1 Corinthians on Sex and Marriage

1 Corinthians 6 contains one of the texts typically used by Evangelical Christians (and some Mormons) to condemn homosexuality.

A lot of energy in the debates over this scripture focuses on the proper translation of a couple of terms in verse 9 that have been translated in the King James Version as "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind." A footnote in the LDS edition claim that the word translated as "effeminate" here means "catamite" in the original Greek. (I don't think that's true... I think the Greek word here is "malakoi," which means "soft". Who knows whether Paul was referring to "catamites" or "boy escorts" that were common in the ancient Greek and Roman worlds.) Another footnote links "abusers of themselves with mankind" with "homosexuality." In some versions, this gets translated as "homosexuality," in others not.

But, read in context here, I think the translation really doesn't matter. How we render some of those terms into English is moot, since Paul follows this list of sins with this declaration: "All things are lawful unto me."

What does this mean? It means that the Gospel of Jesus Christ does not consist of a list of do's and don't's.

Look at the context of what Paul says here, from verse 9 through the end of the chapter in verse 20. He's talking about "fornication," about "harlots." He's talking about a way of life in which we allow ourselves to be governed by worldly appetites rather than by the Spirit. If Paul is talking about homosexual behavior here, it's clearly homosexual behavior that's out of control, that involves prostitutes or random hook-ups, where sex is being pursued for sex's sake. He's not talking about relationships of commitment and love and trust. Assuming that to be the case would be the same as assuming that a condemnation of harlots is the same as a condemnation of sex between heterosexual married individuals.

Paul says, "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I WILL NOT BE BROUGHT UNDER THE POWER OF ANY." In other words, the question here is: Are we ruled by our lusts, or are we ruled by the Spirit?

Gay and lesbian folks historically have been so shamed and beaten down and have so much had inculcated in us that any feeling of attraction toward a member of the same sex is "grievous sin" that we often find it difficult to distinguish between "bridled" sexuality that is an expression of love and out-of-control lust. But that distinction exists for us just the same as it does for all of our Heavenly Parents' hetero children.

Paul here is saying "All is lawful"; it just needs to be governed by love and by the Spirit.

The context of the entire chapter here is the condemnation of legalism! This discussion is occasioned because the Saints in Corinth are actually taking each other to civil court and suing each other! And Paul insists that the Saints should be governed by the Spirit, and a people governed by the Spirit should not need to solve their problems in this kind of legalistic manner.

So ironic that a letter condemning legalism should be twisted into a set of rules that members of the church have used to condemn homosexuals.

*****

1 Corinthians 7 gets real about sex and marriage. And all of it is very relevant to LGBT believers. Read the chapter carefully for yourselves and tell me what you think. But here's what it looks like to me:

In the eyes of God, whether we are married or unmarried doesn't matter. It's up to us to decide what works best for us. (As Paul stressed in chapter 6, "All is lawful.")

If we have the gift of celibacy (like Paul did), that's great! It means we are free to focus all of our energy on service to God and to others!

If we don't have the gift of celibacy, we shouldn't try to force ourselves to be celibate. If our libido is too strong, we won't be able to resist the temptation of falling into "fornication," which will cause us to lose the Spirit. If we have a strong libido, we need to constructively channel it within marriage.

Marriage is a good thing. It can give us an opportunity to give ourselves completely to another human being. Once we make that commitment, we belong to our spouse! That requires a certain discipline! We have a mutual obligation to provide each other with the physical solace of sex. If we don't meet our spouse's sexual needs, we run the risk of libido driving our spouse to fornication. It's OK to go without sex in marriage for a time, especially for purposes of prayer and fasting, but it needs to be by mutual consent! One spouse can't just arbitrarily decide to stop having sex... That's unfair to the other spouse.

(Men's obligation to women here, by the way, is identical to women's obligation to men!)

Whatever state we are in when God calls us, it's all good! If we're married, it's good to stay married. Don't leave a spouse for the sake of the Church! (I found it very interesting what Paul says about believing spouses married to unbelieving spouses...) If we're single, it's good to stay single. But, that doesn't mean single people can't get married. They can! It's all good! It's up to us to discern what works best for us when it comes to these things. Paul is not trying to tell anybody they must do this or they must do that... He's offering advice. What matters is keeping the Spirit and channeling our sexuality in constructive ways.

We're all different! Some of us have different gifts than others. It's all for the good!

*****

Paul is adamant that celibacy should NOT be forced on people. To do so endangers their spiritual well being! It's best to find the right balance. Some of us don't really need sex. If so, that's great! If we do need sex, channeling our sexuality within a relationship will teach us mutual love and surrender.

I'm not sure these principles apply any differently to gay people than they do to straight people. I've seen the harm that comes from forcing people to be celibate. I've seen the harm that comes from pushing gay people into marriages with straight spouses, where the gay spouse simply can't reciprocate in the way that married partners are supposed to reciprocate. I've seen the good that comes from gay individuals constructively channeling their sexuality into loving, committed, same-sex relationships.

Is there a better argument than Paul's here for why Christians should accept and celebrate same-sex marriage?

Thoughts?

Sex and Marriage

A friend of mine sent me a blog post that has been making the rounds on Facebook recently (5K shares and growing) that claims to be an “invincible” argument against same-sex marriage.

The basic argument is that “romance” is a modern invention, ergo, relationships based on sexual attraction are also a “modern invention.” Modern marriage has been perverted by the introduction of “romance” into something that’s all about couple love and that forgets all about children and that starts basing relationships on the whims of fluctuating personal attraction, spawning a host of social evils such as divorce and (gasp) same-sex marriage. This has become a popular argument among lots of conservative opponents of same-sex marriage. (The writer of the particular blog I’ve read seems pretty pleased with himself for somehow having discovered this “invincible” argument against same-sex marriage, but the argument itself is old and was discovered some time after the “Western culture has always opposed same-sex marriage” argument ran out of steam.) In Mormon circles, to this argument gets added the smarty pants addendum to the effect that all this proves the words of modern day prophets, so just listen to what they tell you without thinking about it too much because they are always right.

My first bit of advice to folks, coming from someone who has a testimony of modern day prophets, is to please not hitch the wagons of our faith to flawed arguments about sex and marriage. I have a lot more respect for someone who can just say they accept the current doctrines of the Church on this matter. I had a conversation earlier today with someone I very much respect and love who said as much to me. This individual also, for what it’s worth, is eager to listen to and understand the experience of LGBT people. In other words, they don’t use their doctrinal commitments to close off communication or to stop trying to understand better, and I have even more respect for that.

It is true that modern-day notions of romance are, well, modern. Romance is hardly a modern invention, though. There have been a variety of cultural celebrations of the beauty of sexual love between two people: in medieval Europe, ancient Greece, Rome and China, and even ancient Palestine. Think Sir Galahad, Tristan and Isolde, and the Song of Solomon.

Whatever arguments you want to make, however, about the relationship between romance and marriage, all this talk about the evils of romance sort of elide the fact that when discussing the fate of gay people in society, we’re actually concerned not about romance and marriage but about sex and marriage. For obvious reasons, nobody would buy an argument that sex has nothing to do with marriage; nor that the pleasures of sex play an important role as the glue that helps keep a married couple together. Of course sexual passion has ups and downs in any relationship that lasts long enough. And, yes, people addicted to sexual passion who don’t have sufficient commitment to the idea of family, will find the temptation to infidelity difficult to resist. That is likely to be true whether you are gay or straight. Infidelity, by the way, was not invented by the modern age either. But sex — properly bridled — abides as an important factor in family cohesion, and has done so as long as families in all their forms have existed.

So let’s talk about marriage, because a major function of marriage has always been about the proper bridling of sexual passion, about taming it for the useful purposes of homemaking and family cohesion. Sex without marriage (of the non homo variety) would produce babies aplenty. We don’t need marriage to make babies. The sex drive (with or without “romance”) would ensure that happens. What marriage does is it produces homes for babies to be raised in. And that, by the way, is true whether or not the parents are gay or straight. Gay families have been carefully studied and it turns out they provide excellent homes for babies to be raised in. Obviously, avoiding the problem of children born out of wedlock is not a concern when we’re talking about sex of the homo variety. But unbridled, untamed sex and sexual actors can pose a threat to societal peace and family cohesion. As can forcing gay people into heterosexual marriages.

Gay “open marriages” (there are straight open marriages too, and a fair number of “mixed orientation marriages” that survive by way of open marriages) are not an argument against same sex marriage. Monogamy can only commend itself to gay couples under circumstances that are conducive to it — namely, by incorporating us into the fabric of the family and civil society, and by engaging us in the same set of moral rights and responsibilities we engage everyone else in. Fully integrating us into the spiritual fabric of society — the Church — would be important for the same reason. I can testify to the value added to my 25+ years marriage to my husband that comes from seeing him as my one and only. I can testify to the profound moral and spiritual significance to us of being able to be married. Please find ways to encourage and support that! Don’t punish the gays for supposedly being promiscuous, and then deny us access to the primary vehicle our society has historically used to encourage monogamy and commitment.

The need for societal peace and family cohesion and stability is one of the major reasons why society, families and individuals benefit from same-sex marriage. A lovely family portrait in my parents’ living room tells the story. My husband Göran and I, smiles betraying deep happiness, pose in a group photo with siblings and their spouses, and a gaggle of nephews and nieces who adore their gay uncles. Similar portraits adorn the family homes of countless gay couples across America. Gay families happily integrated into THE family, integrated into the social norms that create a context for happiness, stability and family unity will strengthen families and it will reduce suicide risk.

Marriage has taught me a plethora lessons about sacrifice, service and commitment, beneficial not just to us, but to those who love us, and to those our lives have touched. My enduring commitment to my husband has invited (and helped me keep) the Spirit in my life. I personally know hundreds of gay families who can testify to God’s blessings on them and on their relationships. This is not about “romance.” It’s about love and family.

Rude Awakenings

I've been reading Carol Lynn Pearson's The Ghost of Eternal Polygamy. Required reading for Mormons, in my humble opinion. I am not finished with it yet, but it is a rich and thought-provoking book and I feel impelled to share some thoughts in response to what I've read so far.

 My understanding of the sealing ordinance has always been conditioned by the principles taught in Doctrine & Covenants, section 121. That section says that a man who abuses his priesthood has no priesthood. Amen to it.

 So I have always understood that a man who abuses his wife in any way, whether it be verbal, emotional, or physical; whether it be through infidelity or neglect; has automatically annulled his sealing to that woman. The notion that a man who would do such things could be sealed to his wife in any way in the next life, just because of an ordinance, is a vile doctrine, a doctrine of devils.

If I got that from anybody, it was from my dad. My mother passed away last November. My dad loved my mother with great faithfulness and tenderness. My dad knows that death is not the end, and that he can be reunited with the great love of his life once he too crosses over the veil. His only fear since her death has been that he might in any way be unable to be reunited with her because he was unworthy of her.

My dad taught me to see a temple sealing like any other covenant. It is only in force as long as we keep up our end of it. And to be honest I cannot find anything in scripture to contradict that idea. There is much in scripture to contradict the contrary notion, that a sealing could be in force in the next life regardless of the choices we make in this life.

I have always known that it was very difficult to get a sealing annulled. I always believed this to be a reflection of Jesus' teaching about divorce, namely that what God has united man cannot put asunder. The way I worked this out in my mind was that any couple that becomes sealed is essentially committing before God and for eternity to make this particular relationship work. It's one reason that I, as I came to a self-understanding of myself as gay, came to recognize that this was not for me with a woman.

What I find appalling is the notion that a man could divorce his wife for any reason, including in situations where he had been abusive or unfaithful, and then be sealed to another woman, and believe that he will own both in the next life. Regardless of what the church practices or preaches in this regard, I believe that a man who believes such a thing is in for a rude awakening on That Great Morn.

And as far as I am concerned, any woman who is treated in such a manner has been released from her vows to that man, and is free to find someone worthy of her and, if she so desires, should be able to be sealed to that someone worthy. How could anything else comport with the justice and the goodness of God?

Fundamental Rights

A Facebook friend of mine posted on her Facebook wall a link to a web site in which a conservative commentator blasts the Supreme Court for eroding American freedom in its ruling on same-sex marriage. The friend, a fellow Bloggernacle author, protested that she supports marriage equality, though she is concerned about the way in which it has been achieved with this Supreme Court ruling. Her claim is credible, since she's been a very public supporter of marriage equality on her blog. I engaged in a discussion with a friend of hers about the ruling. He insisted that the court had invented whole cloth a new "right to dignity" that had no constitutional basis. I pointed out that from what I had read, the ruling did not rely on a "right to dignity" but on equal protection. He countered that the ruling only claims an equal protection basis, but doesn't actually make the case for it. At that point, there was nothing more I could really argue without reading the ruling for myself.

The ruling makes for very interesting reading. If anything, to read a Supreme Court ruling for oneself dispels the myth of some abstract "objective" working of the law. The voices of each justice, their perspectives, values and beliefs, likes and dislikes are there, on display, preserved for posterity, reminding any who care to read for themselves of the human element in the workings of the judicial branch of our government, no less than in our executive or legislative branches.

Having read the majority opinion now, it seems clear to me that while the opinion does use language about "dignity" -- language that is likely to appeal to gay and lesbian people who have been subjected to our share of indignities in the whole debate over marriage equality -- the majority opinion does not in fact hinge on some mythical "right to dignity." That argument is a red herring. The majority acknowledges that the central problems in the debate over marriage for gay and lesbian couples are whether marriage is a "fundamental right" and, if it is, whether gay and lesbian couples can be reasonably excluded from that right. The latter question is important, if we are to explain why, for instance, adults shouldn't be allowed to marry children. If there are any circumstances at all under which it would be reasonable to deny marriage, it's reasonable to require explanation as to why a previously existing restriction ought to be lifted.

The majority and dissenting opinions alike agree that marriage is a fundamental right that deserves protection under the constitution. But there are core differences of opinion on the question of what, precisely, about marriage is fundamental. Majority and dissenters agree that marriage has evolved over time, citing, for example, the modern-day abandonment of the law of coverture, which subsumed a woman's rights in marriage under those of her husband. If you acknowledge that marriage has changed at all in its history (which is pretty much impossible to deny), you can no longer seriously assert that no change ever can be allowed. You instead have to determine what is the core or central idea in marriage, and make a determination as to whether a proposed change harms or strengthens that core idea.

Dissenting justices insist that regardless of changes in the institution of marriage, the "core" concept in marriage is related to the gender of the individuals entering into it. The majority, on the other hand, sees the core concept in marriage being the voluntary union of two people. The majority offered corollary arguments that marriage is best defined in legal terms by what it accomplishes socially: the creation and protection of a viable social unit that includes two loving adults and is capable of protecting and nurturing children. And they don't see how or why gay and lesbian couples could/should be excluded from such an institution. The dissenting justices accuse the majority of creating "new" rights or of making fundamental changes to the institution of marriage. The majority insist that they are not creating new rights at all, but simply allowing gay and lesbian couples access to ancient rights from which they can't reasonably be excluded.

There is a fundamental philosophical problem related to the accusation of changing the definition of marriage. In order to determine whether marriage is being changed or preserved, it is necessary to agree on a definition of marriage, and that is precisely what we have never, through the entire course of this debate, been able to do. Conservatives are incensed that the court's majority have defined marriage. This, they argue, no court should do. But conservatives themselves are defining marriage. It is impossible in a decision such as this not to define marriage. The question before the court is whether or not gays or lesbians should be granted access to marriage. And in arguing why they can reasonably be excluded from marriage, you must define it (as a union of a man and a woman), which is precisely what conservative dissenting justices did in their opinions. Dissenting conservative justices have defined marriage. What piques them is that a majority on the court disagree with their definition.

Roberts indignantly asserted that marriage can't be changed:

[T]he Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are? 

But he, inconsistently I think, suggests that it would be OK if marriage were redefined by legislative or electoral processes. He states that this is happening -- has already happened in many nations throughout the world -- and was on the verge of happening throughout the United States before the ruling. He acknowledges that supporters of marriage equality are winning the debate, that "the winds of change are freshening at their backs." But you can't simultaneously be galled by the fact that marriage is changing at all, and congratulatory of the fact that it is changing through legislative processes.

The argument that the United States and many other countries throughout the world are committing some massive blunder by fundamentally altering an institution that predates human history is belied by the ease and swiftness with which this "fundamental change" is taking place. I think that if allowing gays and lesbians to marry were such an earth-shattering change, it simply wouldn't be happening. People wouldn't accept it. Human beings are notoriously conservative when it comes to things intimately connected to their personal lives. What -- this ruling correctly points out -- is more intimate than marriage?

I think the reason people are accepting the notion of letting gay and lesbian couples marry is precisely because allowing gay and lesbian people to marry changes the core idea of marriage not one iota. The majority opinion alludes to this when it states that the argument that allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry will harm the institution of marriage "rests on a counterintuitive view of opposite-sex couple’s decision making processes regarding marriage and parenthood." What matters most to the typical heterosexual making a decision about marriage is that they be allowed to choose to enter into a lasting union with someone they love. Allowing gays and lesbians to do the same does not undermine that concept, it reinforces it.

Roberts also appeals to the supposed knowledge of the "person on the street" -- according to him, that marriage is a union of a man and a woman. But that "knowledge" only became necessary when the gay rights movement made it possible to suggest that a man and a man or a woman and a woman should be allowed to get married. That suggestion created initial homophobic revulsion. It was only at that moment in history that it became necessary to pass laws banning same-sex unions. The heterosexual majority simply didn't think in those terms prior to the 1980s. (There is evidence going back centuries, however, that gay people have always aspired to be able to marry the person they freely chose.) For the vast majority of human beings, marriage has been a loving union of two people who in some sense choose each other. That "core definition," that understanding, is not being changed at all by this ruling.

Another element of this ruling has to do with the conditions under which -- through precedent established by the Supreme Court -- the court can overrule state laws on equal protection grounds. Laws granting rights like marriage are, by their very nature, discriminatory. They establish criteria under which the rights can be granted, and then necessarily exclude those who don't meet the criteria. The 14th Amendment guaranteeing equal protection requires justices to determine if laws unnecessarily exclude individuals who are in similar circumstances to others who are granted rights under the law. Conservatives argue that precedent requires the court to establish that the groups being protected under an "equal protection" ruling are part of a protected class. Gays and lesbians, they argue, don't meet that criterion.

I'm not familiar with the more arcane aspects of jurisprudence that guide the determination of what constitutes a "protected class." The majority opinion does give a brief account of the history of homophobia in the United States. It discusses the fact that gay relationships were -- until Lawrence v. Texas (2006) -- criminalized, and explains why that criminalization was wrong, why the ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) that Lawrence reversed was wrong, and why the type of discrimination that made such criminalization possible is unjustifiable in the American legal system. The opinion is a very eloquent critique of American homophobia. And it makes the case that you have to find a better reason for excluding gay and lesbian couples from marriage than that it's always been that way.

History and tradition guide this inquiry, but do not set its outer boundaries. See Lawrence, supra, at 572. That method respects our history and learns from it without allowing the past alone to rule the present.

Conservatives and liberals will continue to debate this ruling. Echoes of the debate that has raged around this issue for the last couple of decades appeared in the ruling. The majority responded to the arguments of same-sex marriage opponents that allowing gays and lesbians to marry will harm marriage, by pointing out that no convincing evidence of actual harm has yet been produced, and by showing how inclusion of gays and lesbians in the institution of marriage will be good for society. Dissenting justices accused the majority of trying to make policy through the ruling. But the majority ruling was not about why same-sex marriage constitutes wise policy. It addressed the policy implications because they had been raised by the opposition as reasons to oppose same-sex marriage. The LGBT community and their supporters were electrified by the ruling precisely because it addressed something far more fundamental than social policy.

Justice Roberts did issue a warning that resonated for me. He wrote:

By deciding this question under the Constitution, the Court removes it from the realm of democratic decision. There will be consequences to shutting down the political process on an issue of such profound public significance. Closing debate tends to close minds. People denied a voice are less likely to accept the ruling of a court on an issue that does not seem to be the sort of thing courts usually decide. 

Though I disagree with him that this ruling is not "the sort of thing" that the Supreme Court is supposed to decide (i.e., issues of fundamental rights, freedoms and equality), I recognize that not everybody sees it this way, and this ruling may, indeed, have some of the negative effects he warns against. It is precisely because Americans tend to prefer to make decisions through the electoral and legislative processes that OutFront, the leading state-wide LGBT rights organization in Minnesota, discouraged marriage equality law suits and chose instead a strategy aimed at convincing the public that allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry was a good idea, and then seeking to address this through the legislature (which was how Minnesota legalized same-sex marriage in 2012).

But the Supreme Court could not make this decision based on what tactics they felt were appropriate. A question was brought before the court, and the court had to make a decision. One of the main reasons courts exist within our constitutional, democratic system is as a resort for those who have been harmed by unjust laws enacted by majoritarian rule. If you read the stories of the individuals involved in these cases, you will see that they were harmed and they had good cause to bring their cases to the Supreme Court. And the fact of the matter is that majorities in the states involved refused to make legal provisions that would have prevented the injuries that occurred. In the system of American constitutional democracy, individuals who have been unjustly harmed are not obliged to wait for legislatures to get it right.

Whichever way the court had ruled, it would have required some working definition of marriage -- as the minority arguments themselves show. It required a determination as to whether gay and lesbian individuals deserve equal protection. And whichever way the court ruled, it would have had profound implications for the destiny of LGBT people in America. Had the court ruled against us, it would have embedded anti-gay prejudice in the body of legal interpretation of the highest court in the land. It would effectively have ruled us second class citizens. We would have been harmed by such a ruling. Thank God it didn't do that.

Those who say this ruling represents an arrogation of power by the courts are perhaps insensitive to the power that has been used to disadvantage and harm LGBT people in this country. The court has power, power granted it by our constitution. Thank God, in this case, it used its power to protect the rights of the weak -- something the Supreme Court has occasionally famously failed to do, as in the Dred Scott decision or as in Plessy v. Ferguson or as in Bowers v. Hardwick. Isn't protecting the rights of the weak, of minorities, against the overweening power of majorities precisely what the Supreme Court is supposed to do? You can argue that gays shouldn't be protected. But don't argue that gays deserve protection, and then criticize the court for doing its job.

Do Same-sex Marriages Fulfill the Law of Chastity?

In relation to this question, I feel kind of like I imagine Gentile believers must have felt prior to the Council of Jerusalem (described in Acts 15).

Many members of the Church prior to that council insisted that in order to be a member of the Church in full standing, you needed to live the Law of Moses. It was then that the Church finally clarified that conformity to the Law of Moses was no longer required. At the council, Peter testified: "And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost ["them" being the Gentiles -- who were not conforming to the Law of Moses], even as he did unto us; And put not difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?"

Ultimately the council issued a statement: "that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood."

It's interesting to me that they said "that they abstain from... fornication." The gay community has been going through an evolution in the last couple of decades, and is in the process of rejecting promiscuity in favor of commitment and continence within the boundaries of marriage. We've demanded no less than "marriage," we've been very deliberate about insisting on that word, because the word "marriage" clearly defines the kind of law we desire to govern our sexuality. And I believe, in consequence, we're seeing the Spirit being poured out on the LGBT community to the extent that we're willing to let ourselves be governed by this fundamental moral principle.

The gay community's embrace of the principle of marriage I believe is a perfect illustration of what Peter was talking about when he said "purifying their hearts by faith."

(And, for what it's worth... I don't see much evidence that mandatory celibacy is a "yoke" members of the Church are willing or "able to bear" -- though straight members seem willing enough to "tempt God" and "put [it] on the neck of [gay] disciples.")

I think the sign of whether same-sex marriages fulfill the law of chastity is whether we have the Spirit poured out on us in consequence of contracting and honoring our marriages. And I'm seeing an abundance of evidence that we do. So it's up to the Church now to figure out what to do with that evidence of the Spirit in our lives -- just as the Church had to contend with the signs of God's favor toward the Gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem.

A Gay Dad to his Son and Son-in-Law on their Wedding Day

It’s been an honor for us to watch Glen mature from being a boy to being a man. He’s become a pretty amazing man. He’s smart, and he works hard, and he’s concerned about others. He’s chosen the career he’s chosen partly because he wants to make his life’s work about making life better for others. And Glen loves his family, his mom, his sisters, and his two foster dads. And now he’s starting a family of his own.

I’ve been thinking the last few days about what I would say to our son and to his husband on this day. I hope I’m not embarrassing Glen by telling everyone here that one year after he moved out of our house and started living on his own in campus housing at the University of Minnesota, he called me on the phone one day and said, “I’m starting to learn that some of those things you were trying to tell me all those years are actually true.” That is music to any parent’s ears, as all the parents here will attest. So I would like to try to offer one last piece of advice.

People generally get married because they want to be happy. They want happiness for themselves. They see happy married couples, and they think, I want that kind of happiness. And there is happiness in marriage, a very special kind of happiness. But dig beneath the surface of any marriage and you will also discover a certain amount of anguish. But it is a very special kind of anguish. And that special happiness of marriage and that special anguish are interrelated. This is a mystery, but it is true.

That anguish comes from the fact that you enter into a marriage thinking that this marriage is about your own happiness. But marriage has a special way of teaching you that the highest form of happiness comes from making others happy. And the anguish comes from the painful ways that we learn this lesson. And there’s no guarantee that we will learn this lesson. Whether you learn it or not will be up to the choices you make.

As you know, I am a born-again Mormon. (And Glen has always found that confusing. Gay? Mormon? How do those things co-exist in the same person? And I always forgave Glen for not being able to figure that out because that’s another mystery.) But I am what I am because God spoke to me. And God spoke to me at a particular moment in my life, after a particularly difficult moment in my relationship with Göran. There was a moment in Göran’s and my relationship when we didn’t know if our relationship would survive. It was one of those moments of deep anguish that can come to any marriage. And Göran and I knelt down together in that little hammock room upstairs, and we exchanged wedding rings again, and we made promises to each other again. And in that moment I realized, this marriage had to be about his happiness first. And it was after I had learned that lesson – really learned it deep down in my bones – that I was finally able to hear the voice of God. And I can honestly say that having learned that lesson, Göran and I are happier today than we ever have been before in our lives, and I expect that happiness to grow every day and every year of our lives, and even beyond this life, because, as the great German philosopher Immanuel Kant believed, life has a logic that points us beyond our own mortality.

Glen and Will, we are here because we love you. All of us who are gathered here today are here because we love you. And the people who love you here most of all are the ones who have the word “parent” connected with the way that we love you. I know that from knowing Julie and Paulette and Rob and Göran. Parents have a secret language that only parents understand. And there are things that parents see that only parents can see.

Some of us parents have travelled further than others to be here. And I’m not just talking about the distance your mom Julie traveled from Iowa. For you non-gay parents here, I know it’s a rude shock to learn that your beloved child is gay. I saw my parents go through that. I watched them struggle with that and eventually come to some deeper understanding about that. And my parents and, Will and Glen, your biological parents, were willing to travel that distance because of the unique love that a parent has for a child.

 And Glen has two gay foster dads, partly because he requested gay foster parents, and partly because the State of Minnesota agreed that it was a good idea for a gay teen to have parents who could be role models to him. But we have been your parents not because we are gay, but because we have the same quality that all your parents have. We love you deeply. We love you enough that we’d give our lives for you. And we learned that love from marriage, from those particular lessons that marriage teaches a person.

Parents don’t always give the best advice. For example, I think one thing Göran and I told you was that it was very, very, very unlikely that you would end up marrying the first person you dated seriously. We told you you would need to date a number of different guys, and take some time to learn about yourself and learn about others before you could make a decision as important as the decision of who you were going to marry. And here you are! Oh, well.

 I’m glad you disregarded that bit of advice. Listening to others, but always, always, always trusting your own hearts will take you far in life.

So don’t listen to every bit of advice we offer. But you can bank on this piece of advice I’ve offered now, today. Glen, put Will first and you will be happy. Will, put Glen first, and you will be happy. You will both be very, very happy.

Always know  that  we love you!

Intimacy and Human Need

Recently, the Salt Lake Tribune sponsored a live on-line discussion with a panel consisting of Kendall Wilcox, Ty Mansfield, and Karen Penman (the mother of a transgender son).

The talk was too short to get into any depth discussing key issues, but there was one statement by Ty that I've been thinking a lot about since. I'm paraphrasing here, so you can go to the link above if you want to listen to the full statement in context. Ty said that "intimacy" is a "human need," but "sex" is an "appetite." This statement was made in the context of a larger discussion about health and happiness and sexuality. The implication, I think, was that people do not need sex in order to be healthy and happy. But they do need intimacy.

If I had been a member of the panel, I would have asked Ty what exactly he means by intimacy. I would also have asked him exactly how it is that adults are supposed to meet needs for intimacy outside of the kind of partnership or companionship we generally understand marriage to be. Family is the social unit through which individuals in our society (and as far as I can tell, individuals in any society) experience intimacy.

Friendship can and does meet needs for intimacy. But the scope and the depth of friendship is necessarily limited. Unless we're talking about the kind of friendship that spouses have with each other. Friends can and do provide intimacy that can't always be provided by a spouse. But as I have experienced it, friendship is a kind of supplemental intimacy. It doesn't really work as a primary source of intimacy. In order for intimacy needs to be adequately met for most people, intimacy needs to be something you come home to.

I'm trying to imagine, for instance, how, if the Church prescribes celibacy for an entire class of people (namely, gay people), what, concretely, will the Church do to ensure that those individuals' needs for intimacy will be met. Would families in the Church be willing to adopt celibate gays? Invite them into their intimate family life as family?

The Book of James springs to mind:

If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. (James 2: 15-17)

Doesn't the Church in essence say to its gay brothers and sisters, its gay sons and daughters, "Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled" notwithstanding it does not give us those things which are needful?

Now, that is not the only thing I found troubling about this statement. I found it equally troubling to hear sexuality reduced to an appetite. And I found it puzzling to suggest that just because sex is "an appetite," we can therefore dismiss the notion that human beings have a legitimate need for sex. After all, when someone uses the word "appetite," my mind generally goes to the subject of food. But as we know (as the Book of James reminds us), human beings can't be healthy without food. If sex can be dispensed with in a way that food cannot, then I would not describe sex as "an appetite."

But lets go back to Ty's statement. It seems to me that what he was saying is that intimacy is a need while sex is an unneeded want. Ty wants to divorce, at all costs, sexuality from intimacy.

But that, to me, seems to be the primary way in which sexuality is distorted in our culture. Sex is distorted in our culture primarily by being commodified. Pimps and prostitutes literally sell sex. Pornography is another form of commodified sex. And movies and fashion magazines and underarm deodorant commercials all commodify sex in varying degrees. And the mentality that allows sex to be commodified in any way at all is the mentality that says sex and intimacy are two different things. Banishing sexuality from intimacy makes sexual promiscuity inevitable. It demands sexual promiscuity.

The institution of marriage is the primary bulwark against the commodification of sex. Paul acknowledged this in the negative statement that "it is better to marry than to burn" (1 Corinthians 7:9). But God acknowledged it in the positive statement that "it is not good that man should be alone" (Genesis 2:18). What marriage qua social practice teaches is that sexuality is best practiced within the framework of committed intimacy. What marriage teaches is that sexuality without intimacy becomes meaningless. And meaningless sex is the kind most susceptible to be commodified.

I must take issue with Ty by suggesting that sexuality is a necessary form of intimacy. Sexuality -- which includes the very important component of attraction -- drives human beings toward intimacy. Sexuality creates family. It creates family only secondarily through the production of offspring that comes about when sperm and ova unite. It creates family primarily by creating the stable social bonds that form the framework for social care-giving. Two individuals form a family through the bond of sexual intimacy, and that family unit, in turn, is empowered through the emotional and social needs that intimacy meets to care for children (including foster and adoptive children), for aging parents, and, more generically, for the neighbor, the needy other. The bond created through sexual intimacy pre-dates the production of children, and it continues long after children are grown and gone and forming families of their own, and it always, with or without children, is a key building block of society.

Divorcing sex and intimacy makes no sense in any reasonable analysis of human sex drives and how those drives relate to human sociality. Or, divorcing sex and intimacy makes sense only as a form of special pleading necessitated by homophobia. It is necessitated by the denial of the social and intimacy needs of gay individuals. (As is the denial that gay individuals actually exist. But I assure you, we do exist.)

American sociality will continue to be distorted so long as we deny the reality of human sexual diversity, and as long as we refuse to see the ways in which different kinds of sexuality, and the different kinds of family that diverse sexuality produces, actually create flexibility and strength within our social systems. Strong, stable, celebrated gay families, in other words, will make our society stronger and more adaptable and more flexible. And perhaps the celebration of same-sex sexual intimacy within the bounds of marriage can even strike a blow against the commodification of sex that is one of the primary banes of our civilization.

Some of the most profoundly spiritual moments of my life have been moments of physical intimacy with my husband. How could the communion of tenderness, intimacy, vulnerability and physical joy not be profoundly spiritual? I have experienced those moments as a blessing from God, and I have felt God blessing those moments, blessing that communion. Out of that blessing comes gratitude, and profound desire to give back, to make the world a better place.

It is in those moments of transcendence that that kind of intimacy allows that I understand the divine purpose behind sexuality, and I understand that, yes, human beings need the full spectrum of intimacy for which God has designed us.

The Dalai Lama On Same Sex Marriage

I find the Dalai Lama's response to Larry King's question very interesting.

What matters to him is that a person follow his or her conscience. If you have a particular faith, he says, you need to follow the teachings of that faith. But if you can in good conscience enter into a same-sex relationship, if it is practical, and if it brings satisfaction, then it is fine.

He calls it "a personal matter." But this is different from saying "anything goes." To say that a person must follow his or her conscience puts the responsibility back on the individual. If we really feel that a same-sex relationship is the right thing for us, but we refrain because we fear what other people will think of us, we are harming ourselves. If, on the other hand, we really feel a same-sex relationship is wrong, we are harming ourselves if our choices divorce us from the moral framework in which we feel we need to live our lives.

The Dalai Lama is also clear that bullying or abusing others because of their relationship choices is unequivocally wrong. If gay and lesbian people must remain in the closet or are not permitted to enter into relationships with one another because of legal or social persecution, this becomes a "human rights issue."

"Voices of Hope" + Flawed Logic = No Win

First, I want to state that I don't believe the creators of "Voices of Hope" intended this resource to be used in the way it was in the Deseret News article yesterday on same-sex marriage. Northstar seeks to provide resources to individuals with same-sex attraction who wish to live according to the established standards of the LDS Church. I don't believe it is their purpose or intention to criticize or attack or undermine others' choices, especially when those choices are made after much personal wrestling and in good conscience. Yet, that is how the resource "Voices of Hope" was being used yesterday, the same weekend that members of Northstar were, ironically enough, engaging in constructive dialogue at the Circling the Wagons conference in Salt Lake City with individuals in same-sex relationships and marriages.

Here' a link to the Deseret News article. I will try to summarize the article here in my own words as fairly as I can.

The article began by quoting one of the individuals who is featured in "Voices of Hope." This person made a sweeping statement about supporters of same-sex marriage, suggesting that "they" were forcing a false, dichotomized choice between being out, proud, and in a same-sex marriage, or being closeted, alone and miserable. This false dichotomy was supposedly being used as the primary argument in support of legal same-sex marriage. "Voices of Hope" was presented as proof that gay people can be happy within opposite-sex marriages. Although it was acknowledged that "not all" gay people can make opposite-sex marriages work, the article implied that opposition to same-sex marriage was justified because opposite-sex marriage was a viable option for individuals whose happy marriages were documented in "Voices of Hope."

The main flaw in this article is that the argument in support of same-sex marriage simply does not speak to the situation of individuals, whatever orientation they consider themselves, who are happily making opposite-sex marriage work. Same-sex marriage is needed as a legal, viable option precisely for those individuals who cannot make opposite-sex marriage work, who have decided that their happiness, security, and well-being are best found in a loving, committed relationship with another person of the same sex. People in opposite-sex marriages, whatever their orientation, are already protected under the law. Legal reform is needed for those who are not protected.

For what it's worth, the kind of flawed logic presented in this article is precisely the kind of logic that is consistently being rejected by courts that are, one after another, striking down laws that prohibit recognition of same-sex marriage. Those who lean on this kind of logic will likely continue to be disappointed as the legal system works its way through a constitutional resolution of this difficult issue.

At issue here is a deeper problem. Our lives and our stories are sacred. Our stories deserve to be shared and listened to with empathy. Our lives deserve to be respected and protected. This is true of all people, whether you are in an opposite-sex marriage, a same-sex marriage, or single. Individuals' stories should never be used as ammunition to criticize others, and should never be used to undermine the credibility of other people's stories. To do so cheapens them and all of us.

My personal story of struggle to understand and know myself as a gay man, my near suicide as a young adult, and my ultimate decision to find happiness in my 21+ years long marriage to my husband, should never be used to imply that nobody with same-sex attraction could be happy in an opposite-sex marriage. Similarly, I believe it is immoral to use the story of an individual with same-sex attraction who has been happily married in an opposite-sex relationship, for however long, to deprive me and my husband of legal protections that we need and deserve. 

Let's keep talking about this, folks.

Random Thoughts about Marriage in Utah

Not in any particular order.

Random Thought #1
Lots of my friends here in Minnesota are asking me, "Why Utah?" Recently data was published showing that the Utah gay and lesbian community had the highest percentage of committed same-sex couples who were raising kids.

That's right. The Utah gay community seems to reflect Mormon family values. And in that value system love, commitment and marriage (and kids!) are seen as interconnected and important. Yes, gay couples in Utah have been yearning and praying for this for a long time, and their prayers have finally been answered.

Random Thought #2
This is a joyous time for gay couples in Utah and throughout the U.S. Every time gay and lesbian couples are granted the right to marry, there is a rush to the courthouses and the churches. Couples who have been waiting years -- sometimes decades -- for the right to marry don't waste any time. The Internet is then flooded with photos of people hugging, smiling, laughing, crying, laughing and crying at the same time, surrounded by friends and family rejoicing with them.

I feel sad for those who are angry; for those who feel nothing but Freudenschade, misery at the happiness of others. It's Christmas time, for God's sake.

Random Thought #3
What would have happened if conservatives, instead of satisfying themselves with blocking gay marriage, had engaged in a serious effort to meet the legitimate needs of gay-couple-headed families? What if they had done this 20 years ago, and not just as a last ditch measure to head off full-blown marriage for gay-couple-headed families? What if they had really been concerned about our welfare instead of treating us like we were barbarians at the gates, trying to upend civilization?

Because, of course, they were wrong about us. Marriage and family are the ultimate civilizing forces. We gay and lesbian marriage activists insisted that the dysfunctional norms of a community that had been shut out of civilization needed to be reformed. We understood the power and importance of marriage in a way our straight opponents and gay detractors didn't seem to.

But if conservatives had sincerely, genuinely shown concern for our needs early in this process, could a compromise have been reached that would have protected gay couples and their kids without admitting that gay couples were "married"?

Maybe.

But maybe it wouldn't have been desirable to have two different classes of families. That never works so well in a democracy committed to the principle of equality.

I'm still left asking the question: Why were conservatives never concerned about us? We were never trying to take anything away from them. Why were they afraid of us instead of compassionate toward us?

Random Thought #4
I find it a fascinating phenomenon that conservative judges appointed by conservative Republican presidents suddenly become "liberal activists" who are "legislating from the bench" when they rule in a way that conservative Republicans don't like.

The American system has always had that capacity for surprising us. It's why I am proud to be an American.

Random Thought #5
The Federal judge who made this ruling said that the state had failed to make the case that granting marriage to gay and lesbian couples took anything away from heterosexual couples or harmed them or their families in any way.

Conservatives have never actually really made this case. They've had two decades to do so, and they still haven't, and the house of cards is finally tumbling.

Random Thought #6
This ruling was made by appealing to the 14th Amendment -- the "equal protection" amendment. I guess that always seemed self-evident to me, but it still surprised me. I expected "full faith and credit" to be the path forward.

Equal protection. I, even I, deserve equal protection. My husband and I, we, deserve equal protection under the law. I'm still amazed and grateful and in awe.

Thank you.

Random Thought #7
MENE MENE TEKEL UPHARSIN. At what point do Christian conservatives begin to wonder if God is trying to tell them something?

By the way, gay people are not terrible, evil, awful people who hate God and are out to destroy marriage and family. We want the same things everybody else wants. Love. Faith. Hope. Security. Family. Beauty. Happiness. The people who have been fighting for the right to marry have been some of the most stalwart defenders of values that conservatives claim to love.

Did it ever occur to conservatives that our prayers were just and God is finally answering them?

To quote another religious conservative from times long past (quoted here in poetic rhythms of King James English): "And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God."

Random Thought #8
I am so grateful for my family. Last night, Glen and his fiancé Will came over to unwrap Christmas presents and share the Christmas spirit. They didn't stay for dinner because Will's family got them on Christmas Eve. We get them tonight for Christmas dinner. We sent presents to Will's parents with them, and they're bringing presents from Will's family tonight. I love family. I love these connections, these relationships, through good times and bad, in wealth and in poverty, in sickness and in health.

Glen and Will have set a date, September 19, 2014. I'm so glad they will be able to marry legally in their home state of Minnesota, where they can be surrounded by all their family and friends.

I'm glad that Utah couples can now do the same.

Random Thought #9
Göran and I are getting old together. I just turned 50 in October, and was almost hospitalized at the end of November for a blood clot in my leg. It was a really BIG blood clot that could have resulted in an embolism or a heart attack. I'm on blood thinners now, and out of any immediate danger, and feeling much better. I'll probably be on blood thinners for the rest of my life, barring any major medical breakthroughs in the next few decades. (I'm still practicing yoga daily and still plan to live to be 100.)

I'm OK. I like the idea of the great love of my life and I turning into old farts together. I'm still wondering how we can leverage all the great and marvelous gifts God has given us into service to those around us, and to the generations that follow us. I want that to be the central concern of the rest of my life.

I'm glad we will soon be able to put this whole marriage equality fight behind us, so we can focus on other very important things.

Random Thought #10 
God rest ye merry, gentle folk, let nothing you dismay.
Remember Christ our Savior was born on Christmas day, 
To save us all from Satan's power when we had gone astray! 
Good tidings of comfort and joy, comfort and joy! 
Good tidings of comfort and joy!

We sang this Christmas Carol -- one of my favorites -- with some wonderful folks at a retirement home on Sunday. The leaders of the carol sing reminded us that in Victorian English, the word "merry" had slightly different connotations. It meant "healthy" or "well."

I love that line, "to save us all from Satan's power when we had gone astray." I'm a fallible human being in need of Christ's salvation. We all need saving. We all need our eyes and our hearts to be opened in different ways. I love that this season gives me an opportunity to remember that. 

Be healthy! Be well! Be grateful!

Merry Christmas!

The Spiritual Challenge in Mormon Political Support for Gay Marriage

It is a relief that leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are now publicly encouraging members of the Church to study out the issues, make up their own minds, and act and vote according to the dictates of their own conscience, in relation to extending marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples. This occurred most dramatically in recent letters sent out by the LDS stake presidencies of Hawaii that acknowledged in a non-stigmatizing way that members of the Church stand on both sides of this issue. It is also a relief that Church leaders are now publicly acknowledging that even in California during the Prop 8 campaign, when letters from the First Presidency of the Church were directing members to contribute time and talents to ensuring that Prop 8 passed, support for Prop 8 was not a litmus test of faithfulness. In other words, we are now made to understand, members of the Church have always had the right to support marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples, and have always had the right to determine how and where to invest their time and talents on this political issue, and to vote according to their conscience. What a relief.

I listened carefully to the letters read over the pulpits of Minnesota LDS wards in 2012 during the campaign related to Amendment 1 (a proposed constitutional amendment that would have banned same-sex marriage in Minnesota). These letters urged members to study the issues out, make up their own minds, and decide for themselves how best to get involved in this political issue. I know many Mormons who opposed Amendment 1, and who worked in the campaign to defeat it. These members were clearly following the counsel they'd received over the pulpit from Church leaders every bit as much as members who supported Amendment 1.

I remember, though, how gingerly members of the Church approached this subject. Many assumed, based on what happened in California during the Prop 8 campaign, that support for marriage equality might be considered lack of faith or disobedience to the Brethren. I could quote to them verbatim what had been written to the contrary in the letters read over Minnesota pulpits, but many members of the Church still worried and wondered if "studying the issues out" really meant that as members of the Church in good standing they weren't still supposed to draw the conclusion than that marriage equality for gay couples should be opposed.

I spoke to one member of my ward about this issue, and he shared a painful story with me. He told me how he had taken the counsel of the First Presidency during Prop 8 to heart. He personally did not like the idea of voting to deny marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples. But, he reasoned, the Brethren may know things about this issue that I do not. He took it as a matter of faith. And acting in faith, he voted against his conscience. He believed that after the election, following a well known LDS principle of faith, he would receive a confirmation that he had done the right thing. Knowledge comes after we exercise faith. That's how he reasoned.

He told me, however, that after the election, after Prop 8 passed, he did not receive a confirmation that he had done the right thing. Quite the opposite. He said he felt sick to his stomach. He felt disgusted with himself for doing something he believed to be wrong, something that now was going to harm thousands of his fellow citizens. And he vowed to himself, "Never again. Never again will I do something just because the Brethren tell me to do it, when doing so violates my conscience. It's not worth it." He committed himself from then on to support marriage equality for all families -- not just heterosexual families. No matter what Church leaders said or did.

There has been much discussion about the "cost" the LDS Church paid for its political support of Prop 8. There's been discussion about the financial cost (decreased giving to the Church, not to mention tens of thousands of dollars spent on a campaign that ultimately failed important judicial tests of fairness), the impact on membership (members leaving the Church over this, painful divisions that turned family member against family member and ward member against ward member, prospective members refusing to talk to the missionaries and refusing to join), and the social cost (protests against the Church in California and elsewhere, and the harm to the Church's public image).

But there hasn't been enough discussion, in my opinion, about the moral cost. The spiritual cost. The cost in Church members' feelings of betrayal after Prop 8. My friend's story poignantly illustrates those costs which in my opinion are far, far higher.

I should add that, while we can all -- Mormon and non-Mormon -- draw a sigh of relief that the Church has affirmed the principle of separation of Church and state, it must surely be disquieting to many to consider how many Mormons would readily have embraced a denial of this principle, how many Mormons -- whether or not they were sanctioned by Salt Lake -- did make political opposition to marriage equality a litmus test for faith. That the Church is now officially saying they were wrong to do so should only partially alleviate whatever disquiet that might inspire.

Nevertheless.... It is a relief that LDS Church leadership is slowing backing away from this political issue. I am glad that the news is slowly but surely getting out that Mormons may support full marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples and their families.

*****

Yet and still... I am not satisfied with where things stand. And here is why.

I think the best way to explain it would be to say that if I were an atheist, I would be quite happy and completely satisfied with where things stand. Because if a Mormon says, "I believe that there is no marriage equality for gays in Heaven; but so far as matters are concerned in the political realm here on earth, I support marriage equality," if I were an atheist I would say, "Well, Mormons support me in the only realm that matters."

But I am not an atheist. I am a believing Mormon. And to a believing Mormon, a statement such as the one I've given as an example is not comforting at all. In fact, it is as disquieting and as discomforting as any statement possibly could be. First of all it is discomforting because to a believing Mormon it is the same as saying, "Here in the temporal realm -- the realm which is really just the wink of an eye in the span of eternity -- I support your equality; but I believe that where and when it really matters -- in eternity -- you will not and never can be equal." And it is disquieting because, again, from the view point of a believing Mormon, if you are my brother or sister and you really care about me, you must care about my eternal welfare. If you really believe that there's no good place for a same-sex married couple in eternity, I'd rather you be honest about it here in this realm where there's opportunity to do something about it. I would say supporting politically in the temporal realm something that you see as disabling in the eternal realm means you have not very carefully thought out the full implications of your beliefs.

What about a more nuanced statement of belief? What if our hypothetical Mormon supporter of marriage equality justifies their support in this way: "I believe that God does have a special place in his plan for heterosexual couples; that plan is clearly spelled out in scripture and in the teachings of living prophets. I'm not sure how gay and lesbian people fit into this plan. I know that gay and lesbian people exist. I know that many have discerned -- often at great personal cost -- that the best thing for them is to be in committed same-sex relationships, and that marriage is an enormous benefit to them in their efforts to live moral lives and protect their loved ones. I know they are God's children, and I know God loves them just as much as he loves his heterosexual children, and I don't believe in a God who would make people a certain way and then punish them for building happy lives that are harmonious with the way he's created them. So even though I'm not aware of anything from scriptures or the current teachings of living prophets that explicitly tells us what place gay and lesbian people have in God's eternal plan, I trust that they fit in there somehow, and just how they fit will hopefully sometime soon be revealed to us. And in the meantime, I trust their individual discernment process; I honor the sanctity of their lives and their right and ability to make decisions that they've determined to be best for them. And I think it's wrong, therefore, to treat them unequally under the law. And that's why I fully support marriage for gay and lesbian couples!"

That more nuanced statement I personally live with very comfortably. I think it is a good statement of my own position.  Yet I recognize that even here there is still stress and struggle. For many gay and lesbian Mormons, not knowing is a luxury they can't afford. If you are a believing Mormon, eternity means everything, and to be on the wrong side of eternity is to lose everything of value that this life -- even this temporal life -- has to offer.

I personally have found a way forward that works for me, partly because God has spoken to me very clearly about the course I should pursue in my personal life. I am very comfortable where I am in my relationship with God, in my testimony of the Church (which includes an understanding of how truth unfolds line-upon-line, and an understanding of how a key part of our Heavenly Parents' plan involves delegation and agency), and in my relationship with the Church (which is challenging because of my excommunicated status, but nonetheless a blessing to me).  I'm finding a way forward in the way of faith, hope, charity and patience those relationships both with God and with the Church teach me.

But I'm also gradually becoming aware that my way forward cannot and should not work for everybody. We speak of the Church as the body of Christ, and we understand each member of that body having diverse gifts -- some of us having gifts of knowledge and others of us having gifts of faith; some of us having gifts of community and others of us having gifts of the courage to go it alone; all of us having unique ways of knowing what we know, and varying abilities to live with ambiguity or cognitive dissonance.

Some of us are in deep pain because of the dogmatism of those who claim to know things about the eternal realm that I think they actually don't know. But far too many of us are also in deep, deep pain and suffering because of the not knowing. We are getting better at addressing the suffering of the former, but are still not adequately addressing the suffering of the latter. I have to say that regardless of how nuanced your position, therefore, saying "I believe X about eternity, but I'm willing to take position Y in relation to temporal, political issues" must still be unsatisfying if you are concerned about that suffering.

I would say, as a Latter-day Saint, if you take your baptismal covenants seriously, you cannot be unconcerned about that suffering. And I would say, if you are concerned, as I am, there are three things we can do.

First, pray.

Second, be with those who suffer. Bear their burdens with them. Make them know that as long as they suffer, you cannot be fully at ease in your soul, and that you will do what you can to alleviate their suffering.

Third, do something to alleviate that suffering. Talk. Ask questions. Listen. Share. Connect. Build community. Make sure that the voices of those who suffer are being heard.

Third, pray.

Marriage: In the Nick of Time

This is where the rubber of relationship meets the road of life.

As the Minnesota legislature was debating the merits of a law that would extend the rights and privileges of marriage to same-sex couples in our state in the early weeks of May, Göran and I were experiencing a painful personal trial. It wasn't something I could talk about at the time, even though the nature of our trial made the debate in the legislature weirdly, intensely relevant to us.

Göran was experiencing a series of distressing health problems that -- we learned early on -- were pointing toward kidney failure.  I've been spending significant time in the past month caring for Göran through intense fevers and flu-like symptoms, running him to labs for blood tests, and running him to doctors for a series of evaluations and consultations.  Yesterday his kidney doctor delivered the verdict.  Yes, his kidney is failing.

Most people can survive the loss of a kidney, because most people come with two, and one is apparently enough to live a long, healthy, normal life on.  But Göran has only one kidney, because the other was removed when he was an infant due to a congenital kidney problem.  So now the clock is ticking.

Unlike me (!) Göran is an intensely private person.  If he had his druthers, we would face this alone with a small circle of family. Last night, we decided to go much more public than that, partly because we realized that this was big, and that we needed the broadest possible support network of friends and family. Already we are overwhelmed and grateful for an outpouring of love and prayers in the last twenty-four hours, and even a number of courageous, loving individuals who have come forward offering to be screened as potential kidney donors.

It takes a village.  Not just to raise a child, but to care for every member of that village.  And every village is made up of a network of relationships: people who care for each other in a variety of ways.  Villages are organized in overlapping concentric circles of immediate family, then friends and extended kin, and then the larger community (the village), and finally the meta-community (the state).

One could even argue that the history of America -- of any nation -- is the history of its villages, its communities.  One of the central story-lines in American history has been about how those bonds of village and kinship have successively been torn apart and broken down by processes of migration and expansion, by war, slavery and displacement; only to be rebuilt in a variety of ways on diverse foundations.  The Mormon part of that American story built its families and villages on the foundations of "eternal family" and "Zion."

Göran has needed me to be there as his primary support and caregiver, and he will need me more than ever in coming months...  Just as I needed to lean on him last year after my bike accident and brain surgery.

I plan to be the first to be screened as a potential kidney donor.  If my kidney is not a match, or if I am not deemed healthy enough to be able to do without a kidney, we will have to turn to family, friend and kinship networks.  If we are unable to identify a suitable donor in those networks, we will have to turn to the national network of deceased donors (typically a 5-year wait, our doctor tells us).

I woke up this morning, thinking, We have a lot of work to do.  I have phone calls to make to begin the process of transplant referral and support.  I'll need to talk to doctors and specialists, and Göran and I have a lot of decisions to make together.

And it occurred to me: What if some of those concentric circles of support, instead of working with us, were working against us? What if doctors and referral networks refused to talk to me, for example, because I could not be recognized as his legal spouse? His first line of defense, his immediate family (me!) would be excluded rather than empowered in the process of helping care for and heal him.

In the anxious weeks we experienced in late April and early May, as we awaited calls from doctors and the results of tests, wondering what it would all mean, I remember watching the Minnesota house and senate debates on same-sex marriage with a special earnestness.

I remember thinking.  Maybe we will be married...  In the nick of time. And the Senate voted, and the Governor signed, and we are married.  Just in time.

Gay Americans and gay families are and have always been a part of the American village.  But many thousands of us won't be married in time.  It's time America fixed that.

Everything Made Right

I'm so proud of my state right now.

About two years ago, after a Republican dominated Minnesota legislature put an anti-gay-marriage amendment on the ballot, Grant Stevensen, the pastor of Spirit of Truth Faith Community, said to himself, "This can't be happening in Minnesota."  And he did something about it.  He helped organize communities of faith in Minnesota to foster conversations about marriage.  I worked closely with Grant for a good part of last year, helping to foster conversations on this topic among members of the Latter-day Saint community in Minnesota.  Grant must be pleased right now.

What is amazing to me is that less than a year after Minnesota rejected that ballot measure, our legislature has passed a bill that will recognize the marriages of gay couples in Minnesota.  I never expected it to happen so fast.

History is full of ironies.  One is that the conservatives who forced that anti-gay-marriage ballot measure on Minnesotans sparked one of the most broadly based, widest-ranging grass-roots campaigns in the history of the state.  Tens of thousands of volunteers got on the phone and talked to perfect strangers, or talked in person to neighbors, friends, family, fellow parishioners and co-workers about marriage and about gay families.  Over a million conversations were counted by the campaign.  Probably many more took place.

The result? At the start of the campaign, a narrow majority of Minnesotans said they were opposed to granting full marriage rights to gay couples.  At the end of the campaign, enough Minnesotans had changed their minds to defeat the amendment.

Lots of Minnesotans were mad at the conservative legislature for doing nothing, basically, but putting two negative amendments on the ballot.  So when they tossed out the anti-marriage amendment, they tossed out the rascals who inflicted it on us and replaced them with a solid Democratic majority.  That Democratic majority today delivered to us the passage of HF 1054 and SF 925, "Marriage between two persons provided for...."  Governor Mark Dayton has promised to sign it into law tomorrow.

It will go into effect August 1, 2013 -- 18 days before Göran's and my 21st anniversary.

*****

On November 5, 2008, I was walking down the Skyway in downtown Minneapolis, fighting back tears of pain and anger.  It wasn't until fairly late in the day that enough election results in California had come back to confirm beyond reasonable doubt that Prop 8 had passed.  I wondered what it would mean for Göran's and my marriage, which we'd held on July 25, 2008 in Riverside, California, surrounded by my entire immediate family, and witnessed by our 16-year-old foster son Glen.

I was angry.  But piercing through the anger was the still, small voice of the Spirit telling me: "Don't be angry. Don't be afraid. Everything will be well. Everything will be made right."

I realized today how very literally that message from the Spirit has proven to be true.  In the vote in Minnesota today, everything is being made right.

Prop 8 turned out to be what the Spirit -- through that peace-shattering election result -- promised me it would be: a turning point.  A blessing in disguise.

Because of Prop 8, literally millions of conversations have been taking place, among Mormons and among Americans of all faiths.

We're still waiting on the Supreme Court ruling that will tell us whether Prop 8 ultimately stands or falls.  But regardless of that ruling, it seems to me that a watershed has been passed.  Gay couples in California will be able to marry, perhaps sooner than they think, one way or another.

Marriage came to me and my husband here in Minnesota, much sooner than I ever would have dreamed one year ago.

*****

My husband Göran is home from work today, under the weather.

He was sleeping when the flood of exuberant messages started piling up in my Facebook feed, announcing the election results.

I went into the bedroom and kissed him gently on the forehead.

"It passed," I said.

He woke up and smiled.  "We're legal now?" he asked.

"Not quite yet.  The governor is signing it tomorrow.  And it doesn't go into effect until August 1.  But, yes, we'll be legal soon enough."

"Good."  He kissed me and went back to sleep.

For right now, that's celebration enough for me.

That, and thinking about our son Glen's upcoming wedding to his fiancé Will in September 2014.

Surrogate Parenting in the Bible - and What It Might Mean for Gay Families

For all the modern-day controversy that the topic of surrogate motherhood has generated, it is right in the Bible, in the book of Genesis.  We see the first example in the story of Abraham, Sarah and Hagar, in Genesis 16.  It comes back with a vengeance in the story of Jacob and his competing wives Leah and Rachel.  Rachel, who appears to be barren, offers Jacob her handmaid Bilhah, "That I may ... have children by her" (v. 3).  After Bilhah gives birth to a son, Rachel names him Dan, and declares, "God... hath given me a son" (v. 6).

The Bible also allows for surrogate fatherhood.  The principle of Levirate marriage, described in Deuteronomy 25: 5-6, mandated that when a man died without issue, one of his brothers should take his wife (or wives) and raise up children in his brother's name.  The principle seems to have been understood before it was codified in the Mosaic law, as we see in Genesis 38:8, where Judah orders his son Onan to give children to his deceased son Er.  Onan's sin -- the one for which God notoriously smote him -- was his deliberate denial of posthumous children to Er by interrupting the act of procreation with Er's wife Tamar and "spilling his seed upon the ground" (Genesis 38:9).  Denying a brother offspring and a name appears to have been considered a very serious offense in the eyes of God.

From a Latter-day Saint perspective, the evidence of a clear biblical mandate for surrogate parenting is very interesting, if only because of the broader vicarious principle within our theology.  Latter-day Saints see "saving our dead" as one of God's core commandments to the Church.  That is why as a routine aspect of our service to God, we are baptized, confirmed, endowed, married and sealed in the temple on behalf of our dead ancestors, performing vicariously (or as "surrogates") for them ordinances which they (being dead) can no longer perform for themselves.  In Genesis and Deuteronomy, we see the vicarious principle extended not merely to the performance of ordinances on behalf of the dead, but to the provision of offspring to those who are otherwise unable to have offspring of their own.

I love the vicarious principle.  It teaches, first of all, that we are all interconnected.  We are all one.  The Doctrine of the Atonement is, by the way, an example of the vicarious principle -- perhaps the supreme example.  The One who was able to bear the burden of our sins, bore it for us, on our behalf.  Many have called the Atonement a "mystery" because they could not understand how justice could ever be served by having one person suffer for the sins of another.  But it is less of a mystery in the framework of the vicarious principle.  Apparently one who is worthy may voluntarily suffer on behalf of another who has sinned.  And Latter-day Saints, by referring to those who perform vicarious temple ordinance work as "saviors in Mount Zion," in essence acknowledge that our vicarious ordinance work and the Atonement of Christ operate under the same principle.

One reason Latter-day Saints often argue that same-sex marriages cannot possibly be considered valid by God is because same-sex couples cannot have biological children of their own.  Establishing families and having children is seen as a core element of God's plan for all of us.  One reason I am fascinated by the principle of vicarious/surrogate parenting as it appears in the Bible is that it so clearly teaches how, from a divine perspective, lineage need not be biological.

Biological procreation necessarily brings children into the world.  The union of a sperm and an egg is the only way I know of to create human children.  But biological procreation is not how families are created or lineages are established.  The building of families and the establishment of lineages takes place through covenants lovingly and freely entered into and fostered and renewed through sacrificial love.

The vicarious principle teaches that we are all one flesh, and that by virtue of our oneness, we have obligations to each other.  In the biblical principle of vicarious parenting I see God telling us that we have an obligation to help others establish families and lineages in their own name.  Shouldn't gay and lesbian couples who are seeking to build families for themselves receive the loving support of their heterosexual brothers and sisters?

In doing so, do we not more fully affirm the humanity of all of us?

On Unfairness and "Spiritual Reinforcements"

I just finished listening to a very interesting podcast on "A Thoughtful Faith" with Brian C. Hales, discussing his new three-volume series on Joseph Smith's Polygamy.

This was a fascinating interview.  I long ago came to much the same conclusion Bro. Hales has drawn, which is that if you believe Joseph Smith was a prophet and that he received a commandment to institute the practice of polygamy, then much of what looks "shady" about it makes a lot more sense. The argument that Joseph was motivated primarily by his personal libido doesn't seem -- to me -- to be sustained by the historical evidence we have available to us.

Like the interviewer, Sarah Collett (who does an outstanding job as an interviewer in this podcast!), I have long been troubled by certain allegations about Joseph Smith's polygamy.  One was the allegation that Joseph was actually marrying women who were already married -- effectively taking wives away from other men.  Another was the allegation that Joseph was marrying extremely young women -- as young as 14 years old. 

Finally, the impact of Joseph's polygamy on his first wife Emma, and the way she was subsequently treated by Brigham Young after Joseph's death, has always seemed particularly heartless to me.  Sarah posed some excellent questions about the "fairness" of polygamy.

Brother Hales' work is probably the most in-depth treatment of this subject that has ever gone into print.  (I pre-ordered my own copy through Amazon.com...  There's a substantial discount if you order in advance.)

In the interview, Hales says that, based on his in-depth research, there is no compelling evidence that Joseph Smith took other men's wives -- for time anyway.  There were eleven women Joseph was sealed to for eternity who were married for this life to other men.  While this must certainly have been a blow to the men who were essentially being told by their wives that they preferred Joseph Smith as a companion in the next life, the implication of being married for eternity but not for time was that these women remained married to their original spouses for all temporal intents and purposes.  No wife-stealing in these eleven cases -- in this life at least!

There were three other cases where Joseph was married to women for time and for eternity who appeared to have been married to other men at the time.  In two of the three cases, Hales was able to document to his satisfaction that the women in question had effectively ended their relationships with their prior spouses.  There's one case in which there does not appear to be evidence either way.  In other words, there's no actual proof, says Hales, that Joseph "stole" other men's wives (or, as some historians have put it, engaged in "polyandry").

Hales also puts to rest the allegations regarding fourteen-year-old brides.  He argues, again, based on painstaking analysis of the data, that while some of Joseph's brides were quite young, none were as young as fourteen, and all were old enough to meet contemporary standards of propriety for age of marriage.

That leaves the question of Emma.

Sarah Collett broached the larger issue in her interview of the "unfairness" of polygamy to women.  The anguish that Emma Hale Smith went through could be seen as emblematic in many ways of this larger issue of unfairness.

Hales, to his credit, does not try to downplay this or minimize it in any way.  He admits that polygamy was -- from a temporal standpoint anyway -- "sexist" and "unfair" and -- his words! -- "indefensible".  His only way of mitigating this was to suggest that things in eternity may not work the way they work here.  Things that seem unfair from a temporal perspective, where we experience intense limitations on our time and resources, might look completely different in the context of eternity, where no such limitations might exist.

Hales, also to his credit, insists that Latter-day Saints need to be nicer to Emma Smith.  While Emma's reputation has long been besmirched in LDS circles by accusations of selfishness and lack of faith, Hales agrees that Emma did the best she could with an extremely painful, difficult and unfair situation.  There were moments when she almost accepted Joseph's polygamy, almost came to terms with it.  But ultimately she could not make peace with it.  Hales refuses to believe that her ultimate inability to accept the polygamy of her husband, in the temporal sphere anyway, will be a mark against her in the eternities.  At any rate, he refuses to judge her, and he thinks other Latter-day Saints should extend her the benefit of a doubt as well.

Hales also talks about "spiritual reinforcements" that God sends to those of us who experience unfairness -- for a variety of reasons -- in this life.  He describes historical evidence that is available to us that many LDS plural wives received such "spiritual reinforcements," that gave them comfort and helped them find peace in a situation few of our contemporaries could characterize as anything but unbearable and unjust.

I had to admit that I squirmed as I listened to him talk about this.  It sounds too much like "pie-in-the-sky" type religion, which I've always rejected.  The doctrine of "just lie down and take it, and everything will be all right in the next life" is and should be repugnant to every decent son and daughter of God.

God placed a yearning for justice in our hearts for a reason.  Justice delayed is justice denied, and if it is delayed till eternity it might as well be denied for eternity.  There is so much in religion that makes no sense at all, if we don't see the highest principle of religion, the highest form of love, as the achievement in time as well as in eternity of fairness.  The word "righteous" itself is a synonym for: "just," "rightful," and "fair."  There is no righteousness without fairness.

I will admit, I have experienced the kinds of "spiritual reinforcements" Hales describes in my own life.

If nineteenth-century Mormon women experienced "unfairness" under the institution of plural marriage, those who feel the sting of "unfairness" most acutely today in relation to Mormon beliefs and practices related to marriage must be gay men and women.  And the moment when I felt the sting of that unfairness most deeply was the day after the election results of November 2008, when I learned the results of the Prop 8 vote in California.  That really hurt. 

And as the sense of anger and betrayal welled up in me, I remember the Spirit speaking very clearly to me.  The Spirit said in essence: "Don't be angry.  Don't be afraid.  Your Heavenly Father loves you and is proud of you, and this will be made right."  It took some effort on my part to follow that prompting; to take a deep breath, and to set aside the anger.  But when I did, I experienced this incredible peace rushing in.  I attended Church the following Sunday, and greater spiritual gifts followed.  Spiritual reinforcements, indeed.

But what God told me in those moments was not, "You just have to learn to accept this unfairness."  It was, in essence, "Be faithful.  Be loving.  Be patient.  I will make this right."

The spiritual reinforcements I've received have helped keep me from spiraling down into unproductive rage; to focus instead on doing what I can to bear witness of what I know, bring comfort to others, and to work to make things better.  That's how real spiritual reinforcements work in my experience.

I don't know how this worked for women in plural marriages.  I know that many were satisfied with their lot and found deep, deep happiness.  I also know that many struggled, experienced deep pain, and some were treated horribly.  Family stories I'm aware of of one of my great-grandmothers bears witness to some of the horrible ways in which unrighteous dominion could be used in plural marriages to devastating effect.  I'm certain my ancestor Charlotte experienced spiritual reinforcements too, reinforcements that gave her the courage to pack her bags and walk away from an abusive home environment, heading for Salt Lake never to turn back.

I still wrestle with polygamy.  It's one of those things I've sort of put in a box and that I wrestle with from time to time.  I try not to let it interfere with my faith, which is one of the greatest sources of hope and strength in my life.

I am grateful for the work Brother Hales has done to make sense of Joseph Smith's polygamy.  He's helped answer some deeply troubling questions, and his spirit of kindness and humility in the interview posted on "A Thoughtful Faith" was comforting, even if I had trouble with some of the things he said.  The full interview was well worth listening to, and I look forward to reading his books.