and hoops that unmarried individuals and homosexuals have to jump through are put in place to ensure that any child going into their custody is going to a good home. The adoption process of a human child is not that of a cat or dog from a shelter. These couples are put through numerous applications, interviews, background checks, and great financial burdens in order to adopt, not to mention the prejudices they face from adoption agencies and judges. I cannot imagine that any person willing to subject himself/ herself to these tests would be going in to the adoption with impure intentions–something that sadly, cannot be said for all foster parents. And after proving themselves capable of passing these tests, I cannot imagine their household being an unfit house to raise a child in–something that sadly, cannot be said for all state custodial programs. Furthermore, after going through the extensive, tedious, and expensive process, most adoptive parents–married or unmarried, gay or straight–will have a sense of how lucky they are to be entrusted with the precious gift of a child. They will know of their child’s worth, and they will appreciate it, giving their son or daughter every opportunity they are capable of providing in order to help the child be happy and successful. What more can you ask for in a parent?
I do not know the specifics of your family, but assuming you have children, they are very lucky that they have a home to go to. They are lucky that they have loving and caring parents to provide for them. They are lucky that they have a family who will look after their best interests. It is truly unfortunate that not every child can claim that same opportunity.
Sarah Raynes
BYU Student
District 60

I’m hoping I’ll get some interesting responses. I’ll keep you updated if I do.

There are no words…

Ex post facto law: A law that makes illegal an act that was legal when committed, increases the penalties for an infraction after it has been committed, or changes the rules of evidence to make conviction easier.

Article I, section 9, clause 3 of the United States Constitution: No Bill of Attainder of ex post facto Law shall be passed.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/19/california.proposition/index.html

This article basically explains how the proponents of Prop 8 are trying to make the same sex marriages that happened before the elections void.

Do these people have ANY respect for the Constitution?

Why I still read the Daily Universe…

The Daily Universe, BYU’s fine student newspaper, is a source of love and hate for me. Hate because it is so obviously biased, ignorant, stupid, shallow, inconsequential… I mean, the list could go on forever. Love because of the little treasures you occasionally find like this one from today:
(To give you a little background first, the article was talking about students who got involved in the Prop. 8 campaign by going to phone banks to harass the poor citizens of California with incessant calls)

As a citizen of California, sophomore Anne Blaser dedicated 10-20 hours a week in support of Proposition 8. “Each time I left my apartment to make phone calls,” Blaser said, “my roommates would ask me where I was going or what I was doing. … I would respond ‘I am going to protect my future children!’ This is what kept me going–my love and deep desire to protect my future children from a society that has no sense of moral values or respect for the divine institution of marriage.”

This quote is a precious treasure straight from baby Jesus himself.
In all serious though, this Anne Blaser genius needs to get a job. Who has 10-20 hours a week to make phone calls? Also, why is she going to school? It’s obvious that her only ambition in life is to be a righteous mother in an immoral society. She’s just wasting her money and clogging up the BYU campus with her stupidity. She shouldn’t be allowed to procreate.

Maybe next time I’ll treat you to my #1 favorite article I’ve ever found in the D.U. It was in the editorial section, and it was so good that I literally had to cut it out and put it on my wall. Really… be excited.