On Friday night, I attended a screening of the documentary film "Add the Words". It is a potent opus that did its job, convincing me that the cause it chronicles is a worthy one. However, cautious skeptic that I am, I still have some reservations about how the equality war in Idaho is being waged.
The film begins with footage of speeches and sermons being delivered in Africa demonizing homosexual people. The violent rhetoric used is sobering as are the images of African men being publicly shamed and beaten. Those clips are quickly followed by scenes of violence occurring in Russia. An image that firmly stamped itself on my consciousness was that of a young man, presumably gay, being savagely choked in the crook of another man's arm, the crying and coughing victim struggling futilely to free himself from possible death. In those few moments, I understood two things: people really are suffering. even dying, due to hatred aimed at their sexual expression, and we in Idaho who have it somewhat better than people in Africa and Russia are trying to prevent the same scenes from playing out here. Things truly are better in Idaho, but not by much. The naked hatred vented in other parts of the world exists here but is often cloaked with a variably thin veneer of civility.
While I now more fully understand the need to put certain specific words into existing law, I am also concerned about the conduct of those striving to see the inclusion take place. I saw several things during the course of the film that could weaken the cause it champions, a cause I do not want to fail.
First, it is crucial that we who would see the words added take care not to antagonize possible allies. Surely there are other ways of helping the average citizen see their tacit complicity in the oppressive behavior of the Idaho State Senate than blocking the entrances to the halls of government for days at a time. Many of these people have just causes of their own to champion, and frustrating their efforts makes it less likely they will ally themselves with ours. Or, perhaps, it should have been made more explicit to the frustrated people trying to gain access to the Senate chambers that the obstruction they were experiencing is precisely the type of obstruction the Senate itself was imposing on the protesters. The people standing in front of doors with their hands over their mouths were more than a nuisance; they were a physical representation of the stonewalling they experienced themselves.
Second, we must also carefully consider how we respond to our opposition. In one part of the film, former Senator LeFavour stands with her hand over her mouth while a man hypocritically rages at her that she has only violence and hatred in her heart. She protests he is mistaken, but her quiet words only provoke the man to escalate his verbal tirade and it takes a state trooper to get the guy to back off. While Senator LeFavour certainly didn't do anything wrong, this episode illustrates my point. The man was using words and so was the Senator as she opposed his opinion. In essence, she was trying to fight fire with fire and it didn't work. It only gave the man openings to continue ranting and it would have been better for the Senator to remain silent. I am grateful that she, herself, did not allow her distress and anger to overcome her decorum. However, this episode begs the question: Wouldn't acts of kindness or service be a better answer to angry words? Would that not be more likely to win hearts and minds than any amount of talking we could do? There is, indeed, a time for debate, but it must be engaged in sparingly and in a timely fashion. In my own life, I have found hate can only be defeated with unconditional love, and service is that love's truest expression.
Having said that, when we must use words, we must be masters of logical argument, educating ourselves regarding flaws in logic so we can point them out in reasoning used against us and avoid using them ourselves. We must also be certain that the information we use is as correct as possible, with an awareness that any flaw will be exploited by the opposition. Anyone who has been trained in the art of debate understands this. One small instance I saw in the film is when the leader of the Add the Words campaign, a former active LDS person, stated that it was a sin to consume alcohol. Technically, a sin is something that goes against God's commandments. The Word of Wisdom that proscribes imbibing alcohol is "not given by way of commandment." Therefore, it's not technically a sin to consume alcohol, though it can keep you out of the temple. It's this kind of technicality or issue of semantics that damages credibility during a debate.
We cannot afford to become like Napoleon in George Orwell's
Animal Farm lest our cause lose its moral imperative. Our words mean nothing if our behavior contradicts them.
Finally, we cannot be victims. In saying this, I am not laying blame on those who have been bashed, fired, denied housing, shamed, etc. I am not saying the social and physical persecution only exists because people bring it on themselves. What I am saying is I have seen an eagerness to assume any adversity faced has bigotry at its root. I have also seen a haste to saint or martyr very complex human beings whose lives have ended by the hands of others or by their own, a status that strips them of their humanity and obscures the full truth of their lives and deaths. This is usually done to bypass rationality, directly appeal to the emotions, and illustrate the need to end persecution through tougher laws, but in reality that tactic weakens our position substantially. The most egregious example of this in the film is the invocation of Matthew Shepard's brutal murder. Enough evidence has come to light to potently suggest Mr. Shepard was murdered more because of his drug dealing than his sexuality. This does not negate the horror of his death, but it does cast doubt on the credibility of those who raised a foundation in his name, labeled his death a hate crime, and hold him out as the poster child for LGBT violence everywhere. The truth will either set you free or bind you depending on whether you accept it or deny it.
Similar simplification occurred in the portrayals of the two local teens who completed suicide. I was acquainted with one of them, and while I do not doubt he was persecuted for his sexuality, he also was known for a tendency to play fast and loose with the truth. This made him unpopular with many people in the gay community, yet these same people have no problem now holding him up as a victim and a face to rally behind. "It's for the children!" is a cheap tactic used by both sides of this debate to incite people to turn on their tear ducts, abandon reason, and head for their pitchforks and torches. It is vitally important to refrain from making emotional appeals like these and adhere to rational discussion of the facts, however inconvenient, because failing to do so is an exploitable weakness that the opposition eagerly calls us on.
This is truly a human rights issue, but due to the many people who think we should live in a theocracy, we are often forced to bear the burden of proof regarding the moral rightness of our cause. We must use supportable, well-presented facts to establish that this is a civil rights issue and set aside purely religious objections. Furthermore, we need to change those hearts and minds with the very Christ-like love they say they enshrine.
