A MoHo* Moment

* For the uninitiated, "MoHo" refers to a Mormon homosexual. This blogger claims credit, in part, for the origin of the term.

Alone

Today
It may seem like I've lost it all
But I've won peace with me
And right now that seems
Like the most important gain.

This
Journey I'm taking within may appear
Incomprehensible to you
Who have never acted on stage
With a script not written for you.

Alone
I notice it is a beautiful spring day
The river flows swiftly
Sweet blossoms are bursting
The air is warmer than it has been in many months.

Matters
Of confusion and emptiness
Will be resolved with time
By God or by nature, either way.
As me alone, I am better for each of you.

If only every family had a gay child

If only every family had a gay child
The cancerous shame
That begs for deception,
That builds walls of loneliness,
That even takes young lives,
Would be gone in a generation
Because no falsehoods can survive
A parent's love.

Tender ironies

I don’t believe very strongly in Mormon doctrine anymore. As I have written on this blog before, I still find much good in the teachings of the Church. And of course, I very much like many of its current and former members. While it is neither necessary nor productive to turn over every doctrinal cobble, I have suffered enough of my unease over Church history and policies in silence, and no longer feel as compelled to self-censor my thoughts.

This week, a three member panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an earlier judicial finding that Proposition 8 in California is unconstitutional. Of course, further legal wrangling is all but certain, but along with Washington State being on the cusp of legalizing gay marriage, this ruling was one more small step towards marriage equality in the US. The following was part of the majority opinion:

“Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for ‘laws of this sort’.” Further the court determined, “The People may not employ the initiative power to single out a disfavored group for unequal treatment and strip them, without a legitimate justification, of a right as important as the right to marry.” (1)

In response to the ruling by the Ninth Circuit, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a short statement on Tuesday that reads in part:

“The Church…regrets today’s decision. California voters have twice determined in a general election that marriage should be recognized as only between a man and a woman. We have always had that view. Courts should not alter that definition … Millions of voters in California …expressed their desire, through the democratic process, to keep traditional marriage as the bedrock of society …”. (2)

Obviously, the Church is welcome to express its opinion on the merits of gay marriage. Superficially, press room responses like the one above give the impression that the Church holds a simple and popular position. However, like so much in Mormonism, one needs to dig a little deeper to find the deep ironies that sometimes characterize the deceptively simplified narrative the Church offers. In other words, some historical context is needed.

Point 1: The Church repeatedly avows its loyalty to the US Constitution, but in its response to the judicial ruling by the Ninth Circuit, it is being selective. Its statement lauds the initiative process but attacks the judicial functions of balanced government. In doing so, it joins, at least in spirit, other conservatives who decry the actions of “activist judges” with whom they disagree. The complete system of governance in the United States involves not only means for the majority to enact law, but institutions and concepts such as checks and balances that are designed to protect the rights of the people. Fundamental civil rights, especially minority rights, are not intended to be subject to the whims of the majority. The judiciary plays a prominent role in preventing discrimination by the majority. (3)

Point 2: The Church is on shaky ground invoking the supremacy of the democratic process in matters of public policy, because its own structure and modus operandi are far from democratic. The Church is a theocracy, ruled by 15 unelected men who are the final voice in matters of doctrine and policy. Exercise of power at all levels in the Church is supposed to be done in love and righteousness (a laudable goal), but regardless, Church governance flows structurally from top to bottom. It is not democratic. Even if we ignore the silliness of a theocratic institution lecturing on democratic principles, I wonder what the Church will argue when the day comes that the voice of the people in a particular state approves gay marriage. Public opinion on gay marriage is changing, and it is changing very quickly.  Prop 8 did not pass by an overwhelming majority in California.

Point 3: In its very active political opposition to gay marriage, the Church is actively campaigning against the legitimate aspirations of a minority people. In seeking marriage equality, gays are not interfering in the liberties of others, but seeking only to advance their own pursuit of happiness. The Church’s own history of persecution as an unpopular minority should invoke, at a very minimum, deep empathy for LGBT persons who are fighting for equality under the law. Driven from Ohio to Missouri to Illinois, then to Utah, attacked by mobs, and having suffered terrible hardships in the course of pursing their faith in the 1800s, Latter-day Saints are well acquainted with the injustices perpetrated by intolerant neighbors and hostile laws. Nineteenth century Mormons by and large wanted to be left alone to pursue their way of life; twenty-first century gays by and large want to be left alone to love who they love.

Point 4: Recently Church leaders have linked the advance of gay marriage to threats to religious liberty. These arguments are as much of a smokescreen as a genuine concern. Elder Dallin H. Oaks (4) and others (5), for example, may claim that gay marriage infringes conservative religious freedoms, but eliminating the opportunity for gay marriage infringes the rights of other religious groups and individuals to perform marriages that they believe are equally acceptable to God. The religious freedom argument is a twisted one: the Church is seeking freedom from the beliefs of others, not freedom to define its own beliefs. As long as the Church is not forced to perform gay marriages, change its doctrine, or alter its own practices in any substantive way, its religious freedom is not infringed. Of course there may be some legal complexities and some need for compromise to both implement legal gay marriage and preserve freedom for certain religious viewpoints, but blanket prohibition of gay marriage is not acceptable. Hearing a wealthy conservative religion with a public voice disproportionate to its actual membership size crying victim is a little pathetic.

Point 5: Finally, there is great irony in hearing appeals for “traditional marriage” from Latter-day Saint leaders. As much as Church leadership may prefer to whitewash its own controversial history with sexuality, polygamy was a major component of Mormon theology for decades before the practice gradually faded away during the late 1800s and early 1900s following intense public disapproval and persecution from the US government (6). Moreover, monogamous heterosexual marriage – the way much of the rest of modern western society might have defined “traditional” marriage until recently – isn’t a completely accurate expression of current Mormon views of marriage anyway. Theologically, polygamy remains a component of mainstream LDS views because a man can be sealed to more than one woman during the course of his life as long as only one of the women is alive at the time – polygamy is thus believed to exist in the next life (7). Joseph Smith, the first LDS President and founder of polygamy among the Saints, had many wives, some of these women being already married to other men at the time he courted them and one being as young as 14 years old (8). Thus, early Mormons practiced both polygamy and polyandry. Brigham Young and subsequent leaders of the Church continued polygamy for several decades and defiantly challenged laws that prohibited the practice (9). Unfortunately much of this history occurred under a mantle of secrecy and deception so it is perhaps not even well known to most Latter-day Saints. Whether we’re talking about the 1800s or 2012, early Mormon sexuality represented some very unconventional experimentation with marriage! The Church’s position on gay marriage may be consistent over the short span of time that it has been debated openly, but its broader sexual history probably wouldn’t be deemed “traditional” to most people today.

Why the Church has invested so much energy into public opposition to gay marriage is beyond my comprehension. I can only speculate. But the ironies inherent in its political opposition are blatantly obvious to anyone who takes a careful look at Church history, doctrine, and culture. My conclusion is that the Church is exhibiting a bewildering disregard for its own history and culture in the process of publicly defending its position on gay marriage. Perhaps for those of us who have taken the courage to oppose the Church on marriage equality, our frustrations with its position are tempered by this thought: these ironies remind us that we are on the right side of history.

Notes:

(1) Ninth Circuit opinion.
(2) LDS statement.
(3) The desegregation of schools mandated by Brown v. Board of Education is an excellent example of judicial sanity in the face of majority discrimination.
(4) Elder Oaks’s speech at Chapman University.
(5) An open letter from several religious conservatives.
(6) Official Declaration 1, contained in the Doctrine and Covenants, comprises the 1890 manifesto by President Wilford Woodruff that banned polygamy, at least in the US. Despite the modern tendency to interpret this document as a revelation, and perhaps to believe that polygamy ended abruptly upon its reciept, the history is not so clear cut and polygamous marriages continued into the 1900s. For instance, polygamous LDS colonies were created in northern Mexico even though the practice was illegal since 1884 in that country. The Church acknowledges these post-manifesto plural marriages and that phasing out of polygamy was a gradual process. See Quinn, D.M. 1985. LDS Church authority and new plural marriages, 1890-1904. Dialogue 18:11-107 at this link.
(7) The term sealing refers, in part, to an eternal marriage in LDS theology. Theologically, polygamy is enshrined in LDS doctrine in section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants.
(8) This site contains very detailed information on early plural marriages in the Church including source documentation for most of the claims in the document. Most of Joseph’s additional marriages appeared to have occurred during the last few years of his life.
(9) Quinn, D.M. 1985. LDS Church authority and new plural marriages, 1890-1904. Dialogue 18:11-107.

I'm sorry, California

“We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.” – Doctrine and Covenants 134:9 (1835, Kirtland, Ohio).

The unfolding of Proposition 8 was bitter, with ugliness on both sides. My Church was heavily involved in promoting the divisive measure, a short amendment to the California constitution that reads: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California”.¹ After months of divisive debate, Prop 8 passed in California with 52% of the vote. Some estimates suggest that contributions by Mormons to pass the proposition totaled 20-30 million dollars.² This amounted to about 50-75% of the funding in support of the proposition even though Latter-day Saints constitute only about 2% of the population of California. In sum, over $80 million was spent in the campaigns for and against Prop 8, an amount that apparently made it the costliest social issue to reach the nation’s voters up to that time.³

Modeled after earlier efforts to combat same-sex marriage in Hawaii, Church participation in the Prop 8 campaign was channeled through a coalition.⁴ In the 1990s, Hawaii became one of the first states to confront the issue of gay marriage after a case claiming same-sex marriage discrimination made it to the state supreme court.⁵ D. Michael Quinn, a gay Mormon historian, described Church involvement in the Hawaiian campaign against same sex-marriage at both the local level and at Church headquarters.⁶ In fact, Quinn argued that the Church model of political participation via a coalition was patterned after its active opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment during the 1970s. The LDS Church is officially politically neutral and does not endorse specific candidates for elected office, but it strongly asserts its political muscle in matters it finds to be of a moral nature. However, of the numerous moral issues over which the Church might become a vocal political participant (including poverty, abuse, totalitarianism, etc.) repeated political engagement with same-sex marriage rights in various states suggests that it has decided that the fight against gay marriage is of the highest priority.

Proposition 8 brought substantial media attention to the public debate about same sex marriage, but of course it was only a relatively recent event in a long series of political battles within California about same-sex marriage – Prop 22, Mayor Newsom, Judge Walker, the California Supreme Court – this continues to be an on-going saga.

In 2000, I was a new graduate student in southern California. At this point in my life I was very committed to being a faithful Latter-day Saint and was almost thoroughly in the closet about my own homosexuality. This was the season of Prop 22, an initiative put before voters that had exactly the same text as its successor, Prop 8. Passage of the proposition was promoted at that time, as I recall, as being necessary to ensure that California was not forced to recognize any same-sex marriage performed in another state. Same-sex marriage had not yet been made legal at that time in California, so this was a proactive move to halt the legal recognition of same-sex marriages that might be performed elsewhere. Whatever reservations a voter might have had about limiting gays’ rights to be married (e.g., libertarian proclivities), Prop 22 (at least as promoted) could appeal to the state’s rights sentiments of some Americans. Prop 22 passed by a large majority, and by 2005, a court ruled that Prop 22’s power not only limited recognition of out-of-state gay marriage but also prohibiting the performance of same-sex marriages within California itself.⁷

As with Prop 8 later on, the Church actively encouraged membership participation to ensure that Prop 22 was enacted.⁸ I recall participating one day in a small effort to show support for the proposition. Our local institute (young adult religious education) group on campus had set up a booth along the wide walkway that led up to the university library. With a few other students, I hovered around the booth for a short time one day. I don’t recall staying that long or probably doing much more than handing out some pamphlets. Years later, reconstructing my thoughts and feelings of that experience would be difficult, but I can only imagine that I was an uncomfortable mess of emotion and conflict. In the strange myopia that being in the homosexual closet brings, in this season of life I was also probably as much concerned about blowing my carefully-crafted cover as a straight person as I was over the glaring juxtaposition of my own homosexuality and my Church’s anti-gay positions.

In 2008, as Prop 8 efforts began to ramp up, Church pressure on California Mormons to “defend” marriage began again. At first, polls suggested that opponents of the proposition might prevail, representing apparently a large shift in voter sentiment from 8 years prior. This fact did not escape the attention of Church leadership. In official letters from headquarters at Salt Lake City, members were asked to help directly. Local leaders were then responsible for on-the-ground work. Perhaps like all congregations throughout California, our ward appointed a coordinator to lead local efforts. In my ward in a more liberal community in northern California, it was mentioned that members should act with respect. This message of respect for all, even LGBT persons, characterizes official Mormon communications, even if it is not practiced by all members. With Church membership mobilized, the fight was now on. Statewide, there were phone banks, donations, rallies.

By the time Proposition 8 came along and wedged itself for a season into the religious routine of Latter-day Saints, my mechanical acquiescence to the Church was beginning to erode. With a good friend in a key position in local Church leadership, I was still very much willing to listen to arguments against same-sex marriage. More than just an appeal to faith, were there solid rational arguments to oppose gay marriage? My friend and I had some discussions and I listened to his arguments, that now I can more readily identify as classic conservative reasons to oppose same sex marriage.⁹ For instance, a basic argument is that the principle function of marriage is to have and raise children. Gay unions obviously cannot lead to procreation.

As each of these types of arguments were advanced, I could recognize a basis of logic, but there were also valid counter-arguments. The procreation basis for marriage, for instance, suggests that there is no need for marriage for older couples well past child-rearing age or men and women who are unable physically or emotionally to have children. Thus, inconsistent logic emerges from this particular conservative argument – marriage exceptions can be made for heterosexual unions, but not homosexuals.

Shortly after the vote on 4 November 2008, Californians learned that Proposition 8 passed. From time to time an opinion is expressed that the Church was burned fairly badly by its involvement in Prop 8, though I think ultimately it is hard to quantify such an assertion. Certainly specific members were disaffected to varying degrees (some left the Church, others remained active but had wounded testimonies). Did tithing decline? How many members resigned? No doubt that inside and outside the Church, it’s fundamental opposition to gay marriage was and is unpopular with many people. Unfortunately, there seems to be a deeper feeling of distrust that emerged from the Prop 8 episode. In part, it was the tactics used in the political mobilization that left unease – the disproportionate sum of money, Utah meddling in California, and the discussion of politics in meetings where members were supposed to gather for spiritual refuge.

Despite the negative effects of Prop 8 in California, Church involvement in the crusade against same-sex marriage continues. A very recent report from Minnesota describes a letter from Church headquarters asking members to contribute to an anti-gay marriage initiative that will appear on the 2012 ballot.¹⁰ Also this month, a coalition of conservative religious individuals posted an open letter on-line opposing homosexual marriage.¹¹ This particular letter was signed by Bishop Burton, a member of the presiding bishopric of the Church. Recent manifestations of the LDS crusade perhaps have taken on a new political tact, namely that adoption of same-sex marriage by governments will lead to a restriction on religious liberties.¹² The letter Bishop Burton signed, in fact, explicitly complains that religious liberties will be infringed if same-sex marriage becomes a protected right. Without a legal background, I don’t know the various legal implications that same-sex marriage would bring. However, the recent law in New York State seems to carve out a reasonable exception for religious freedom while enabling same-sex marriage. Intentional or not, claiming that gay marriage restricts religious freedom makes the comfortable majority appear to be the victim. What about the religious freedom of individuals who believe that God sees people of all sexual orientations as deserving equal treatment?

During Proposition 8 my most overriding feeling was that I wanted the entire debate to disappear. The larger political debate hit too close to home: my own microcosm of conflict between being gay and Mormon suddenly was being played out on a grand scale. No one in this larger debate was necessarily going to respect the internal sensitivities that I cultivated to prevent the conflict from erupting in fury within my own soul. Gays and devout Mormons each felt that they had an important stake in this debate. But what about persons who were gay AND Mormon? In response to the conflict, I largely chose non-response; I wanted to hide and wait for the election to pass. In the end, I voted in support of Prop 8 just as I had done with Prop 22. It was a reluctant vote, one born of guilt from not following what the Church expected of me I suppose. That day at the ballot box, I tried to balance my disappointment stemming from Prop 8 with my excitement about an engaging presidential election. But on the issue of gay marriage, I was not yet ready to assert my independence. I’m sorry, California. I made a mistake.

In writing this post, I took some time to revisit some of the Prop 22 and Prop 8 history. On the one hand, these were uncomfortable episodes in my journey to understand my sexuality, but on the other hand, I think the dissonance caused by the Church’s involvement probably helped crack the closet door for me a little more with each event. Ultimately, the Church gains nothing of lasting value in these political forays into same-sex marriage. Gay marriage is advancing politically and most Americans of future generations will be embarrassed to look upon the resistance manifest in our day to the further advance of social justice. If marriage benefits individuals, families, and communities by promoting stability, commitment and sacrifice (as strong proponents of marriage reasonably claim), then it is an institution that LGBT persons need too. The pro-family Mormon Church should be a partner in advancing opportunities and freedoms for LGBT people. Yet sadly now it has dug in its heels, and like a stubborn person, it has chosen the fleeting pleasure of obstinacy over the long-term satisfaction of doing justice.

Notes:
1. Section 7.5 of the California constitution.
2. Estimates given by HRC here and here and a magazine article here.
3. HRC figure.
4. The rejection of same-sex marriages within Mormon theology is shared by other conservative religions including the Catholic Church. However, many Americans still feel uncomfortable with various unique aspects of Mormon doctrine, so the Church has seemingly determined that opposing same-sex marriage through a third party is an effective way to engage in the debate. Practically, funneling resources and volunteer efforts through a coalition allows the Church to collaborate with like-minded groups and yet maintain enough distance from the issue to blunt significant damage to the Church’s public image. 
5. See Wikipedia articles here and here.
6. D. Michael Quinn. 1997. The Mormon Hierarchy. Extensions of Power. Smith Research Associates.
7. Some Prop 22 history.
8. Link here.
9. See Sullivan, A. 1996. Virtually Normal. Vintage Books.
10. Support sought for Minnesota initiative.
11. “Marriage and Religious Freedom”
12. Elder Oaks, a Mormon apostle with a legal background, has in particular been in the forefront of making the LDS case that conservative religions are modern victims. See the following speeches at Chapman University and BYU Idaho by Elder Oaks and an article with some alternative perspectives.

The fixed and the fluid

Coming from the Mormon worldview, it is hard to break free from the concepts of permanence and constancy. I don’t necessarily know their doctrinal origins, but I do have a good theory about why they are maintained: they feed a basic human desire to be emotionally secure, to feel that despite the empirical evidence of our individual insignificance, we are in control of at least the little spheres around us. But evidence everywhere tells us that constancy and permanence are illusions. Change is constant, sometimes fast, sometimes slow, but ubiquitous. And interestingly, other doctrines of Mormonism (like the seldom spoken-of idea that God was once like man and evolved into His current position of deity, and the concept of continuing revelation), run counter to these strains of constancy. Doctrinally, Mormonism is a mix of change and constancy, but it is certainly the latter that has the upper hand theologically these days.

Think for a minute of the atoms and molecules that make up our bodies – the flux of matter in and out of us with every meal and trip to the restroom. Most of the atoms that make me today will be somewhere else a year from now. Even the atoms in the DNA molecules that instruct cells to synthesize such and such molecules at such and such times are replaced over time. Only the information in the DNA, encoded via its physical structure, is relatively constant during the lifetime of an individual. However, slowly accumulating mutations in individual cells and in the evolutionary lineages of species and higher-order taxa point to its ultimate impermanence as well. As individual organisms we age, we lose functions gradually, and then die.

By doctrine, Mormonism attempts to escape some of the inevitabilities of death. Through the doctrine of a bodily resurrection, we may inherit bodies that become immortal and never again subject to die (1). Through sealings to spouse and children we can bind relationships beyond the separation of death (2). Through covenants we can forge a relationship with God that cannot be touched by other forces in the universe. Many Latter-day Saints become very attached to these concepts, evidenced in part by emotional testimonies born in congregations about the truthfulness of the afterlife, sealings and a literal resurrection.

I have little problem with the motivations behind such hopeful concepts of permanence, because they are born of the human need for emotional security (I doubt I differ much from anyone else in this respect) and, at their core, they are really innocuous systems of belief that of themselves probably have little negative effect on how life carries on. But there is scant empirical evidence that any of these amendments to the constitution of death are close to being true.

Given belief in an afterlife, there are two general alternative paths for how a person engages with life. The first is a proactive existence that uses belief as a motivation to do one’s absolute best in this life. Belief in an afterlife isn’t required to live a purposeful existence by any means, but for some it serves a useful role. The second path is an unfortunate one – belief in the afterlife becomes an excuse to be passive about making the most of experiences in the here and now. I imagine, for example, the mindset of people who want to wait until a future existence to find happiness, or who shy away from asking the really hard questions of modern life or fully accepting themselves.

Hope doesn’t release us from change. It will not keep my atoms from recycling into some other organism somewhere on the planet. My atoms will soon enough find themselves in the soil and in water, and, if in another lifeform, a bacterium (likely – they make up most of the earth’s living organic biomass), a plant perhaps (how wonderful, I’d love to participate in the miracle of photosynthesis!), or, less likely, in some animal. Basically, my atoms no more belong to me than to the other creatures that use them, past and future.

Hope is a beautiful concept applied to the here and now. It is the fire that burns in those pushing for civil rights. It is the extra energy to forge new and exciting relationships. It can encourage individual sacrifice for causes greater than one’s self. But it is less attractive as an escape from the inevitability of change. I have hope; I work hard; I cling in some ways to concepts of permanence. But I also must know deep down that these are games of the mind. Death is the great arbitrator of our existence. If my mortal relationships and experiences, if my own identity even, can survive the inevitability of death, then I will be genuinely pleasantly surprised. But I may also gain much more out of life by living without that “certainty”.

Notes
(1) The cycling of physical matter among organisms and inert matter presents some technical challenges for belief in a literal resurrection that is based on the concept that organisms “own” their own physical matter. Life forms other than humans will also be resurrected in LDS theology. Thus, if an atom finds residence in several creatures, which will gain ownership of an atom in the permanent hereafter?  Also, given the short generation times of bacteria, their large cumulative biomass relative to other organisms, and their long evolutionary history, resurrection of all bacteria that ever lived on Earth would materially swamp the elemental requirements other multi-cellular organisms like humans. There is another strangely literal LDS teaching about the resurrection: blood is the Mormon symbol of human mortality, so our immortal bodies will be bloodless in the hereafter but will otherwise resemble our present anatomy.

(2) LDS sealings are only performed between husband and wife and between children and parents. This is nice, but I would vote for a heaven where I am sealed to friends and nice strangers too.

Conversations about the future

…some thoughts recorded over the last two months or so which will be edited eternally if they are not posted…

It has been several months now since I have told family members and a number of close friends that I am gay; a few have known for a little longer. I think that I am more eager than my friends to bring up questions about the future of my marriage and family in these conversations. Most friends have thus far shied away from directly offering opinions (if they have them at all). But at certain times I feel the need for feedback, for information and perspective that would help me map the emotional and relationship terrain ahead. Of course I don’t expect anyone to have any solid answers for me. How could anyone possibly be able to figure out all of this out, especially when it has not been directly experienced?

A number of close friends have been pretty direct in private conversations with my wife, however. She is an amazing person who has garnered deep respect from people that know her. One close friend of my wife who has read this blog wondered a while ago why I have not expressed remorse about the difficult situation that I have put her in by marrying her in the first place.

It is true that I have said very little even in private conversation, but I am saddened that our situation is so difficult on my wife. I’ve had some deep emotional experiences thinking about the pain that I have put her through and the uncertainty that she now feels. I’ve made life difficult for her despite her generous protestations that I have been a good husband over the years. Over the course of our marriage I’ve given her the best I am able to offer: honesty, hard work, apologies, adventures, some laughter, and years of setting aside my natural romantic and sexual interests. On the other hand, I’ve not given her things that are really hard for me to offer: complete emotional dedication, marital passion, and complete sublimation of my sexual identity. I truly don’t want her to suffer; one of my guiding spiritual values is to avoid harming others. I’m willing to incur difficulties for others; I am often willing to pull more than my fair share in a relationship.

I truly wish that I had had the courage to confront my sexuality in a more serious way before we were married. I think I did my best at the time. At that time the Church path was such an omnipresent structuring force in my life, that I don’t know how I could have realistically accepted that life might have options for me other than heterosexual marriage or life-long celibacy. Today I think a more courageous decision would have been to forgo heterosexual marriage as a future option for myself. But the missing pieces of cognition at that point in my life were a much deeper understanding of my sexuality, an understanding that faith, time or hard work truly wouldn’t be able to change my sexuality, and a belief that I really could be happy in a same-sex relationship. Those critical points, though so much more transparent to me today, run contrary to two fundamental tenets of the Church that are taught ad nauseam: if you have enough faith anything is possible, and if you are obedient to the commandments, you will be blessed. Steeped in these beliefs, to accept homosexuality was to give in to failure. Church leaders put significant pressure on single guys to get married and not delay starting a family. Some gay Mormons emerge from this pressure cooker choosing a life of celibacy, but I don’t think I ever felt that was going to work for me.

There are times when the spiritual ideal of ‘no harm’ comes in direct conflict with other very important facets of life. How does one prioritize these values and needs? Sexuality and the broader issue of attraction are so integral to the expression of individuality that they cannot be ignored or minimized without substantial effects on the development and well being of a person. Sacrifice is an integral component of deep relationships, but should there be limits? Is it healthy for a marriage to be a relationship where sacrifice is the principal pillar on which it stands?

When a satisfactory compromise of conflicting identities and divergent needs can be found in a mixed orientation marriage, a workable relationship may emerge for both spouses. The usual optimal manifestation of sacrifice in a relationship involves both partners giving some and taking some, but both finding that growth in the relationship compensates for anything that was given up. It is difficult to think of such a compromise when matters of identity and love and self-esteem are involved. Can the gay spouse choose to be half gay or to be half married? Does the straight spouse want or deserve half a companion? Those kinds of options don’t really make much sense in the traditional conception of marriage and monogamous relationships.

It cannot be easy to be a straight spouse married to a gay person. Does the straight spouse doubt her attractiveness, her past decisions, her future dreams, her identity? Does she blame herself for the complex circumstances of a mixed-orientation marriage? I can protest that I am the one with the problem, that our troubles with intimacy are solely due to me, but that does not remove the emotional difficulty that my wife experiences. She is not the source of our challenges, but she a full participant in their consequences. We have both been strongly influenced by a Church culture that emphasizes that faith and obedience can solve anything. But, when faith and hard work fail to heal something that is not broken – when faith and hard work are useful tools applied to the wrong problem – disappointment and frustration can set in.

As we come to a place of greater comprehension about my identity and greater honesty in our relationship, we come to a crossroads as well. Like a scientist with new data, the old ideas should be reassessed. We have to ask of our relationship: what are we fighting for or working towards now? Are we fighting for what is best for us? Are we going to choose one valid existence over another? Are we working to honor someone else’s hopes and dreams for us? Are we fighting mainly for a concept?

Where do we walk from here on out? At some point final decisions will be made and we will move forward. It is not realistic to think that we’ll stay on the fence forever; that is not an outcome that will be emotionally healthy for either of us. While some may disagree with the decisions we will eventually make, I have confidence that those who genuinely care for us and who invest the time to understand the complexity of our situation will wisely leave judgments to us. Coming out involves risks with unforeseen consequences. The world may not yet be sympathetic enough to the gay experience to forgive a gay married man for not getting things right the first time around.

Not so!

“We must understand that any persuasion to enter into any relationship that is not in harmony with the principles of the Gospel must be wrong. In the Book of Mormon we learn that ‘wickedness never was happiness’. Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the unpure and the unnatural. Not so! Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember He is our Father.”
-President Boyd K. Packer, October 2010 General Conference (1)

Some suppose that their attraction to the same sex is sinful or shameful. They believe that their deepest capacity to love another person must be suppressed or that God cannot approve of the nature of their love. Some suppose that only in being fractured can they be saved, that only in withdrawing from themselves can they commune with God. Not so! Why would God endow a person with a beautiful capacity to love another and then require him or her to fight this very gift? Remember that truth transcends culture and ignorance and fear.

Some others suppose that it is natural to have disgust for those who acknowledge or express love towards the same sex. They believe that only attractions towards the opposite sex are normal, and that other forms of love are illegitimate or unfulfilling. Some therefore suppose that it is their duty to denigrate homosexuality, to elevate themselves by demeaning others. Not so! Why would a loving, omniscient God ever sanction ignorance or arrogant judgment of others? Remember that we each have the remarkable capacity to reach beyond the limited understanding of our own individual experiences.

Note:
(1) This is the un-edited version of President Packer’s talk delivered at the LDS General Conference in October 2010. My transcription is taken from the video posted here. The talk was later edited for the printed version of the General Conference proceedings.