PROP 8 HEARING

I posted the 2.5 hours of debate!! There's some good stuff here!!

I think we're getting closer!! The anticipation is killing me!!

What do you think??

California's Prop 8 Hearing, Part One

California's Prop 8 Hearing, Part Two

WHAT PROP 8 DEBATE?

First of all, here is the official court ruling on Proposition 8 from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California: http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/California-Prop-8-Ruling-August-2010 .

It's 136 pages long, and I've read it almost three times front to back. I admit I'm obsessed...and completely flabbergasted by the results.

Allow me to summarize:

Opponents of Proposition 8 filed suit against the State of California, claiming that the proposition is unconstitutional because it violates the Due Process Clause ("No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law") and the Equal Protection Clause ("No state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws") of the 14th Amendment. This  unconstitutionality was successfully demonstrated by the use of 4 lay witnesses, 9 expert witnesses, and overwhelming scientific, political, and historical documentation.

The Plaintiffs also presented overwhelming evidence that allowing and performing same-sex marriages not only benefits the state of California financially, but by strengthening family units and providing for the physical and emotional security of children. They also proved that in no way does same-sex marriage harm opposite-sex marriage.

Defendants and proponents of Prop 8 failed to present any credible expert witnesses or provide any fact-based evidence to substantiate their claims that opposite-sex marriages are superior to same-sex marriages, that denial of same-sex marriage protects children, or that same-sex marriage has any harmful effect on opposite-sex marriages, on the State, or on society as a whole.

The court stated from precedent (Lawrence v Texas, 2003 and Everson v Board of Education of Ewing Township, 1947) that the government does not have any interest in enforcing private moral or religious beliefs without a specific secular purpose. Defendants failed to build a credible case that Prop 8 served any government interest whatsoever.

To be frank, it was a landslide case and the court had no choice but to pronounce Proposition 8 unconstitutional. To say the least, this court ruling forms an extremely powerful precedent for any future state or federal lawsuits concerning the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples.

In fact, this court decision is so pivotal that it changes the entire debate surrounding same-sex marriage. Those who oppose gay marriage need to muster up some form of verifiable data to back up their claims that gay marriage will destroy the institution of marriage or the family or anything besides the white, hetero-patriarchal, Christian imperialism that fuels every inequality and social injustice in this country.

With the decision of the court, the gay marriage debate no longer centers around whether or not to extend marriage rights and privileges to same-sex couples, but rather how to extend those rights and privileges. Before any sweeping legislation can take effect, the Supreme Court will have to rule that The Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (which states that only marriage between one man and one woman is recognized by the federal government) is unconstitutional.

From what I've seen there are two prominent proposals for extending rights to same-sex couples:

The first proposal is to completely remove the word "marriage" from legal and government language and replace it with "civil unions". The government would extend equal rights and privileges to anyone in the "civil union" category; whether same-sex couple, opposite-sex couple, or beneficiary couple (there is a movement to extend legal benefits/rights to those not in a sexual relationship). The word "marriage" would be reserved for religious ceremonies.

The second option is for federal law to mandate all states to recognize and perform same-sex marriages. This option also includes a provision that gives religious organizations the right to refuse to "sanctify" such marriages in their houses of worship. This type of provision works to preserve religious freedom as well as to emphasize the separation of church and state.

Hey, not bad. I just summarized 136 pages in a few paragraphs.

Some important tangents:

-The lawyers defending Prop 8 gave a presentation of their case at BYU in September (after the case had been ruled on by the court).

• This is what BYU's Daily Universe (the student-run newspaper) had to say about the presentation: http://universe.byu.edu/node/10561
• This blogger gave a more fact-based analysis of the presentation: http://www.reddit.com/tb/dcykg  "Chuck Cooper failed miserably in attempting to defend Prop 8 to possibly the friendliest crowd he will even encounter. The problem centers on the fact that he has absolutely no proof that state-recognized homosexual marriages would harm the institution of heterosexual marriage in any way whatsoever."

-I've heard many backers of Prop 8 talk about how unfair it is for the court to overrule "the people" and their votes on the issue (especially since it's happened before on the same issue in 2000 with Proposition 22) http://blogging.la/2010/01/17/same-sex-marriage-in-california-and-prop-8-a-brief-history/ . I find this viewpoint politically and historically naive; remember the whole 3 branches of government lesson from 2nd grade? If Californians don't want to keep having their votes overturned, they should stop signing petitions outside of grocery stores for legislation initiatives that discriminate against an oppressed minority. Just sayin...

-I'm also aware of people trying to argue that if gay marriage laws pass then religious freedom will be compromised. People are afraid of having to perform gay marriages in their temples, churches, etc. When I mention to folks that the gay marriage laws that have been passed in this country have provided religious organizations the freedom to opt out of performing same-sex marriages, they answer me with something like "gay activists won't stop until they've pushed their way into our temples" or "well the Catholic Church was forced to allow gays into their adoption programs" etc.

• First of all, I can't imagine any gay ex-Mormon pining for temple entrance. Gay members leave the LDS Church for a reason, mostly because of the oppression they feel; I don't think it's realistic to fear ex-Mormons spending all that money, time, and energy attempting to make an extremely dogmatic, oppressive, and hierarchical religion change it's temple ceremonies to allow gays to participate. Even if a same-sex couple did sue a Church for not performing their marriage ceremony, I doubt they would win. IE: separation of church and state, religious freedom, etc. 

• Second, the LDS Church was able to uphold its racist policies that didn't allow Black members to participate in temple ordinances and refusing Black men the priesthood several years after Civil Rights legislation was passed in the 1960s.    

• And finally, The Catholic Church was required to coordinate adoptions for same-sex couples in the state of Massachusetts because the Catholic adoption agency was partly funded by the government. Economically-independent religious organizations, like the LDS Church would still be able to refuse their services to same-sex couples.

Bottom Line: The debate surrounding same-sex marriage, and especially legislation like Prop 8 must take a different form, with different arguments.

Continued debate with old arguments over details that have already been resolved, reminds me of one of my favorite movies, Surf Ninjas.

A ninja-soldier gets thrown down a mile-long flight of stairs during a battle and when he finally climbs
back to the top of the mountain to continue fighting, a soldier from the other side yells:

"News Flash: your side lost!"

The man stops 3 stairs from the top of his assent, turns around and throws himself back down the steps.

I'm just saying that the old worn out arguments are no longer valid. If you've got nothing new to add to the changing debate, you might as well throw yourself down a figurative mile-long flight of stairs, because the old debate is over.

Finally, time to move on . . .

Of Motes and Beams

The LDS Church, though a prime example of institutional homophobia, doesn't have a monopoly on religious bigotry and hypocrisy. Mainstream Christians (i.e. Catholics, Evangelicals, Anglicans etc.) have been persecuting "perverts" (archaic term for LGBT community) centuries longer than Mormons have existed. The relentless storm of condemnation persists today in this country (U.S.) and in developing ones like Uganda...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/world/africa/04uganda.html

...but occasionally there is a silver lining:

Bishop Jim Swilley is the Evangelical pastor of a "megachurch" in Georgia. He recently announced he's gay to several thousand congregants. Many walked out of the assembly denouncing their previously beloved shepherd, but more stayed and stood by him in solidarity and acceptance.

http://www.npr.org/2010/11/14/131312723/out-of-the-closet-in-the-pulpit-of-a-megachurch?ft=1&f=1001

What's remarkable about this story is that Swilley's impetus for coming out wasn't a sex scandal.

Other rich and powerful preachers with their own megachurches have been caught in illicit affairs with male prostitutes and male parishioners.

Pastor Ted Haggard:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/02/national/main6541849.shtml

and more recently, Bishop Eddie Long:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20018905-504083.html

Haggard and Long are sad yet striking examples of closeted men who have profited enormously from spreading anti-gay rhetoric and propaganda from gilded pulpits of morality, while secretly indulging in homosexual liaisons.

But even their hypocrisy can't compare with that of the Catholic Church.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-19/world/catholic.church.abuse_1_abusive-priests-church-abuse-archdiocese?_s=PM:WORLD

Let me emphasize that Haggard and Long are not in the same category of hypocrite as the PPPP (Papacy Protected Pedophile Priests).

Digression:

Both Haggard's and Long's extra-marital affairs were with post-pubescent men not pre-pubescent children. They are homosexuals not pedophiles. The former term indicates orientation the latter indicates victimology.

Disregarding this distinction Catholic leaders use the heinous crimes they previously tried to conceal as fuel for hatred of LGBT people.

Father Tarcisio Bertone, second only to Pope Benedict, blames homosexuality for the pederastic predation in his Church.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/12/tarcisio-bertone-vaticans_n_534837.html#postComment?show_comment_id=44501935#comment_44501935,sb=705095,b=facebook

That's like blaming adult rape on heterosexuality simply because the vast majority of rape cases are men violating women.

(Here's a Newsweek article with more information about young female victims of Catholic priests: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/14/what-about-the-girls.html )

Orientation, heterosexual or homosexual or bisexual, no more contributes to the incidence of sexual assault than eye color.

Digression concluded...

Bishop Jim Swilley is now in the company of Bishop Gene Robinson who presides in New Hampshire.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/06/eugene-robinson-first-gay-bishop-retires-_n_779987.html

Though members of different denominations they are both examples of true Christian faithfulness as they preach inclusion and acceptance starting with themselves.

More Me Than I Used to Be

Dear Universe:


The world seems to be spinning faster than I remember. Things inside of me seem to be moving and changing faster than I've ever allowed them to before. For example, today I was taking a nap in the park when a sudden gust of wind blew through a row of aspen trees and woke me up. My eyes shot open and somehow I knew that another change was coming...coming fast. Not even an hour later, that change has outwardly manifested itself in the form of an eyebrow piercing above my left eye. I've never even had my ears pierced. It happened suddenly and without debate. And now, as I look at myself in the bathroom mirror I realize that even though I appear different, that this change is familiar, because it has been building up inside of me for so long. Staring into the mirror I recognize myself. I'm more me than I used to be. Even 60 minutes ago. It's empowering. It's natural. It's good to be me.


Signed,
Myself
___________________________________________________________________
I hope this simple, yet real-life experience can serve a substantial purpose as a metaphor for why I've started this blog.


My story starts a quarter of a century ago when I was born into a very loving and very... Mormon family. My story began to really escalate 2 years ago, this weekend, when I "came out" to myself. After years of suppressing my desire for women, the reality of who I am finally bubbled up to the surface. I was alone, in my apartment and the world began to spin. As I stood in front of the mirror I saw a change in myself that was powerful and real. It's a bit difficult to explain. It wasn't as though I was suddenly gay; it was that I had suddenly chosen to acknowledge that part of myself.

I'd been building up to this moment for years and now that it was finally here, I looked different. I detected a change in myself, but I realized in that moment that I was more myself than I'd ever been before. I was Mormon and Gay. A walking paradox, as some of my friends have put it. Somewhere deep inside of me I knew that those 2 pieces of myself couldn't possibly coexist and that ultimately they would fight to the death. And that moment was the true beginning of that fight. 

I knew it then. That's why I threw up. 

Since that night 2 years ago I've been torn between those two worlds; Mormon and Gay. Like so many others I've met along the way, I've tried to deny my gayness in favor of my mormon-ness. Then I tried to reconcile my gayness with my mormon-ness; tried to have one foot in both worlds. Finally, after an intense internal battle my gayness won. Sometimes I feel like it would take an eternity to describe why and how.

But I can explain why I'm blogging about it. So many people are experiencing this internal battle; Gay vs. Mormon. Mormon is a parasite and the only way it can win this battle is by killing its host. I know. It almost killed me.

I can no longer sit on the sidelines of the Prop 8 debates and gay rights fights. In my mind there is no more justification for the Mormon side. My friends are dying.

This blog is the beginning of my activism. I hope it reaches some of those who struggle.

-Lilith

Litmus of Progress

Let's first consider the enduring Mormon view of homosexuality exemplified in the seminal exposition on morality by Spencer Kimball, the twelfth president of the LDS Church:

The Miracle of Forgiveness (first published in 1969)

"Homosexuality is an ugly sin, repugnant...embarrassing and unpleasant as a subject...This perversion: Sexual desire of the same sex OR sexual relations between individuals of the same sex'...It is a sin of the ages...Sodom and Gomorrah are symbols of wretched wickedness more especially related to this perversion...So degenerate had Sodom become...the Lord had to destroy it...But the revolting practice has persisted...'the abominable and detestable crime against nature' ...perhaps as an extension of homosexual practices, men and women have sunk to seeking sexual satisfactions with animals...All such deviations from normal, proper heterosexual relationships are not merely unnatural but wrong in the sight of God...Like adultery, incest, and bestiality they carried the death penalty under the Mosaic Law (Lev, 20:13,15,16).

"The law is less severe now, and so REGRETTABLY is the community's attitude to these grave sins - another evidence of the deterioration of society. In some countries the act per-se is not even illegal. This "liberalizing" process is reflected in the United States by communities of homosexuals in our larger cities who demand acceptance of their deviate beliefs and practices as 'normal,' who sponsor demonstrations and draw up petitions to this end, who are formally organized, and who even print their own PERVERTED journals. All this is done in the open, to the detriment alike of impressionable minds, susceptible urges, and our national decency.

"If all the people in the world were to accept homosexuality...the practice would still be deep, dark sin...Those who would claim that the homosexual is a third sex and that there is nothing wrong in such associations can hardly believe in God or in his scriptures...one could never justify it while accepting the holy scriptures.

"Threat to Family Life...Where stands the perversion of homosexuality? Clearly it is hostile to God's purpose..."multiply and replenish the earth"...If the ABOMINABLE practice became universal it would depopulate the earth in a single generation.

"As Grievous as Adultery...Because of the seriousness of this sin it carries a heavy penalty for the unrepentant...Let it therefore be clearly stated that the seriousness of the sin of homosexuality is equal to or greater than that of fornication of adultery.

"Curable and Forgivable...As with any other sin, forgiveness and recovery are dependent upon the offender's repentance, which begins with recognition of the sin and acceptance of personal responsibility for it. There are those who are deeply entrenched in the habit and have no apparent desire to cleanse themselves and build toward a moral life. They are belligerent and totally uncooperative.

"Many have been misinformed that they are powerless in the matter, not responsible for the tendency, and that 'God made them that way.' This is as untrue as any other of the diabolical lies Satan has concocted. It is blasphemy. Man is made in the image of God. Does the PERVERT think God to be 'that way'?"

(p.78-85; emphasis added)

_____________________________________________________________

Now let's compare these explicit, authoritative views with some more oblique statements from the talk given by Boyd Packer, acting president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, on October 3, 2010, to millions of Mormons during the LDS Church's 180th semiannual General Conference:

"We teach a standard of moral conduct that will protect us from Satan’s many substitutes or counterfeits for marriage. We must understand that any persuasion to enter into any relationship that is not in harmony with the principles of the gospel must be wrong. From the Book of Mormon we learn that “wickedness never was happiness.”

"Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember, He is our Heavenly Father.

"Paul promised that “God . . . will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.” You can, if you will, break the habits and conquer an addiction and come away from that which is not worthy of any member of the Church. As Alma cautioned, we must “watch and pray continually.”

"Isaiah warned, “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”

(He shares a story about school children wanting to vote on the sex of a kitten.)

“You may laugh at this story, but if we are not alert, there are those today who not only tolerate but advocate voting to change laws that would legalize immorality, as if a vote would somehow alter the designs of God’s laws and nature. A law against nature would be impossible to enforce. For instance, what good would a vote against the law of gravity do?

“There are both moral and physical laws “irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world” that cannot be changed. History demonstrates over and over again that moral standards cannot be changed by battle and cannot be changed by ballot. To legalize that which is basically wrong or evil will not prevent the pain and penalties that will follow as surely as night follows day.

“Regardless of the opposition, we are determined to stay on course. We will hold to the principles and laws and ordinances of the gospel. If they are misunderstood either innocently or willfully, so be it. We cannot change; we will not change the moral standard. We quickly lose our way when we disobey the laws of God. If we do not protect and foster the family, civilization and our liberties must needs perish.

“I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise.”

“Every soul confined in a prison of sin, guilt, or perversion has a key to the gate. The key is labeled “repentance.”

“For those who truly desire, there is a way back. Repentance is like unto a detergent. Even ground-in stains of sin will come out.”

___________________________________________________________

Here's a link to the full text of this talk showing the content changes made by the LDS Church from the original broadcast:

http://mormonsformarriage.com/?p=299

It's provided by Mormons for Marriage, an excellent advocacy group for marriage equality.

___________________________________________________________

It should go without saying that I consider both Kimball’s and Packer’s views on homosexuality myopic and bigoted. Though the former’s words were more incendiary the latter’s were potentially more injurious as they effectively negate what many LDS progressives considered substantial strides toward meaningful inclusion and acceptance of homosexuals by Mormons, both culturally and ecclesiastically, over the last four decades.

(In the near future we’ll dissect and categorize the various Mormon affiliates that believe homosexuals eventually will have a stable niche will in Mormonism.)

There was a series of reactions to Packer’s talk, first by the local media, then by civil/LGBT rights organizations, and finally by the Church itself. An amended transcript of the broadcasted talk was disseminated by the Church and will be printed in November 2010 editions of the Ensign and Liahona magazines.

http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-1298-23,00.html

A Church spokesperson, Michael Otterson, responded to a petition, bearing 150,000 signatures, issued by the Human Right Campaign.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=12795071&pid=1

http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/article/church-mormon-responds-to-human-rights-campaign-petition-same-sex-attraction

Otterson's diplomatic statement was simply an overdue spoon-full-of-sugar to temper Packer's acrid message. It was neither apology nor retraction.

Dieter Uchdorf, 2^nd counselor of the First Presidency, also extended an olive branch to gay Mormons and their families last Sunday, October 25, during a regional conference for 200,000 Utah Mormons:

http://amoraloutrage.wordpress.com/2010/10/25/president-uchtdorf-on-same-sex-attractions/

Uchdorf comes across as genuinely compassionate and concerned for the wellbeing of all people gay or straight.

These efforts should not go unnoticed (nor should the many others that precede them) but the truth is that fundamentally the LDS faith and hierarchy are destructive forces in the lives of gays both in and out of the Church. That fact has spurred me to contribute to this blog created by my dear friend Lilith.

Let’s see where this controversial rabbit-hole leads.