Utah leads the nation in male youth suicides, and there was a tragic reminder of that fact yesterday.
On July 19th, Todd Ransom, a young gay man from Salt Lake City, committed suicide. It is unclear why exactly Todd took his life, but his friends report that he faced disapproval from his family and struggled to reconcile his sexual orientation with his Mormon upbringing.
I never knew Todd, despite sharing several mutual friends with him. But his death has greatly saddened me and countless others. There will be candle-light vigil held in memory of Todd tonight at 9:00 PM outside the state capitol building.
In response to this and other recent gay Mormon suicides, my friend Isaac shared his own personal struggle as a gay Mormon on Facebook. With his permission, I’m posting the full note here.
When I was a little boy, my beautiful mother would take me in her arms and together we would sing the words of the LDS primary song:
I am a Child of God
And he has sent me here
Has given me an earthly home
With parents kind and dear.There was no qualifier of “unless I grow up to be gay.”
And yet nearly twenty years later things seemed to come full circle as I sat sobbing on the bathroom floor of a dirty missionary apartment where, after taking a knife from my hands and calling for help, my mission companion took me in his arms and began singing in a soft trembling voice “I am a Child of God”.
I had struggled since childhood to combat what I felt was my true nature in favor of what my church taught was the plan of God. Weary, beaten, and worn I couldn’t fight anymore.
I was lucky. I failed.
But sadly there are those we love who do not fail. Tearfully we learn of and mourn those who we cannot judge for being weary of the fight and succumbing to the constant barrage of lashes coming from Utah’s predominant religion and dominant political party; their invariable actions declaring that we are not worthy of the same treatment as everyone else—that we are less than.
When will we learn that this is not a game?
The harsh rhetoric is not something to be used to score political points or to climb the rungs on the ladder of piety.
When the stripping of legal status and protections from gay relationships is celebrated like a Super Bowl victory, what does the gay person feel? When a state senator tells gay adolescents they shouldn’t come together to talk about their struggles in accepting their sexuality, what message does that send? When a bishop stands at the pulpit and preaches that loving committed gay relationships will destroy their family and asks for time and money to ‘defeat’ them, what unimaginable fear shakes the soul of the gay child in the pews?
We MUST normalize gay relationships. Every day that passes where being gay is viewed as undesirable and gay relations viewed as abnormal, is one more day that pushes our loved ones one step closer to the edge—to the point of no return.
I’ve said it before and I reaffirm it now: This is a fight for life!
As an LDS missionary I was taught that my purpose was to “Invite others to come unto Christ.” The LDS Church has admittedly done much good and provided legitimate hope and peace to many, but my dear Latter-Day Saints, your actions as members and the actions of your church organization when it comes to your LGBT children, brothers, sisters, and friends has done anything but invite me to come unto Christ.
Gandhi put it beautifully: “I like your Christ; I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
Your message on LGBT related issues is a message of intolerance, of hatred (both external and internal self loathing), torment, and of death.
And regrettably, too many children of God are hearing that message loud and clear.
I read this earlier today, and it took me right back to the years (including a mission) that I spent severely depressed and suicidal, sobbing on the floor, wishing it would just end. I am also one of the lucky ones who “failed” at suicide, and even luckier that I escaped the religion and was able to finally accept myself.
This is why we cannot settle for anything less than full and total equality. This is what we’re fighting for – to prevent anyone else from feeling that they’re not perfectly fine just the way they are.
I’m too angry to say much more than that here. I’ve posted part of what I feel on my own blog.
I sent this to a Mormon client of mine (I’m a hairdresser but not Mormon). She is one of the most open and nicest ladies I know. Even believes in gay rights and marriage. I fear she may know this family but wanted to share this page with her. The entire read for me was profoundly honest and spoke not only to my mind but to my soul. Enough hate, God does not teach hatred and fear, that’s Lucifer’s dept.
What a complete and utterly sad tragedy. My heart breaks for Todd.
I live in southern Idaho where the Mormon belief runs rampant. My daughter is bi-sexual and she has be tormented by many people including her father (who is Mormon). The intolerance is almost intolerable and it saddens me to tears. Thankfully my daughter has support from myself, my husband and my family. She also has many friends that are very supportive of her. I just wish that all could have that same support system.
I am now 39yrs old and was once a mormon but when i could not cope with being gag at 15years old i went to the bishop for advice and was left to feel like i should not be on the earth as being gay was not gods way . I did try pills but did fail and to this day i keep god in my heart and my life but in my way i. I am what i am and why should i change . At 39 i am happy and still keep god with me in my way . BUT TO MANY CHILDREN ARE ENDING THERE LIFES BECAUSE PEOPLE IN CHURCHES DONT SEEM TO CARE , THEY MUST WAKE UP BEFOR IT IS TO LATE .one child is to meny. ( i live in england
.
I understand all the feelings Todd felt everyday of his life. I was raised Roman Catholic and for all the talk of “tolerance” and “love” they claim to have for all of God’s children, I was denied communion while gravely ill in a hospital with a heart condition, because I would not denounce who I was. It started me on a journey and thankfully I came to realize that my relationship with God completely transcended anything the organized church could provide me. I am now a practicing Episcopalian and was received into the Episcopal Church as an openly gay man. I have no regrets and never looked back. Heaven knows my church has its issues that it struggles with and we are a fractious group but the bottom line is God loves all Her children equally and without condition. Anyone who does not believe that, simply does not get it.
I came out nearly 30 years ago and was lucky enough to have an amazing network of friends as I was rejected by my conservative family and my church. Dealing with many years of confusion and frustration over my spiritual worth, I was lucky to find places, and books where I was welcomed in my own journey. That journey, I now see as a gift, though non-traditional- its something that no-one can take away. At this point in my life I am more then clear that any organized religion that facilitates judgment or rejection leading to anything approaching suicide has one foot in the shadows of evil.
I have testimony: On mission I witnessed my comp suffer a near suicidal breakdown resulting from his shame and fear of being gay. I had to carry him to the ER in Madrid and luckily his life was saved from attempted suicide. Until that point I too thought that homosexuality was a perversion or at best a bad choice. In the waiting room I prayed for hours until my friend was saved by amazing Spanish doctors. But when his secret was out, the church and his “forever family” threw him out like garbage. My friend stayed in Spain, is now happy and healthy and about to marry a great guy. I left the LDS and and experienced a total break from my own family as a result.
Gay rights are the civil rights issue of our time. Mormon homophobia is itself sufficient proof that the church is completely false. Most of the homeless kids in Utah are gays and lesbians kicked out by their families. Gay teens account for most of the youth suicides in Utah. Some of you reading this are still active LDS, will you share this testimony with your wards, or will you remain complicit in the cruel barbarity that is the essence of Mormonism?
I would love to add you and your friend who originally wrote what you reposted on his behalf. You can find me under on Facebook. This is an eye-opening post. I am Gay and it saddens me to hear of people who feel they can’t go on. I just want to find them and hold them and soothe them out of that choice.
I am very sorry to hear of this tragic loss. What a terrible thing for anyone to ever come to feel that their life is not worth living. If people drove him to this feeling in any way, much less in the name of Christ, that is a sad and terrible thing.
I hope having a discussion about some things is not too soon here and not considered disrespectful.
Craig says, “This is why we cannot settle for anything less than full and total equality.”
a) I hope that the insinuation here is not that anyone and everyone opposed to gay marriage is driving people to suicide. That would be quite a claim. I rather suspect the social, family and religious issues are more often the primary causes of such distress. As Craig says on his blog, it comes from living in a society that treats gays as if they were “essentially worthless”. (By the way, I think that is an unfair characterization – I am not denying nor condoning ill treatment of homosexuals, but I am not sure I would say our society is quite so hostile).
But I feel compelled to clarify – being morally opposed to gay marriage is in no way identical to thinking that homosexuals are “essentially worthless”. Homosexuals have the same inviolable dignity as any other person. Being against gay marriage or thinking that homosexual acts are morally wrong is not identical to “hating”. I don’t think my Church teaches anyone to hate anyone, though it does make moral judgments about a variety of acts (and there is a difference between judging acts which we can control and inclinations which we cannot). I think contraceptive acts are morally wrong, but I don’t hate people that use contraception (in fact, almost everyone I know – including most Catholics I know! – do use it). I could come up with any number of examples like this. Point is, the “stop the H8” campaign was useful campaign sloganeering that really was just bumper sticker smear politics, as if the only way you could be opposed to gay marriage is because you hate gays. Let’s be clear – to be morally opposed to X is not identical to hating people who engage in X.
Now I am not denying that sometimes people both morally judge and hate. I won’t act like everyone in my Church always lives up to their principles. Of course, I think this happens on both sides. It is easy to find hateful language against homosexuals in churches and on the web, and it is equally easy to find hateful language against Catholics and other religious groups at atheist clubs and sites.
b) Suppose that the solution to this problem of despair and suicidal desperation is, as Craig says, “full and total equality”. What would that mean? If judging that homosexual acts are morlly wrong or the gay marriage issue is causing this level of distress, would “full and total equality” mean that the govt would prohibit private groups (religious institutions) from making moral judgments about the uprightness of homosexual acts? Should we have that kind of State speech police that cleanses the public square of certain moral judgments? Point is, would “full and total” equality in any non-facist sense of state enforcement really prevent what happened here?
c) There are a number of LGBT readers here, and I would be really interested in their feedback on this question. How should religious groups minister to homosexuals? I know your obvious answer – stop making the moral judgment that homosexuality is immoral. But setting that aside, how should a church minister to gays? This is a very difficult issue. I think it is especially difficult for the LDS Church, because family is so central to their theology and there are really no other possible vocations other than traditional family life. (You may not think that a celibate life is a very good option, but at least other religious traditions do have other possible vocations). I know of some Catholic parishes that are really humanizing in their ministry to homosexuals, but I am sure there are many that are not. I think very often the ineffective ministry comes not from hate or intolerance but from a lack of counseling skills and a lack of understanding about how to treat this delicate situation. Anyway, it would be interesting to hear people’s thoughts on this.
Some LDS leaders have struck a reasonable and fairly tolerant note on homosexuality. The comportment toward homosexuals among LDS thinkers and some leaders have definitely softened in the past decade. The problem in my opinion is that lay Mormons still hear and believe in the Mormonism of the 1970′s and ’80s—Bruce R. McConkie’s Mormonism. It’s this more conservative brand of Mormonism that I think is still taught in seminary and over the pulpit on the local level.
On second thought, maybe these problems aren’t just attributable to the “old Mormonism.” Because today’s LDS Church still supported Prop 8, and that made the gay community feel embattled. So the opposition to gay marriage is indeed a contributing factor to some suicides, because it makes some gay people feel like second-class citizens. (Though I don’t think it’d be fair to saddle opponents of gay marriage with the suicides of homosexuals.)
But not all oppositions to gay marriage are equal; some are more hurtful than others. I’m not offended by the Catholic position, because it doesn’t treat homosexuality as a special sin–it’s the same kind of sin as masturbation, contraception, etc. But many Mormons do treat homosexuality as some special evil. I mean, Mormons forbid drinking alcohol, but they aren’t pushing for a national prohibition of alcohol. Yet they are pushing for a prohibition against gay marriage. And because there is this double standard, it seems more prejudiced.
Bleh. I don’t know. It’s a tough question, and I’m not confident that I have the answer.
Kleiner’s bigotry is on full display. His argument is identical to those made against blacks in the priesthood, except replace “homosexual” for “black.”
I know this to be true: Mormonism is a pernicious form of hatred that teaches gay kids they are abominations, so that the blood of every gay teen suicide in Utah is on your hands.
And for the record: Zero is the number of LDS leaders who have demonstrated any tolerance towards gays. Saying otherwise is typical Mormon “lying for the Lord.”
I was born Mormon but luckily managed to escape. I feel ashamed that I was ever part of the evil LDS cult. Reading Kleiner, I am also grateful that there are no active LDS in my live.
@ Keep Sweet: First, Kleiner is not a Mormon. He is Catholic. Second, having known Kleiner for several years, I can assure you that he’s no homophobe. I’m bisexual, and I’ve never felt anything but tolerance and understanding from him in our friendship.
Also, if you understood his argument, you’d know that it’s not the same argument that was used against interracial marriage.
There are many forms and degrees of homophobia. Neither hatred nor fear must be present for a person or an argument to be homophobic, just as sexism and racism come in many shapes and degrees.
I don’t know if I want to respond to this with a “bah!” or a “meh”. The comparison to priesthood for blacks was just asinine. I try to hold back and keep above the uglier fray on this blog, but I refuse to even attempt to be more charitable about this and am not going to bother wasting my time demonstrating why that comparison was so ridiculous.
I really don’t feel a need to defend myself against charges of bigotry and homophobia from overheated bloggers like “Keep Sweet” (what a charming name for someone who lobs such heavy handed insults). But let me say this:
homophobia = irrational fear of or aversion to homosexuality or homosexuals.
bigotry = the practice of treating members of a group with hatred and intolerance
What have I said in this post or anywhere else demonstrates either homophobia or bigotry? I appreciate, again, Jon coming to my defense. I don’t think anyone who knows me at all would even consider accusing me of such things.
News flash: it is possible for people to disagree on the morality of various actions without having despicable and irrational fears behind those judgments. In my view, there is nothing more or less wrong about homosexuality than there is with contraception. I am not, categorically not, singling out homosexuals out of some unique fear or hatred of them. Why am I even bothering saying this? Meh. Blogs can be such a ridiculous way to discourse with others.
In Craig’s broader definition, homophobia requires neither fear nor hatred. Once you remove those two features, I am not sure what the distinguishing feature of homophobia is. Is it that, for Craig, having the view that homosexual acts are immoral is by definition homophobic? But that is an awfully loaded word to use to describe a moral position that follows from a rational argument. Sometimes I wonder if the word is preserved just to give oneself an immediate air of moral superiority over his interlocutor. But I’ve grown to like Craig, so I don’t want to dismiss what he said out of hand.
“Is it that, for Craig, having the view that homosexual acts are immoral is by definition homophobic?”
Yes. This is actually a very common, widespread definition which has been used since the early 80s. There was a gap in the language, and the definition of “homophobia” has evolved to fill that gap. The primary meaning of “homophobia” is no longer “irrational fear of or aversion to homosexuality or homosexuals.” That is now a secondary meaning, which it turn was a meaning that “homophobia” acquired well after its original coining. The original definition as originally coined was “the fear that others might think you are a homosexual”.
Words acquire meanings all the time. Once there was enough of a gap in the language to necessitate an analogue to “sexism” and “racism” that had to do with homosexuality, and no other word had yet been coined or gained the meaning, it became assigned to “homophobia”. We also now by analogy to “homophobia” have “biphobia”, “transphobia”, “lesbophobia” and “heterophobia”, all of which have as their primary meanings “discrimination or devaluation based on a person’s [sexual orientation/gender identity].” Similarly you could put “sex” or “race” in that and get the main definitions for sexism and racism.
So when I say some statement or belief is homophobic, that doesn’t mean it’s about irrational fear or hatred, just like saying “that was a sexist joke” doesn’t mean it was about hatred or fear of women. Because “homophobia” has such a breadth of meaning, it can be unclear exactly which meaning is meant, though most often it’s the primary “sexism/racism” meaning, and not the “irrational hatred/fear” meaning.
The wikipedia article on homophobia does give quite a good explanation of this.
And while other less ambiguous terms like “heterosexism” and “homonegativity” have been proposed and seen limited use, they’ve not become popular or widespread enough to replace “homophobia” as an analogue to “racism” and “sexism” on a wide-scale. “Homophobia” remains the most used word to describe a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards homosexuality and people identified or perceived as being homosexual.
I take issue with argument B in Kleiner’s post above. This was the crux of the Mormon campaign to pass proposition 8 in California; the insinuation that somehow giving homosexuals the right to marry would affect the church’s ability to make and teach moral judgment against gays. There was also the insinuation that prop 8 somehow had an effect on public education about homosexuals/marriage.
Both of these assertions are completely false and disingenuous. Proposition 8 never had anything to do with marriage by any church, nor did it strip any church or person’s right to disagree with homosexuality on a moral level. It was a dishonest fear-mongering campaign, and frankly, I’m sick of hearing these arguments repeated.
I agree that the “State speech police” should not be in the business of defining or enforcing “correct” thought and speech, but that’s not really been the case. The Mormon church has, on the other hand, innapropriately and disingenuously imposed its dogma on a large population of homosexuals in California (and attempted to do so in Argentina).
First, let me say that I am not interested in defending any particular LDS arguments or tactics with respect to Prop 8. I am not a Mormon, nor do I think the LDS Church generally has very sophisticated public square arguments. Don’t saddle me with LDS approaches. If you want to take up LDS approaches to the issue, talk to Prof. Sherlock.
But I think Brandon is being naive when he says that the assertion that religious freedom would be imperiled by things like Prop 8 is “false and disingenuous”. This is not fear-mongering, and all you have to do is consult legal experts on both the left and right for confirmation of this.
Mary Ann Glendon (named chair in Law at Harvard) has remarked that, “churches and religious organizations that fail to embrace civil unions as indistinct from marriage may be forced to retreat from their practices, or else face enormous legal pressure to do so. Precedent from our own history and that of other nations suggests that religious institutions could even risk losing tax-exempt status, academic accreditation, and media licenses, and could face charges of violating human rights codes or hate speech laws.”
I don’t have the study ready to hand, but a law review study found that it was actually liberal legal scholars who anticipated the greatest amount of conflict ahead between state and religion on religious freedom, while conservative legal scholars seemed to downplay the threat. This is important – it is liberal legal and constitutional scholars who anticipate the greatest change in religious practice and freedom. So this is not some conservative scare tactic. People like Chai Feldblum (Georgetown law prof who refers to herself as one “in the inner circle of public intellectuals pushing for LGBT equality”) were in the study.
Feldblum thinks it is dishonest to brush off religious liberty worries as scare tactics. “When we pass a law that says you may not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, we are burdening those who have an alternative moral assessment of gay men and lesbians.” She immediately grants that religious liberty is at stake here, saying it is wrong for gay marriage advocates to pass these laws off as neutral. So let’s be clear – this is not a conservative scare tactic. I am here quoting one of the most noted LGBT legal advocates in the country.
Of course this has already happened. The state of Massachusetts refused to license Catholic Charities for adoptions since Catholic Charities would not adopt to same-sex couples. So one of the oldest adoption agencies in America was forced out of practice. (To Feldbum’s credit, she was uncomfortable with this). This was not tied to the need for public moneys, it was an issue of licensing. You might disagree with them shutting down instead of just adopting to same-sex couples. But that is not the issue here. The issue is this: a religious organization was disallowed from running its charity operations according to its own principles. It had two choices: relent on religious freedom and submit to the State or go out of business.
This is an odd thing. For those interested in the separation of Church and State, here Church and State were not all that separate – only it was the State that was bending the Church to its will. (This is exactly the opposite of the intent of the Establishment Clause, which intended to prevent the State from interfering with religion, not religion interfering with the State). If homosexual acts are like race (and they are not, but if they are), then people who oppose gay marriage will be treated by the law as bigots. Now bigotry is not illegal, but the State intervenes against it and punishes and discourages it. The State can make it very difficult for organizations that are deemed “bigoted” to even survive.
If gay marriage is legalized, conflict between religious institutions and the law is inevitable. It will begin with “parachurch” institutions and licensing issues. Will Catholic or Mormon parachurch social services be licensed to run psychological services? Marital counseling? Hospitals in general? Social workers? Will their schools and universities get state accreditations and funding?
And there will be speech issues. Marc Stern (general counsel for the American Jewish Congress and gay marriage advocate) thinks so, “because sexual-harassment-in-the-workplace principles will likely migrate to suppress any expression of anti-same-sex-marriage views.”
So to brush off these concerns as “scare tactics” is to be ignorant of the actual legal conversation that is being had out there by experts on both sides of the issue. I want to stress that I let gay marriage advocates who are legal experts make the case for me here. I am not here trying to change your mind about gay marriage, Brandon. But I am trying to convince you that the supposed “fear-mongering” is actually grounded in very legitimate concerns. Again, to quote Stern (gay marriage advocate), “It’s not hysteria, this is very real. Boston Catholic Charities shows that.”
Thanks for posting this. I can see why so many get SO angry about this, e.g. KS’s comment above. They have been hurt to the core. How can you NOT respond in anger to that kind of pain?
I’m neither Mormon, Catholic, but Unitarian Universalist. All arguments against gay marriage and gay sex are denying the simple truth: We are sexual beings. We are spiritual beings. Whether you are gay, bi, or str8 what matters is relationship and love. Every human being wants and needs to feel loved. We don’t grow up in a vacuum, we are a social species. Sexual attraction is a biological given. Relationship and love are a choice. Check out “Standing On the Side of Love” from the Unitarian Universalist association.
It is not true that arguments against homosexual acts depend on denying the simple truth that we are sexual beings. That just isn’t true. I don’t deny that truth. I don’t know anyone who does.
Readers of this blog may not believe it, I actually have a very elevated view of the meaning of sexuality in the human life. It sometimes grows tiresome always talking about what is not permitted instead of the beauty of what is. I do the former here because otherwise there would never be any dissent whatsoever among all you “freethinkers” regarding the morality of homosexuality.
Anyway, if you want a philosophically sophisticated (and, if I might say, beautiful) view of what the meaning of sexuality is, read John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. There will find not only an exhaustive and brilliant inquiry into the meaning of sexed body, but also some discussion of why homosexuality and contraception “scatter” the real meaning of the mutual self-giving found in authentic sexual acts.
Most on this blog probably will not agree with it (I know Jon has read some of it). But reading it would at least disabuse many of these notions that this view of sexuality is based in homophobia or denials of basic truths regarding the human condition.
I’m mormon and I’m openly saying, I love all people. Gay, straight, hindu, black, white, bushman, mormon. I’m mourning for Todd and those who loved him. This is such a heated and separating issue. When I feel total and complete love for God, no separation exists, nor do names and labels of what people are or do.
Thanks for the explanation, Craig. But I think the most common use remains the fear or hatred sense (me definition came from Webster’s).
The wiki link includes this:
” In a 1998 address, author, activist, and civil rights leader Coretta Scott King stated that “Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood”.
This is precisely why I think the label is misused with my arguments. In no way does my view seek to deny the humanity, dignity, or personhood of homosexuals. The term is used, I cannot help but suspect, knowing full well that these connotations are implicitly suggested.
Back call me what you will. I am back to a “meh” response to people that call me names. I have better things to do, like go to sleep since my wife is having a baby tomorrow.
I would still like to hear a response to my ‘how to minister’ question, if anyone is interested in something more productive than name calling.
“In no way does my view seek to deny the humanity, dignity, or personhood if homosexuals.”
I don’t think that’s your intent, but I do believe that that is the consequence nonetheless.
Anyways, good luck to you and your wife with the baby. I hope it goes well.
About your ‘how to minister’ question: I will address this in a post tomorrow (or very soon ha ha). My comments will focus almost exclusively on the LDS Church though. I’m not in a position (due to my ignorance of Catholicism) to offer advice to the Catholic Church.
In your mind: “In no way does my view seek to deny the humanity, dignity, or personhood of homosexuals.”
The problem is that this is precisely the outcome of current Mormon ministry to gays. I don’t know about catholic ministry or your personal view, but I assume you were in favor of prop 8. Denying the right to marry is not denying “the humanity, dignity, or personhood of homosexuals”?
Try to put yourself in the shoes of a homosexual. How would you interpret this if you were gay?
Brandon – Again, sorry to cop out but I don’t have the time to respond here. Search on the SHAFT site, though. This issue has been discussed before, and if I recall this precise point was addressed.
In short: I don’t think anyone (gay or straight) has a right to government recognition of their marriages. The state should recognize marriages only if there is a compelling state interest in doing so (otherwise, why should the state get involved in the private lives of citizens). From a public policy point of view, I think there is a compelling state interest in sustaining the institution of marriage through law. But I am not persuaded that there is a compelling reason for the state to recognize gay marriage. In fact, I think there are reasons not to.
For those interested, a fairly thorough review can be read here:
http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/UST_fall2004.pdf
Dr. Kleiner:
What’s you stance on civil unions? Do you feel that there is a compelling reason for the state to recognize homosexual relationships in this capacity?
Also, if you do support civil unions, how do you think they should differ from marriages?
First a broad point: I think we need to have a serious national discussion about what marriage is for and what sexuality is all about. As a culture, we are deeply confused on these matters. Same-sex marriage advocates are clear on their position – sex and marriage have nothing to do with babies or procreation or children having mothers and fathers. I think they are completely wrong about this. And I think the effects of a legal and cultural institution of such views are dangerous (unfortunately, we are already part-way down this road). I am also of the view that marriage is a natural institution, not one created by the State. Some States recognize it, but it precedes the State. The whole idea that the State can define or re-define what marriage is suggests that we need to get serious about the meaning of sex, marriage, and basic philosophical anthropology.
I still need to think more on civil unions. Decent arguments have been made that such arrangements do have benefits the state might want to encourage (like stability, home buying, etc). Jon has made these arguments on this blog. I am not entirely sure these interests are “compelling” (in the Constitutional sense). I just don’t see why the state should be involved in approving the private feelings of citizens and their private relationships when the state interest in doing so is so thin. The most oft identified compelling state interest in encouraging and recognizing traditional marriage is that the state has an interest in having new citizens be created in ideal familial conditions, which seems to me to be a much more compelling state interest.
So I am still on the fence with civil unions. I worry a bit about slippery slopes. Should the state recognize and incentivize other living arrangements that encourage home buying and community engagement? Sisters who live together? Some grad school buddies of mine went in on a house, should they be recognized? … How do we distinguish “civil union” from “co-habitation”?
I also think civil unions sound like legal sneakiness. A distinction without a difference, or at least a step toward gay marriage. But I think words matter, including the word “marriage”. There is a reason proponents of gay marriage want “marriage” and not “civil union”. Words matter, they shape the culture. When we have had civil unions (at the state level) they have not satisfied gay rights advocates. Instead they have simply turned around and used those unions as legal arguments for why gay marriage laws are unconstitutional. To date, two states have actually been persuaded by that legal reasoning (CA an CT).
And as a Catholic it is difficult to square them with what the Catechism says: “They [homesexual acts] are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. (CCC 2357)”
I also have a hard time squaring civil unions with what is said in this document:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_20001109_de-facto-unions_en.html
Take this for example:
“In today’s open and democratic societies, the State and the public authorities must not institutionalize de facto unions, thereby giving them a status similar to marriage and the family, nor much less make them equivalent to the family based on marriage. This would be an arbitrary use of power which does not contribute to the common good because the original nature of marriage and the family proceeds and exceeds, in an absolute and radical way, the sovereign power of the State. A serenely impartial perspective free from any arbitrary or demagogical positions invites us to reflect very seriously in the different political communities on the essential differences between the vital and necessary contribution to the common good of the family based on marriage, and the other reality that exists in merely emotional forms of cohabitation. It does not seem reasonable to hold that the vital functions of family communities, whose nucleus is the stable and monogamous institution of marriage, can be carried out in a large-scale, stable and permanent way by merely emotional forms of cohabitation. The family based on marriage must be carefully protected and promoted as an essential factor in social existence, stability and peace, in a broad future vision of the society’s common interest.”
Despite those statements, there have been some Catholic Bishops who have come out in tentative support of civil unions.
But, despite what some SHAFTers might think, I am not a cold and heartless man. I think it is wrong when I hear stories about a gay man not being able to see his partner in the hospital. When people point out these wrongs and push for gay marriage, I believe that they (mostly at least) are working in the name of noble ideals – justice and fairness. But most of these sorts of concerns can already (for the most part) be handled without substantive changes in the law. I think same-sex partners should be able to make medical decisions for each other, have inheritance and estate rights, etc. Usually this just means signing over power of attorney, and this can already be done. But I am aware that sometimes there are sticking points on this and that even those legal power of attorney documents are not sufficient. But they should be, and I would support a clarification and a tidying up of this so that you don’t have tragic situations where partners cannot see each other in the hospital and such things. But I don’t see that doing this really requires “civil unions”, much less gay marriage.
I might also note that the idea that there is some kind of sweeping injustice being done by not recognizing gay marriage is not borne out by the statistics. The Census Bureau reports that just .5% of households are same-sex partners. General Motors is a company that provides benefits to same-sex partners, but they report that just 166 workers out of 1.3 million employees claimed these benefits (that is just one one-hundreth of one percent!). This just does not seem like an incredible pressing injustice such that same-sex couples must get state recognition of their private feelings. With either no changes at all or with only minor modifications and clarifications of existing law (as I understand it), same-sex couples are free to love each other, buy homes together, share their lives together, and with power of attorney have estate and medical decision making privileges. In light of this, I just don’t see the need for drastic changes in the law in order that we might satisfy the interests of a very tiny minority in having their private feelings recognized by the State.
Sorry for all the typos. I have a new iPod touch and have never texted before in my life so I suck on this tiny keyboard.
Alakazaaminrfomiaton found, problem solved, thanks!
For some reason I’m reminded of mr Rogers. When asked to tell a present homosexual that they are transgressing against god he simply turned to them and said “god loves you just exactly the way you are.”
Pingback: Sunday in Outer Blogness: Variations on the Theme of Difference! | Main Street Plaza
On homophobia: I don’t think many people use it today in the aversion or fear sense. I actually haven’t ever met someone who was homophobic in the same way someone might be claustrophobic. Heterosexism is also misleading to me because someone unfamiliar with the term might think it means the exact opposite of homophobia. Homophobia also tends to exclude the transgender community.
Were Kleiner’s words made in hate? I doubt it. Bigotry? Unlikely. Ignorance? Certainly not in many respects. I’ve heard many reasonably compelling arguments against gay marriage that had little or no basis upon religious views. However I (and many others it would seem) find it difficult to believe that anyone can affirm the humanity of a demographic while simultaneously opposing progression of equal rights. I certainly can’t say that there’s an easy answer here. Members of the queer community generally are trigger happy when it comes to accusing people of being homophobic.
I do believe that contraception and similar arguments are all too easy of a retreat. After all gay people have gay sex. Opposition to sexual acts or relationships as opposed to homosexuality might imply a degree of choice on the part of the homosexual. Sentiments like this are generally fairly ignorant. Judgement, guilt and shame associated with the basic desire to sexually express one’s self or to find love has and will continue to contribute to an elevated suicide rate in the queer community.
As far as a slippery slope or the definition of household is concerned, for tax, inheritance, custody, etc issues are concerned I believe the state should be able to define a family and that it should be both reasonable as well as it is inclusive.
I think we must tread carefully to avoid both trampling parachurch organizations as well as the personal freedoms of homosexuals. Religious freedom should not extend so far as to impede my pursuit of happiness nor should my personal happiness intrude upon a person to believe (however mistakenly) in the immorality of homosexuality.
One can believe that the pill or condoms are sinful so long as they don’t prevent my access to either. I agree that blogs or forums are an ineffective way of having a discussion.
A few thoughts:
a) I don’t recall ever having heard this “friendlier” or broader definition of “homophobia” until this discussion. Every time I recall hearing the word it is with an overwhelmingly negative connotation, not simply a name for people who morally oppose homosexuality. If the primary meaning of the term now meant simply believing homosexual acts are immoral, then why don’t people who oppose gay marriage call themselves ‘homophobes’?
Craig claims this broader sense is now the primary meaning. But I checked 5 dictionaries and all of them had “fear of” or “contempt for” or “irrational aversion to” homosexuality in the first line. Hard to argue that this is now a “secondary meaning” in light of this. I continue to think the word is used in this allegedly broader sense for suspicious reasons.
b) One issue in this discussion is whether or not believing a certain action is immoral means that you dehumanize, degrade, or deny the dignity or value of the people who engage in that action. Most of you seem to think that it does. But I disagree.
Take an example: I think murder is morally wrong. (Stop, just stop freaking out. Don’t over-read this and put all sorts of words in my mouth or thoughts in my head. I am NOT comparing homosexual acts to murder. I am picking an obviously immoral act to make a point). I think murder is morally wrong. Does that mean that I deny the dignity or personhood of murderers? No. Does it mean I degrade them or dehumanize them? No. I think murderers have every bit as much dignity qua their personhood as anyone else. I think they have the same basic rights as anyone else. I oppose capital punishment, because I think that punishment does deny the dignity and worth of those persons.
Here is the point: It seems obvious to me that one can distinguish between the dignity of a person and the acts of that person. Apparently this is not an obvious point to everyone. But grasping this point is absolutely essential to understanding what it would mean to “love your neighbor” or to “love your enemy”.
c) Now some might say that I am degrading homosexuals by denying them certain rights. But I don’t think I am. Gay people are free to get married in any number of religious or secular ceremonies (their personal liberty is not infringed upon). I just don’t think people (gay or straight) have a “right” to govt recognition of their personal relationships. The state chooses to incentivize and encourage some actions and discourage others based on compelling state interests, but I don’t think we have a “right” to those recognitions and incentives. The Equal Protection clause does not require equal treatment in every case. There are compelling reasons and interests for the state to encourage traditional marriage, but not with gay marriage. There is a rational basis for the govt privileging traditional marriage, the distinction does not result from “animus” (which is the argument by the plaintiffs’ lawyers in Prop 8). Instead of outlining (again) those reasons here, a pretty good review of this argument can be found here:
http://article.nationalreview.com/406939/the-case-against-boies-olson/nelson-lund
Pingback: Pondering on GLBT Literature « Exceptional Books for Exceptional Kids
YouTube – Эротический бюстгальтер с трусиками – 55 sec – 9 Nov 2008
sdfgdfgdfg
30 янв 2010 11620-25621 Цвет: лотос 75BCD 80BD 85C 11622-25622 Цвет: лотос 96100104 11256-25256 Бюстгальтер Цвет: пудра розы 70А 75А