Embraceable Me

This was initially published to and written for this blog's parent, All One Peace.


On February 18, I shared an article from The Huffington Post on Facebook that reflected on the impact religious organizations have on young gay people. I commented that the past couldn't be changed but that I often wondered what life would be like for me now if my church had embraced me for who I was. These are some of the things that come to my mind during these musings.

It was pretty obvious when I was a child there was the possibility I would be gay. Although I chased the Baldwin girls around the Moreland church's lawn in a game of kiss tag, I also loved to style the hair on a doll. By the time I was 5, I was kissing boys on the cheek in kindergarten and playing dress up with my cousins by wearing a certain purple skirt that I loved. I continued to crush on girls through my early adolescence but it became clear that it was the guys that sexually turned me on.

I was 12 when I learned that the church had excommunicated my uncle for acting on his homosexual desires, not for drinking alcohol as I'd been allowed to believe for six years. Two years later, I had my first taste of church discipline when I told my bishop I had been engaging in same-sex sexual play with boys my own age since I was 8. I was given a copy of The Miracle of Forgiveness, told to read it, and not discuss this with anyone but my folks. To make a long story short, encouragement to rid myself of these tendencies came at me from every corner, especially from the church. I was also highly encouraged to be interested in girls. 

It was also during this time that I discovered my love for and ability in musical theatre and vocal music. I wanted to be a stage performer so badly my soul ached. I was vigorously discouraged from pursuing my desire by authority figures in my life. I was told that that was precisely how my uncle had "fallen away." Trying to make a living in that wicked world was only going to further corrupt me, and besides, how was I going to support a family living such an economically uncertain life?

Usually, if a teen discovers a deep-seated passion for an art or a science, this is encouraged and nurtured. Given the right support, such individuals often become influential leaders in their fields of endeavor as they pass through high school and college. Basically what I'm trying to say here is, to quote Rocky, I think "I coulda' been a contenda' " in the field of performing arts. Although I fought my way through and am now deeply involved in music making in my community, I think there could have been much more. I am often seen by others as an example of thwarted potential and I'm not sure they're wrong.

When I was a priest, I had the opportunity to ordain a special young man to the Aaronic Priesthood in my ward. As I did so, I gave him a blessing that I knew came through me from God. Conveying God's love isn't hard when it's your basic nature to love anyway. When the ordination was over, the feeling in the room was powerful, many people were in tears and the bishop patted me on the back and told me I had a gift. I still have that gift to give, but the church won't accept it from me. I feel like there are so many ways I could be helpful and would like to serve, but unless I end the loving, committed relationship I'm in, severely wounding the wonderful young man I'm committed to, my gift is unacceptable. So what is the most loving course of action here?

Let me make one thing clear: I do not hate or demonize the LDS church. I am realistic about what it is and its place in my life. It's been over ten years since I was an active member, and this distance has given me a different appreciation than I would have had of the church's felicities and its foibles. (Ten points anyone for using and alliterating those words in a blog post?) Every religious organization has them and the view of them changes depending on your proximity to that body. I just wonder if I would have had as many peaces to put together had my experience with the church been different, and I sometimes wonder if there will ever be a time when my gifts will again be welcomed there.

I Should Have Been a Libra

Those born under the sign of Libra are supposedly peacemakers and proponents of balance in society. What I'm about to post is evidence I should have been a Libra instead of a Leo.

Something that really bothers me about many gay and lesbian people is their inability to respect the rights of others to determine their sexuality. For a group of people so insistent on being respected, many of them have a problem with that concept themselves.

An example of this is with the character of Felix currently on General Hospital. (I know, I just referenced a soap opera. Sue me.) He has a huge crush on another character named Milo. Up until Felix's appearance, Milo's character was written without any question regarding his sexuality. Within the context of the story, Felix keeps wondering if Milo is in the closet, spending time with him in hopes of helping him out of said closet, and discussing this situation with other people. Milo has stated more than once, in very respectful terms no less, that he is straight. In my book, that should have been enough for Felix, regardless of his feelings. No further efforts should have been expended to uncover some secret sexual desire hitherto unknown. And he certainly shouldn't have been talking to a bunch of other people about it.

Within the context of the writing of the story, I see signs that the new executive producer and head writer are gradually building up to a "Milo Comes Out" story. This saddens me deeply. It provides one more example for people to point at of a liberal bias in the media. It's sad because, in large measure, it's true. Can't we please leave our personal agendas at the door when dealing with these very sensitive issues? Personal bias distorts truth, and it's only in the truth that we are all made free. I really hope I'm wrong about General Hospital. I really like that show.

I also hope that, in the realm outside of TV, more and more people will truly respect each other. When someone says they're straight, leave them alone. If someone says they're gay, leave them alone. Or strike up a lively discourse on the weather and end up being really good friends. Just don't decide for someone else how they feel, and please don't tell them how to behave. (Unless they're trying to kill someone. Then you have every right to stop them.)

I said this would be a place for me to rant. Well, here it is.

Marriage In Our Time

Today, the United States Supreme Court heard arguments regarding California's notorious Prop 8 law. Tomorrow they will hear arguments over the Defense of Marriage Act. This issue has been sharply divisive since it was raised in 1993 in Hawaii. Today, one of my very good friends exercised his right to free speech on Facebook, stating he felt that marriage was originally a religious institution. The implication was that marriage should be left up to religious bodies to administer, not entrusted to the courts. I would like to outwardly reflect on why that is not currently possible.

The United States of America proclaims itself to be a republic. Over the years we've shifted more to being a democratic republic, but in any case, neither of those forms of government are theocracies. No church is recognized as the head of state. No specific religious body is entrusted with the governance of the people of the United States.

The government of the United States on both the federal and state levels has taken upon itself the legal administration of the institution of marriage. In so doing, the government has made marriage a civil institution. The word civil comes from the Latin root civis meaning citizen. One definition of the word civil refers to an ordinary citizen in a context set apart from their military or ecclesiastical identity. It is this differentiation between the ordinary and the ecclesiastical that makes my friend's desire literally impractical in the United States.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was adopted on July 9, 1868 in the wake of the Civil War. Previous to that, the Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court (1857) had held that persons of African descent could not be citizens of the United States. The Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment overturned the Court's decision, making all people eligible for citizenship with all the rights, privileges and responsibilities it entails, regardless of their skin color or genitalia.

Given its responsibility to treat all citizens equally under the law, the United States government either needs to completely divest itself of all legal authority regarding marriage or it needs to uphold its promise and allow any consenting citizens of legal age to enter into the civil institution of marriage. Either scenario will create more questions regarding employment, benefits, and other ordinary details of life even in the context of churches, but it cannot continue to stand as it is. We are either one nation or we are merely a geographic mass of neighboring states. The last time we tried to divide our nation, it was bloody and ultimately we decided to remain one nation. (That's what losing a war means for anyone who would like to challenge me on that. It means you have to go with what the winners want, and the winners wanted one nation, not two.)

As for marriage as a religious institution, ideas about what it means and what is acceptable or not have changed through the centuries. At one time, it was perfectly acceptable before God, according to the Bible, for His chosen servant, Jacob, to have two wives. Civil and ecclesiastical marriages are two different things. We should leave religions to define marriage for themselves, but as citizens of the United States, we need to recognize that all people are created equal and should be treated that way.