I really want this to be my front door. I don't quite understand how you get couches and beds into these old skinny doorways and up those old skinny stairs, but if I could claim this address, I'd find a way.
How would it be...
...to have residential tourists (I know it can't be just me and there has to be others out there who loves to do this on vacation) wander through your neighborhood and find your home so charmingly picturesque that they photograph it as though they were seeing the Eiffel Tower for the first time. On second thought, maybe that would be annoying.
I really want this to be my front door. I don't quite understand how you get couches and beds into these old skinny doorways and up those old skinny stairs, but if I could claim this address, I'd find a way.
I really want this to be my front door. I don't quite understand how you get couches and beds into these old skinny doorways and up those old skinny stairs, but if I could claim this address, I'd find a way.
Residential Adventure | Adams Morgan
One of my favorite things to do in cities is wander through residential neighborhoods, see how people really live, get off the beaten tourist path. When I built a few play days into my DC trip, I was googling for events and festivals when I found an excellent cultural tourism website. This website breaks the district into neighborhoods and suggests the highlights of each. One neighborhood that I'd heard great things about, including from my friend who lives there currently and a friend who did live there for about a decade, was Adams Morgan.
It's a funky-eclectic-artsy-yuppie hot spot known for quirky boutique shopping and public murals. My only regret with this excursion is that I went too early in the day and the neighborhood was still sleepy. In hindsight, I should have planned this to be my dinner/club destination. Oh well, I still got a sense of it and that sense tells me I would be very happy living here. Because really, who doesn't want an Egyptian cat pharaoh mural thing coming out their bedroom window?
Tehehehe. Madam's Organ is the young professional's waterhole in Adams Morgan. I dig it.
A Sunny Day in Annapolis, Maryland
During the work-half of my week in DC I took a day trip to Annapolis. I had business with a college there and it was my first time to that city. After our work was done, we ate lunch on the water at The Severn Inn and wandered about the historic district. We could not have asked for better weather...or fresher mozzarella!
I love squishy row houses and brownstones, tree-lined streets, and brick sidewalks. I can't imagine how much it would cost to live in said squishy spaces, but seriously, how lovely is this?! It feels like another world and in squishy east coast neighborhoods like this I half expect some bespectacled founding father to trot past in his carriage on his way to sign something really important.
Remember that gorgeously sunny weather I was telling you about? This is what that sun looks like streaming through the turning leaves of fall.
Swank Swanky Swank | Washington DC
There are few things in life more swanky than business travel. Well, in my life anyway there are few things more swanky than business travel. There's dropping $300/night on a hotel in Dupont Circle and then there's crashing at your cousin's place. On my recent trip to DC, I was lucky enough to do both. For the first half of the week I was on my consulting dime and that dime took me to the Hotel Palomar, a Kimpton property. The niche for Kimpton is: "Every Hotel has a Story" and the story that my hotel happens to tell is: "Art in Motion."
Is the hot pink body pillow a bit unconventional? Yes. How about the cheetah faux fur throw? Definitely over the top. The massively fuzzy cheetah bathrobe and matching slippers? Indulgent to be sure. My favorite part is the nightstand that lights up and the fact that all the lamps dim, including the spotlights in the big bathtub. Did I feel like a 70s pimp with my padded leather headboard? You bet. And why not? I love exploring new hotels and when you travel a lot, why not have fun with it? This place was recommended and arranged by my contact at the company for whom I do the consulting work, so roll with it.
Up Next: Washington DC
Stay tuned. I'm sorting through my DC photos and will soon start posting memories of that trip.I can't even count the number of times I've been to DC and yet, every. single. trip. offers new surprises and experiences. I love that city.
Old Baldy Lighthouse
I was nursing a pretty serious burn on my legs and couldn't join my friends as they climbed creaky wooden steps to the top of Old Baldy. I was content to putter around the ground level taking pictures.There was an old mailbox, the rudder from a crashed pirate ship, a piece of the original stairway, and my favorite articfact...
...an old brick-making machine similar to the one used to build the first/inner layer of Old Baldy. I fell in love with the dust. I don't think I would have liked it nearly as much if it had been in a shiny museum.
Bald Head Island | North Carolina
As was the case with our girlfriend getaways in Italy and Hawaii, Kris and I once again celebrated our birthdays in a picturesque setting...this time around in North Carolina. The four of us decided to take a day trip to Bald Head Island, the southern tip of the infamous Outer Banks. The island is home to Old Baldy, the oldest standing lighthouse in North Carolina, erected in 1817. We did not realize, as we piled in our golf cart (the island is only accessible by ferry, no cars allowed) and adventurously trekked out to the Frying Pan Shoals, that Tropical Storm Kyle was only a few miles off shore. We took a very sandy, very windy beating, but still had a great day cruising around the island, Kris and I perched precariously on the back of the golf cart, watching the marshy island roads fly past.
The rickety boardwalk cutting through wetlands on its way to a rough shoreline is so quintessentially east coast...and for some inexplicable reason it emotes a vintage energy for me. Charming.
Barrage of photos...comin' your way
I survived. I had to ignore this blog, all three email accounts, facebook, and twitter, but I survived. I went from my vacation in North Carolina, to meetings in Washington DC, to a conference in Salt Lake City, to yet another conference in New Orleans, to a consulting site visit in Baton Rouge. Right now I'm vegging at my parent's house for the holiday weekend and I plan to post photos, photos, and more photos.Yeah, so, it's the last week in November and I'm just now able to post vacay pics from September...? It's an annoying but familiar pattern to long-time readers of this blog.
Ready...set...go!
Prop 8: The Diversity of Mormon Voices | Jason Brown
After I posted my thoughts on the passage of California's Proposition 8, my friend Chris (who also posted about this issue on his own blog) made a comment that raised many points I would like to address. I also received many more comments from friends who chose not to post their thoughts publicly. What is clear from the many conversations I've had recently is that I need to post "How Do I Reconcile, part two." I hope to collect my thoughts and do that soon.
In the meantime I want to share with you the thoughts of my friend Jason. Jason and I know each other through our involvement in the grassroots organization Mormons for Equality and Social Justice (MESJ). He posts about Anarchism, Mormonism, politics, anthropology, and environmental philosophy on his blog Barefoot Anthropology. His post about Prop 8 can be found here, and I've also pasted it in its entirety below. When I first read his essay I was struck by the similarity in our thinking on this issue, though we have never discussed Prop 8. I post his words because I want to continue to bring the diversity of Mormon voices to this discussion.
For your consideration: "A Mormon's Response to Proposition 8"
The recent surge of political energy demonstrated by California Mormons over Proposition 8 demonstrates what the Church can do: be a powerful force for political and social coalition building and activism. But, for some strange reason we have drawn a crooked line in the sand. The rights of homosexual men and women to define their relationships as they see fit has been deemed a “moral” issue which somehow threatens the sanctity of heterosexual marriages, but health care for all, two deadly and expensive wars, and the growing environmental crisis are “political,” and apparently unworthy of collective action or endorsement. I suppose that a church sworn to political neutrality on the surface can easily escape moral responsibility if moral issues are redefined as political[i]. What is moral about imposing a contemporary Christian interpretation of marriage on the rest of the nation? I say contemporary because as you may recall, in the late 1800s, Mormons defined marriage as between a man and multiple women. One would think that Mormons, who have experienced similar persecution related to the right to define marriage, would be a little more understanding of the present demands of homosexuals.
I am increasingly convinced that anyone who believes that homosexuality is a “social disease,” or wholly a lifestyle or personal choice has never met a Mormon homosexual. Over the past several months I have had the privilege of meeting and conversing with several homosexuals who have grown up in the Mormon Church. They have faced the pain of expulsion from school, disownment by parents, and cultural exile. I cannot imagine a torture more exquisite than to know that my own theology does not have a place for my inner most identity. Suicide is common among homosexual Mormons, who feel that there is no solution to the crisis of being true to their religion and to themselves. It is for this reason that I wish to state unambiguously and without reservation that I disagree whole-heartedly with the church’s decision to support a constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage at the state and federal level. I believe it is unconstitutional and immoral to legislate against the desires of our fellow citizens who may not share a similar theology. My argument rests on the assumption and personal conviction that homosexuals are a kind of person, not people engaging in a type of sexual behavior. If we believe this then we believe that they have rights under the constitution.
The argument I hear most in favor for Proposition 8 is that we live in a Christian nation. This is simply not true. We live in a secular republic with a majority Christian population. We do not have an official religion, which the founding fathers adamantly opposed despite most of them representing a variety of Christian and Deist traditions. If the goal of the Mormon Church and its allies is to impose a Theocracy in the United States, then we can begin to talk about constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, requiring prayer in schools, making the Bible the official text of the nation, etc. But, until that happens, (God forbid), we live in a pluralistic and multi-cultural society with a variety of values and perspectives; I don’t see that changing in the next few years. It is ironic that most conservative Mormons voice criticism of radical Islamists attempting to take over their respective governments in order to impose Sharia Law on the citizenry. It would seem that Proposition 8 is a similar if less militant and violent type of program: Seek to impose the ethics of the dominant religious tradition on religious and non-religious minorities. One of the myriad reasons given to justify the invasion of Iraq was to spread liberal secular democracy, yet we seek to overthrow it in our own country. If we agree that we live in a pluralistic and multi-cultural society, and not a Christian theocracy, what right do we have to demand of others an ethic that is not even their own?
The other argument I hear is that if the majority of Americans want to pass a constitutional amendment against gay marriage then homosexuals should just accept that, because, hey that’s democracy. The Civil Rights movement and the Gay Rights movement are analogous because the 14th amendment calls for “equal protection under the law” of its citizens. Thus, if it true that homosexuals are a kind of person, as they claim, and not simply persons engaging in a type of sexual behavior, then it is constitutional to support their right to define marriage how they see fit. We don’t have to agree with it, but we do need to respect it. Democracy is not simply about majority rules; it is also about protecting minorities, whether they be atheists, Homosexuals, Buddhists, Muslims, or African-Americans. The rights of homosexuals to marry is part of the expanding notion of natural rights that in the past several hundred years has incorporated white men who do not own property, to women, African-Americans, Native Americans, and to some extent animals and the natural world.
If the Mormon Church is serious about working toward a truly family friendly social policy, I would suggest we advocate for such reforms as paid maternity leave, universal health care, free child care, mandatory paid vacation, gender parity in wages, and a living wage so that working parents can support a family. I find it to be supremely ironic that in this sense, European countries are more family friendly that we are!
Despite my vehement opposition to Proposition 8, I would never support any action by states or the federal government which would force any religion to accept or sanction homosexual marriage within their own tradition; this appeals of course to the first amendment. This is ironically, the same side of the coin that claims that we live in a pluralistic and multi-cultural society. Yes it is important to fight for the civil rights of all types of people, but we must also respect the rights of Christians to believe that homosexuality is a sin. The freedom of religion allows for a free exercise of conscious and practice, thus, I would hope that within every religious tradition (free of state mandate) there might be an ongoing dialogue about our theologies and the reality of homosexuality. We must engage with homosexuals in our own tradition, lending a compassionate and Christ-like ear. In Mormonism, we should also be sincere about the real possibility of a church founded on revelation changing its position when the time is right. While I support the right of gays to define their relationships as they see fit, there is nothing in the constitution that says that Mormons must accept gay marriage as part of their theology until the theology is ready.
[i] thank you Ashley Sanders for this insight
Here is an Amazing article by an active gay Mormon:
http://sunstoneonline.com/podcast/wrathall.pdf
In the meantime I want to share with you the thoughts of my friend Jason. Jason and I know each other through our involvement in the grassroots organization Mormons for Equality and Social Justice (MESJ). He posts about Anarchism, Mormonism, politics, anthropology, and environmental philosophy on his blog Barefoot Anthropology. His post about Prop 8 can be found here, and I've also pasted it in its entirety below. When I first read his essay I was struck by the similarity in our thinking on this issue, though we have never discussed Prop 8. I post his words because I want to continue to bring the diversity of Mormon voices to this discussion.
For your consideration: "A Mormon's Response to Proposition 8"
The recent surge of political energy demonstrated by California Mormons over Proposition 8 demonstrates what the Church can do: be a powerful force for political and social coalition building and activism. But, for some strange reason we have drawn a crooked line in the sand. The rights of homosexual men and women to define their relationships as they see fit has been deemed a “moral” issue which somehow threatens the sanctity of heterosexual marriages, but health care for all, two deadly and expensive wars, and the growing environmental crisis are “political,” and apparently unworthy of collective action or endorsement. I suppose that a church sworn to political neutrality on the surface can easily escape moral responsibility if moral issues are redefined as political[i]. What is moral about imposing a contemporary Christian interpretation of marriage on the rest of the nation? I say contemporary because as you may recall, in the late 1800s, Mormons defined marriage as between a man and multiple women. One would think that Mormons, who have experienced similar persecution related to the right to define marriage, would be a little more understanding of the present demands of homosexuals.
I am increasingly convinced that anyone who believes that homosexuality is a “social disease,” or wholly a lifestyle or personal choice has never met a Mormon homosexual. Over the past several months I have had the privilege of meeting and conversing with several homosexuals who have grown up in the Mormon Church. They have faced the pain of expulsion from school, disownment by parents, and cultural exile. I cannot imagine a torture more exquisite than to know that my own theology does not have a place for my inner most identity. Suicide is common among homosexual Mormons, who feel that there is no solution to the crisis of being true to their religion and to themselves. It is for this reason that I wish to state unambiguously and without reservation that I disagree whole-heartedly with the church’s decision to support a constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage at the state and federal level. I believe it is unconstitutional and immoral to legislate against the desires of our fellow citizens who may not share a similar theology. My argument rests on the assumption and personal conviction that homosexuals are a kind of person, not people engaging in a type of sexual behavior. If we believe this then we believe that they have rights under the constitution.
The argument I hear most in favor for Proposition 8 is that we live in a Christian nation. This is simply not true. We live in a secular republic with a majority Christian population. We do not have an official religion, which the founding fathers adamantly opposed despite most of them representing a variety of Christian and Deist traditions. If the goal of the Mormon Church and its allies is to impose a Theocracy in the United States, then we can begin to talk about constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, requiring prayer in schools, making the Bible the official text of the nation, etc. But, until that happens, (God forbid), we live in a pluralistic and multi-cultural society with a variety of values and perspectives; I don’t see that changing in the next few years. It is ironic that most conservative Mormons voice criticism of radical Islamists attempting to take over their respective governments in order to impose Sharia Law on the citizenry. It would seem that Proposition 8 is a similar if less militant and violent type of program: Seek to impose the ethics of the dominant religious tradition on religious and non-religious minorities. One of the myriad reasons given to justify the invasion of Iraq was to spread liberal secular democracy, yet we seek to overthrow it in our own country. If we agree that we live in a pluralistic and multi-cultural society, and not a Christian theocracy, what right do we have to demand of others an ethic that is not even their own?
The other argument I hear is that if the majority of Americans want to pass a constitutional amendment against gay marriage then homosexuals should just accept that, because, hey that’s democracy. The Civil Rights movement and the Gay Rights movement are analogous because the 14th amendment calls for “equal protection under the law” of its citizens. Thus, if it true that homosexuals are a kind of person, as they claim, and not simply persons engaging in a type of sexual behavior, then it is constitutional to support their right to define marriage how they see fit. We don’t have to agree with it, but we do need to respect it. Democracy is not simply about majority rules; it is also about protecting minorities, whether they be atheists, Homosexuals, Buddhists, Muslims, or African-Americans. The rights of homosexuals to marry is part of the expanding notion of natural rights that in the past several hundred years has incorporated white men who do not own property, to women, African-Americans, Native Americans, and to some extent animals and the natural world.
If the Mormon Church is serious about working toward a truly family friendly social policy, I would suggest we advocate for such reforms as paid maternity leave, universal health care, free child care, mandatory paid vacation, gender parity in wages, and a living wage so that working parents can support a family. I find it to be supremely ironic that in this sense, European countries are more family friendly that we are!
Despite my vehement opposition to Proposition 8, I would never support any action by states or the federal government which would force any religion to accept or sanction homosexual marriage within their own tradition; this appeals of course to the first amendment. This is ironically, the same side of the coin that claims that we live in a pluralistic and multi-cultural society. Yes it is important to fight for the civil rights of all types of people, but we must also respect the rights of Christians to believe that homosexuality is a sin. The freedom of religion allows for a free exercise of conscious and practice, thus, I would hope that within every religious tradition (free of state mandate) there might be an ongoing dialogue about our theologies and the reality of homosexuality. We must engage with homosexuals in our own tradition, lending a compassionate and Christ-like ear. In Mormonism, we should also be sincere about the real possibility of a church founded on revelation changing its position when the time is right. While I support the right of gays to define their relationships as they see fit, there is nothing in the constitution that says that Mormons must accept gay marriage as part of their theology until the theology is ready.
[i] thank you Ashley Sanders for this insight
Here is an Amazing article by an active gay Mormon:
http://sunstoneonline.com/podcast/wrathall.pdf
New York Times | Iraq War Ends
No, this is not an actual issue of the New York Times, but it is absolutely genius. Can you imagine this world? I'm not just talking about the war...click the photo to visit the extensive website that continues the faux headlines. Some day we'll get there. Some day.
How do I reconcile?
Along with anyone surfing the web, I've witnessed an incredible volume of traffic surrounding California's Proposition 8 (eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry). I'm not vain enough to assume this post will make it past a handful of readers; however, I am not naive enough to underestimate the viral nature of the web (nor the emotional potency of this issue, which greatly increases the likelihood that even the most mundane sources go viral).
With that in mind, out of respect for the diversity of opinion surrounding the passage of Prop 8 - (to assume LDS members are monolithic in opinion on this issue is both false and counterproductive) - let me preface these thoughts by clarifying that I am not speaking for church leadership or fellow church members. In fact, I don't even claim to speak for church members who agree with me, those who also stand in opposition to Prop 8. I speak only for myself. I have come to my fluid conclusions over years of study, travel, exposure, prayer, conversation, and personal experience.
Now that that's out of the way...
On 16 October I posted this open letter from my friend Crystal. I respect her opinions a great deal and wanted anyone within eye-shot of my blog to understand that there are progressive Mormons who take serious issue with Proposition 8. Within moments of the post going live I had a comment from Prince Gomolvilas, an LA blogger posting at Bamboo Nation.
Last week Prince sent an email to me asking, "How is it you are able to reconcile the acceptance of homosexuality with your religion, when so many people have trouble doing so?" Unlike the at-times-disrespectful debate raging on my facebook wall as we speak, Prince sent his email in a genuine effort to understand. This post attempts to answer his question.
"How do you reconcile the acceptance of homosexuality...?" I reconcile the acceptance of human beings. I reconcile the acceptance of people that I consider to be my sisters, brothers, and fellow travelers.
Christianity teaches me that the second greatest commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself. To love someone is to care deeply for them, for their welfare, life, liberty, and happiness. I have yet to understand how members of my faith can claim to follow that commandment and yet deny to their neighbor the rights that they themselves enjoy. I don't understand how members of my faith who fought against the liberty and happiness of their neighbors can say they love those neighbors as they love themselves. That is what I cannot reconcile. Perhaps the question is better posed to LDS members who supported Prop 8: "How do you reconcile your decision?"
The LDS religion, specifically the baptismal covenants, state that we are "willing to bear one another's burdens that they may be light; and are willing to mourn with those that mourn, to comfort those that stand in need of comfort..." (Mosiah 18, Book of Mormon). My religion teaches me - no, scratch that - my religion requires that I covenant to love others, bear another's burdens, mourn with them, and offer comfort. My religious doctrine does not teach me to hate, fear, and persecute.
Beyond specific religious doctrines, I point to the influence of my parents. They converted to the LDS faith after they were married, and after they put both the missionaries and church doctrine through the veritable ringer. Forget my mother listening to the missionary lessons in a crocheted bikini with a cigarette in one hand and a martini in the other. Forget the treks they made into Seattle to round up all the anti-Mormon literature they could find. Forget all of that and let's talk instead about the conclusion they came to about the church: "It is a racist institution and we cannot join a church that denies equal rights to it's African American members." It was in the spring of 1978 when they finally told the missionaries, "Thanks, but no thanks..." and sent them on their way. On 08 June 1978 the church's policy on blacks and the priesthood changed completely. The rest is history. My brother and I were born into church membership and were subsequently raised with the doctrine, but not with the culture (...and yes, there is a significant difference).
Why do I share that story? I share that story to illustrate the point that I was raised by hippies-turned-Latter-day-Saints to have no tolerance for inequality. Just as my parents made a stand for the civil rights of their black sisters, brothers, and fellow travelers, I am fighting for the civil rights of my gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgendered sisters, brothers, and fellow travelers. I don't think it can be more clear that this is the civil rights issue of our generation. The claim that gay rights are exclusively a "moral" or "religious" issue is a slippery red herring and/or a cowardly scape goat. Take your pick, because either way the claim is outright false.
I realize the people who present the "moral issue" argument do believe that gay rights are, in fact, an exclusively moral issue. Perhaps for their religious community, homosexuality is an exclusively religious issue. I recognize their perspective, but I disagree. I don't care if the people in question are gay, white, black, straight, tall, short, or purple, they are being denied fundamental rights. In my America, all citizens are equal under the law. In my America, I won't stand for it. I will not look my gay friends in the eye and tell them they don't deserve happiness, that their families don't deserve safety and security, that their love isn't the right kind of love. Not in my America. Not in my name.
"How do you reconcile the acceptance of homosexuality...?" I reconcile the acceptance of our inspired constitutional separation of church and state.
The issue of gay marriage is not a religious issue for me, it is a civil issue. As such, churches do not have the purview - or stewardship, to use a popular LDS term - to dictate laws governing civil marriage. In the New Testament, Jesus clearly states that we are to "render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" (Mark 12:17, KJV). In so far as this metaphor is concerned: civil/secular marriages are to Caesar as religious marriage ceremonies are to God. (NOTE: By no means am I saying gay marriages must be devoid of god and/or religion. Absolutely not at all. I'm simply making the point that church and state, in so far as law making and law enforcing are concerned, should be entirely separate.)
In fact, this very principle is found within the bedrock of LDS doctrine. One of the sacred tomes of LDS scripture, Doctrine & Covenants, clearly states in section 134 verses 9-10: "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. We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members [...] according to the rules and regulations of such societies [...]; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world's good..."
I cannot overstate the importance of the doctrine taught in D&C 134. I was asked how I reconcile my opposition to Prop 8 with my religion. Read carefully D&C 134: 2-4, 9-10: "We believe that no government can exist in peace except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life. [That governments should] administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people of a republic. We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others. 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. We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members [...] according to the rules and regulations of such societies [...]; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world's good..."
How do I NOT reconcile? Perhaps the question is better posed to LDS members who did support Prop 8: "How do you reconcile your decision?"
Because of my religious faith, because of my absolute insistence that all people are equal, because of our shared humanity, I hold inviolate the rights that will secure to each individual - gay and straight - the free exercise of their conscience, the right to property, and the protection of their life. To add one more caveat, as Jefferson did, the right to happiness is also inviolate to me. All (wo)men. Period. All (wo)men are created equal. Period. All (wo)men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. Period. It took our country a while to figure out those sacred words included women, but we eventually figured it out. It also took our country a while to figure out those sacred words included ethnic minorities, but we eventually figured it out. I pray we eventually figure out how bigoted our treatment of the GLBT community has been and continues to be.
By the voice of the people, by the collective voice of this republic, I stand in solidarity with my sisters, brothers, and fellow travelers who are demanding that their government administer the law in equity and justice. Religious persons answer to their god unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others. In which case, when your opinions infringe on the rights and liberties of others, you then must answer to those fellow citizens on whom you are infringing. You have an obligation, a social contract, a sacred stewardship that mandates you respect the rights of your neighbor as they will in turn respect your rights.
"We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government" (D&C 134:9). So again, perhaps the question is better posed to LDS members who did support Prop 8: "How do you reconcile your decision?"
The leadership of the LDS church claims that gay rights is a "moral issue" and that reason is justification enough for hijacking our civil political process. With that paradigm in place, I would then challenge their comparatively passive stance with respect to other moral issues. I would ask why they are not rallying $22,000,000 and countless volunteer hours for the following: The fact that we are disrespecting Mother Earth is immoral. The fact that we have poor among us is immoral. The fact that the bottom dollar trumps human dignity is immoral. The fact that we are waging an unwarranted pre-emptive war, all the while spitting in the face of habeas corpus and the Geneva Conventions, is immoral. The fact that human rights are abused the world over, including by our own government, is immoral.
There are other moral issues that deserve our attention, but we can start there. Now see, those are mobilization efforts I would like to hear dictated over the pulpit. Those are moral issues around which I would be happy to organize. You can even give me a calling. I'd be more than happy to work that phone tree until my fingers fall off.
* * *
Miscellaneous musings for your consideration:
For thorough, respectful, insightful readings from Mormons in favor of marriage equality, click here and surf a while.
Another practicing Mormon speaks out against Prop 8: "All Are Alike Unto God"
Hugh B. Brown (then a member of the First Presidency) said in October 1963 General Conference: “We believe that all men are the children of the same God, and that it is a moral evil for any person or group of persons to deny any human being the right to gainful employment, to full educational opportunity, and to every privilege of citizenship….We call upon all men, everywhere, both within and outside the Church, to commit themselves to the establishment of full civil equality for all of God’s children.”
To read similar teachings encouraing the activism of church members, click here. On that site you'll also find excellent quotations from LDS leaders, re: church members should not blindly follow church leadership.
With that in mind, out of respect for the diversity of opinion surrounding the passage of Prop 8 - (to assume LDS members are monolithic in opinion on this issue is both false and counterproductive) - let me preface these thoughts by clarifying that I am not speaking for church leadership or fellow church members. In fact, I don't even claim to speak for church members who agree with me, those who also stand in opposition to Prop 8. I speak only for myself. I have come to my fluid conclusions over years of study, travel, exposure, prayer, conversation, and personal experience.
Now that that's out of the way...
On 16 October I posted this open letter from my friend Crystal. I respect her opinions a great deal and wanted anyone within eye-shot of my blog to understand that there are progressive Mormons who take serious issue with Proposition 8. Within moments of the post going live I had a comment from Prince Gomolvilas, an LA blogger posting at Bamboo Nation.
Last week Prince sent an email to me asking, "How is it you are able to reconcile the acceptance of homosexuality with your religion, when so many people have trouble doing so?" Unlike the at-times-disrespectful debate raging on my facebook wall as we speak, Prince sent his email in a genuine effort to understand. This post attempts to answer his question.
"How do you reconcile the acceptance of homosexuality...?" I reconcile the acceptance of human beings. I reconcile the acceptance of people that I consider to be my sisters, brothers, and fellow travelers.
Christianity teaches me that the second greatest commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself. To love someone is to care deeply for them, for their welfare, life, liberty, and happiness. I have yet to understand how members of my faith can claim to follow that commandment and yet deny to their neighbor the rights that they themselves enjoy. I don't understand how members of my faith who fought against the liberty and happiness of their neighbors can say they love those neighbors as they love themselves. That is what I cannot reconcile. Perhaps the question is better posed to LDS members who supported Prop 8: "How do you reconcile your decision?"
The LDS religion, specifically the baptismal covenants, state that we are "willing to bear one another's burdens that they may be light; and are willing to mourn with those that mourn, to comfort those that stand in need of comfort..." (Mosiah 18, Book of Mormon). My religion teaches me - no, scratch that - my religion requires that I covenant to love others, bear another's burdens, mourn with them, and offer comfort. My religious doctrine does not teach me to hate, fear, and persecute.
Beyond specific religious doctrines, I point to the influence of my parents. They converted to the LDS faith after they were married, and after they put both the missionaries and church doctrine through the veritable ringer. Forget my mother listening to the missionary lessons in a crocheted bikini with a cigarette in one hand and a martini in the other. Forget the treks they made into Seattle to round up all the anti-Mormon literature they could find. Forget all of that and let's talk instead about the conclusion they came to about the church: "It is a racist institution and we cannot join a church that denies equal rights to it's African American members." It was in the spring of 1978 when they finally told the missionaries, "Thanks, but no thanks..." and sent them on their way. On 08 June 1978 the church's policy on blacks and the priesthood changed completely. The rest is history. My brother and I were born into church membership and were subsequently raised with the doctrine, but not with the culture (...and yes, there is a significant difference).
Why do I share that story? I share that story to illustrate the point that I was raised by hippies-turned-Latter-day-Saints to have no tolerance for inequality. Just as my parents made a stand for the civil rights of their black sisters, brothers, and fellow travelers, I am fighting for the civil rights of my gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgendered sisters, brothers, and fellow travelers. I don't think it can be more clear that this is the civil rights issue of our generation. The claim that gay rights are exclusively a "moral" or "religious" issue is a slippery red herring and/or a cowardly scape goat. Take your pick, because either way the claim is outright false.
I realize the people who present the "moral issue" argument do believe that gay rights are, in fact, an exclusively moral issue. Perhaps for their religious community, homosexuality is an exclusively religious issue. I recognize their perspective, but I disagree. I don't care if the people in question are gay, white, black, straight, tall, short, or purple, they are being denied fundamental rights. In my America, all citizens are equal under the law. In my America, I won't stand for it. I will not look my gay friends in the eye and tell them they don't deserve happiness, that their families don't deserve safety and security, that their love isn't the right kind of love. Not in my America. Not in my name."How do you reconcile the acceptance of homosexuality...?" I reconcile the acceptance of our inspired constitutional separation of church and state.
The issue of gay marriage is not a religious issue for me, it is a civil issue. As such, churches do not have the purview - or stewardship, to use a popular LDS term - to dictate laws governing civil marriage. In the New Testament, Jesus clearly states that we are to "render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" (Mark 12:17, KJV). In so far as this metaphor is concerned: civil/secular marriages are to Caesar as religious marriage ceremonies are to God. (NOTE: By no means am I saying gay marriages must be devoid of god and/or religion. Absolutely not at all. I'm simply making the point that church and state, in so far as law making and law enforcing are concerned, should be entirely separate.)
In fact, this very principle is found within the bedrock of LDS doctrine. One of the sacred tomes of LDS scripture, Doctrine & Covenants, clearly states in section 134 verses 9-10: "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. We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members [...] according to the rules and regulations of such societies [...]; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world's good..."
I cannot overstate the importance of the doctrine taught in D&C 134. I was asked how I reconcile my opposition to Prop 8 with my religion. Read carefully D&C 134: 2-4, 9-10: "We believe that no government can exist in peace except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life. [That governments should] administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people of a republic. We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others. 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. We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members [...] according to the rules and regulations of such societies [...]; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world's good..."
How do I NOT reconcile? Perhaps the question is better posed to LDS members who did support Prop 8: "How do you reconcile your decision?"
Because of my religious faith, because of my absolute insistence that all people are equal, because of our shared humanity, I hold inviolate the rights that will secure to each individual - gay and straight - the free exercise of their conscience, the right to property, and the protection of their life. To add one more caveat, as Jefferson did, the right to happiness is also inviolate to me. All (wo)men. Period. All (wo)men are created equal. Period. All (wo)men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. Period. It took our country a while to figure out those sacred words included women, but we eventually figured it out. It also took our country a while to figure out those sacred words included ethnic minorities, but we eventually figured it out. I pray we eventually figure out how bigoted our treatment of the GLBT community has been and continues to be.
By the voice of the people, by the collective voice of this republic, I stand in solidarity with my sisters, brothers, and fellow travelers who are demanding that their government administer the law in equity and justice. Religious persons answer to their god unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others. In which case, when your opinions infringe on the rights and liberties of others, you then must answer to those fellow citizens on whom you are infringing. You have an obligation, a social contract, a sacred stewardship that mandates you respect the rights of your neighbor as they will in turn respect your rights.
"We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government" (D&C 134:9). So again, perhaps the question is better posed to LDS members who did support Prop 8: "How do you reconcile your decision?"
The leadership of the LDS church claims that gay rights is a "moral issue" and that reason is justification enough for hijacking our civil political process. With that paradigm in place, I would then challenge their comparatively passive stance with respect to other moral issues. I would ask why they are not rallying $22,000,000 and countless volunteer hours for the following: The fact that we are disrespecting Mother Earth is immoral. The fact that we have poor among us is immoral. The fact that the bottom dollar trumps human dignity is immoral. The fact that we are waging an unwarranted pre-emptive war, all the while spitting in the face of habeas corpus and the Geneva Conventions, is immoral. The fact that human rights are abused the world over, including by our own government, is immoral.
There are other moral issues that deserve our attention, but we can start there. Now see, those are mobilization efforts I would like to hear dictated over the pulpit. Those are moral issues around which I would be happy to organize. You can even give me a calling. I'd be more than happy to work that phone tree until my fingers fall off.
* * *
Miscellaneous musings for your consideration:
For thorough, respectful, insightful readings from Mormons in favor of marriage equality, click here and surf a while.
Another practicing Mormon speaks out against Prop 8: "All Are Alike Unto God"
Hugh B. Brown (then a member of the First Presidency) said in October 1963 General Conference: “We believe that all men are the children of the same God, and that it is a moral evil for any person or group of persons to deny any human being the right to gainful employment, to full educational opportunity, and to every privilege of citizenship….We call upon all men, everywhere, both within and outside the Church, to commit themselves to the establishment of full civil equality for all of God’s children.”
To read similar teachings encouraing the activism of church members, click here. On that site you'll also find excellent quotations from LDS leaders, re: church members should not blindly follow church leadership.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)