Gay teen romance of the palatable variety

Love, Simon (trailer) came out in theaters this weekend. I almost never see movies in the theater, but when I heard about this movie about a week ago, I knew I wanted to see it. Part of me (maybe a generally submerged part) is a sappy romantic. The movie is a comedic teen romance, and as several critics point out, is predictably scripted as per the genre. However it seemed to offer something almost surprisingly unique for a mainstream film – a gay central character.

Simon, 17, lives a relatively affluent suburban life with a happy nuclear American family and a group of close supportive high school friends. He’s carried the secret of his sexual orientation for several years, but one day learns from a friends that there is another, anonymous kid at his school. Boldly he strikes up a conversation on-line with “Blue” and gradually the two anonymous boys confide in each other and grow closer. Neither knows the other’s identity, and Simon spends much of the movie wondering if this guy or that is Blue. Events soon become more complicated when a scheming classmate captures screenshots of Simon’s conversations and threatens to out Simon if Simon doesn’t set the boy up with one of his friends. Eventually Simon is outed against his will, two bullies openly taunt him at school, friends who feel betrayed by his behavior become distant, and Blue retreats, not ready to be out himself.

Each of these setbacks is reversed in time. His friends return. The bullies are thoroughly reprimanded at school. Christmas morning he comes out to his parents who offer warm support. And he finally meets Blue in a sappy Hollywood climax. It’s not a necessarily overly creative movie plot-wise, but the acting is passable to good, and comedy adds balance to the awkward and more serious moments of the film.

Unfortunately there is likely to be some pushback about this movie. Anytime the actually-normal normalcy of gay life is portrayed publicly there are some who take that as an opportunity to decry the downfall of the family and other sordid evils that will befall America because there was a short non-sensual gay kiss in a mainstream movie. Hollywood will get attacked; the “gay agenda” will be denounced; and stern moral warnings may flow from some people who frankly probably make God (should s/he exist or even give a damn) ashamed to be associated with them.

One of the perks of the film is the portrayal of gay life as very average most of the time. It is not all flashy, flamboyant, and queer theory. One sympathetic reviewer called it quite “vanilla”, but noted that that wasn’t necessarily bad, especially since vanilla might be all the general heterosexual masses in polarized America might be ready for. At upwards of 4% of the population, and youth claiming non-heterosexuality at perhaps even higher rates, being LGBT is quite normal. The normalcy on non-heterosexuality will rustle some feathers, but it is not only factually accurate, but is a necessary social perspective for our society to be more equal and inclusive.

The film dealt with some issues that a straight romantic film couldn’t, one being the collateral damage of the closet. We suspect earlier in the movie, and learn definitively later, that one of Simon’s best friends is in love with him. A life-long thoughtful friend, her heart is broken when she learns that Simon doesn’t see her that way and he tries to set her up with another mutual friend. The innocence with which Simon is unaware of her feelings for him could be the experience of any naïve teen, but it is practically a hallmark of young gay men oblivious to the interest of their female friends. The movie plays on the stereotypical, though probably at least partly true, theme that the innocence and romantic distance of young gay guys seems to attract the girls’ interest even more. Unfortunately for the straight female friend, like other closeted gay boys, Simon is daydreaming about guys.

Though not particularly well developed in the movie, Love, Simon also deals with the struggle of self acceptance that is one universal ritual that precedes the (voluntary) coming out experience. Really, Simon has the most ideal environment possible for coming out – he lives in upper middle class comfort, has warm open-minded loving parents, good looks, and fits comfortably in his high school social world. Even so, he struggles with coming out for some time, and it is only through meeting another closeted student on-line that he begins the process. In fact, the two help each other break the secrecy and isolation of the closet in a mutually-affirming way.  This mirrors my own coming out experience, and probably that of many others – through connection with other LGBT people, we break the isolation that fuels the fear that suppresses self-acceptance.

For straight audiences, hopefully the film offers a few minutes of reflection about what the struggle for self-acceptance can be like and the transformation that occurs between regarding sexuality as a combustible secret and a personal asset. The movie takes a minute to take a playful jab at the fact that straight people never have to come out to their families or friends. I might add that while straight youth thereby dodge the discomfort of the process, perhaps they lose something in life experience by not having to deeply confront who they really are and how authentically they want their inner reality to match their outer persona.

For Simon to come out, it meant exchanging the safety of his false heterosexual image (or asexual image at best) for the freedom to be himself at all times and in all places. The exchange of safety for liberation almost invariably comes with a cost in the real world, but for Simon it is transient and minimal in the film. In short, he had it way easier than when I went to high school and probably easier than many kids today in certain communities.

This relatively seamless path to acceptance is an unrealistic expectation for every young LGBT people (violence, rejecting families and lack of supportive networks are all too common unfortunately), but Simon’s story is a refreshing exception to what is probably the norm, even in 2018 America. As an LGBT audience anticipating and enjoying a film like this, sometimes we want to just breathe too, and soak in an innocent sweet gay love story. May these stories not be so rare in the future, whether in cinema or in real life. 

The World Congress of Families

This week the World Congress of Families (WCF) convenes its 9^th international conference in Salt Lake City, Utah. It is the first time the organization, founded about 20 years ago, has had a conference in the United States. Scheduled speakers and attendees at the event include the governor of Utah, Gary Herbert, and one of the senior apostles of the LDS Church, M. Russell Ballard. Affiliates of BYU and BYU-Idaho are also scheduled to speak at various points in the conference. The event is hosted by the Sutherland Institute, a conservative Utah-based organization.

The mission of the WCF is to “provide … sound scholarship and effective strategies to affirm and defend the natural family”. The “natural family” is a nuclear family comprised of a married man and woman. Unfortunately through their actions, agenda and associations, the WCF has made it fairly clear that LGBT individuals and families are not just viewed as non-ideal in this worldview, but as the enemy. Here are some important considerations when weighing whether the World Congress of Families and its affiliates really work towards the benefit of all families:

- The WCF has been labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

- In 2009, the United Nations prepared a statement urging that homosexuality should be decriminalized (homosexual acts are illegal in many countries). The WCF opposed this measure.

- WCF’s past partners include the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, both anti-LGBT organizations.

- The WCF openly admits to opposing hate-crime legislation and to laws that ban reparative therapy even while it tries to defend its self as not hateful.

- The WCF calls those who oppose their narrow definitions of family and human sexuality, “sexual radicals”.

- The Sutherland Institute which is sponsoring WCF’s conference in Utah this year, is opposed to same-sex marriage, same-sex civil unions, and recognition of LGBT people as a protected legal class. They also directly reject the idea that anyone is born gay.

- One of the plenary sessions of this year’s conference includes “The Future After the SCOTUS Decision”, a short series of talks that are quite unlikely to heap much praise on this landmark decision for equality in America.

- Another conference speaker is Professor Mark Regnerus, the author of a high-profile, but discredited, study that claimed to show the superiority of opposite sex parenting over same-sex parenting.

- Past WCF event speakers and organizers include Scott Lively, a rabid anti-gay activist who was intimately tied to the development of Uganda’s recent notorious anti-LGBT legislation that, in its original form, proscribed the death penalty or life imprisonment for homosexual acts. Lively previously claimed that “homosexuals created the Nazi party”.

Unfortunately, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has fairly strong links to the World Congress of Families. In addition to Elder Ballard’s planned keynote address during the opening day of the conference this year, there are other connections between the Mormon Church and this organization:

- Elder Dallin H. Oaks, another senior apostle in the Church, is an honorary member of the WFC board of directors.

-  LDS Apostles have apparently already spoken at past conferences of the organization.

- The renowned Mormon Tabernacle Choir will be performing at the 2015 conference.

Of course every organization or individual has the right to peacefully advocate for their positions, but in the public sphere there is no free pass from the scrutiny of fact. While some WCF work probably does help some families, the organization’s activities and motives are suspect, and Latter-day Saints should seriously ask why their Church is affiliated with this organization. To the WFC and its supporters: If your “defense” of the family involves explicitly or implicitly tearing down other families, perhaps you are going about it all wrong?

Links to other perspectives:

- 3 Sept 2015 Salt Lake Tribune op-ed by a leader in Mormons Building Bridges, questioning whether the WCF really embodies Utah values.

- Inclusive Families Conference 2015 – held this weekend in SLC.

- A defense of WCF in the LDS Church-owned Deseret News.