What else has changed in the past four years?

- The Church Handbook of Instructions no longer includes a request that church members should lobby governments to deny same-sex marriage rights (and rites) via legislative actions.

- LDS rhetoric about same-sex marriage rights is shifting to focus on the need to protect religious freedom, rather than the need to protect families.

- The LDS Public Affairs office actually used the term “gay” to describe individuals, rather than-sex attracted or same-gender attracted in its response to HRC’s criticisms of Pres. Packer’s October 2010 conference talk.

- BYU students have created and continue to grow a gay-straight alliance (Understanding Same-Gender Attraction) at a school where once admitting to same-sex attraction was a fast ticket out the door

- Dialogue, a Journal of Mormon Thought published a paper (Toward a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology) exploring what it means to be both homosexual and Mormon.

- The LDS Church came out in support of non-discrimination ordinances in Salt Lake City which would protect homosexuals in housing and employment. While there are large carve-outs for church-related/owned businesses, the ordinances in SLC inspired a number of other Utah and Idaho towns and cities to follow suit and opened many conservative Mormon’s eyes to some problems they’d never before considered.

- Individual Mormons are coming out and telling their own stories - whether they are gay, lesbian, bi, in mixed-orientation marriages, or have family/friends that fit the bill. These discussions are happening on a daily basis in person, in the media, in churches and online as LGBTQ members and allies find one another and give each other strength to carry on, both in and out of the church.

- The Family Acceptance Project (FAP) has published a booklet specifically for LDS parents based on FAP’s foundational research on family acceptance and rejection that provides guidance on acceptance and support of their gay children.

- There have been no church-sponsored efforts aimed at mobilizing Mormons to fight same-sex marriage at the polls the way Mormons were mobilized in California in 2008, despite efforts of other religions originally part of the “religious coalition” that supported Prop 8. General church leaders have gone out of their way to make sure all overt same-sex marriage advocacy is being done by local leaders or individuals.

Do we still have a ways to go? Yes, we do. But we are making progress, one step at a time.

LDS families have a new resource for supporting their LGBT children. The booklet, Supportive Families, Healthy Children: Helping Latter-day Saint Families with Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Children, published by the Family Acceptance Project at San Francisco State University, is now available in printed and electronic form. Printed copies may be ordered in any quantity from fap@sfsu.edu. Proceeds from sales will go toward creating an LDS video and training materials.

The wonderful thing about this booklet is that it affirms core gospel principles and Church teachings about the importance of love in family relationships—the obligation we are all under to love not only our own children and other family members but all of God’s children. The solid body of research on which the pamphlet is based reveals that rejecting behaviors put LGBT youth at high risk for suicide, HIV infection, drug abuse and depression. Conversely, loving and accepting behaviors greatly reduce these risks. Even if parents can only manifest some of the accepting behaviors recommended in the booklet, it can make a dramatic difference.

As someone who has been working with LDS families, leaders and congregations on this issue for more than three decades, I can say that this research and the materials based on it offer hope that we can deal with this issue in a way that combines the best science, therapeutic practice and gospel principles. It has taken a long time, but this is a real breakthrough.

***

For more than a decade, the Family Acceptance Project (FAP) at SF State University has been studying the impact of family acceptance and rejection on the health, mental health and well-being of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) young people and developing research-based tools, resources and interventions to help diverse families support their LGBT children. This includes developing culturally and linguistically appropriate resources to prevent serious negative outcomes like suicide, HIV and homelessness and to promote well-being, and helping families balance deeply held values and beliefs with love for their LGBT children. The first of these faith-based family education resources is Supportive Families, Healthy Children: Helping Latter-day Saint Families with Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Children.

One of the most challenging issues for many families is learning how to support their LGBT children in the context of religious and cultural values. The Family Acceptance Project has been working with families from a wide range of cultural and religious backgrounds to develop a series of family education materials based on FAP’s groundbreaking research which shows that family accepting and rejecting behaviors are linked with both serious health and mental health problems and well-being in young adulthood.

Written by FAP Director Dr. Caitlin Ryan, a clinical social worker with nearly 40 years of research and practice experience on LGBT health and mental health, and Dr. Bob Rees, a former Mormon Bishop who teaches Mormon Studies at Graduate Theological Union, this is the first research-based educational resource to help Mormon families support their LGBT children. As with other family education booklets from the Family Acceptance Project, Supportive Families, Healthy Children has been designated as the first “Best Practice” resource for suicide prevention for LGBT people by the national Best Practices Registry for Suicide Prevention and is the only such resource for Latter-day Saint (Mormon) families. The Best Practices Registry, coordinated by the Suicide Prevention Resource Center (SPRC) and the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP), maintains an expert-reviewed compendium of approved “best practices” to prevent suicide that address specific aims of the national suicide prevention plan and have met objective review criteria.

“Many parents and families think they have to choose between a gay child and their deeply held beliefs – a choice no parent should ever have to make,” co-author Dr. Caitlyn Ryan said. “We wrote this booklet to show Mormon families what our compelling research has found — how families react to their LGBT children really matters. This booklet provides critical, specific information on how to support LGBT children and youth, how to build their self-esteem and well-being, reduce their risk for suicide, substance abuse, HIV and homelessness and keep their faith. Our hope is that every Mormon parent, bishop, and religious leader reads it and uses it.”

Dr. Robert Rees, co-author and educator and former Mormon bishop, noted: “Supportive Families, Healthy Children will save lives, keep families together and give Church leaders a resource for helping families support their LGBT sons, daughters and other family members. This booklet and the research that supports it mark the dawning of a brighter day for Latter-day Saint families and congregations.”

FAP provides guidance and training on using these materials and FAP’s research-based supportive family intervention model and other resources and tools. Contact fap@sfsu.edu to obtain printed versions and for information on consultation and training.

Information on Supportive Families, Healthy Children’s “Best Practice” designation for suicide prevention is available on the Best Practices Registry’s webpage hosted by the Suicide Prevention Resource Center at www.sprc.org.

About the Family Acceptance Project
The Family Acceptance Project is a research, intervention, education and policy initiative that is designed to: 1) improve the health, mental health, and well-being of LGBT children and adolescents; 2) strengthen and help ethnically and religiously diverse families to support their LGBT children; 3) help LGBT youth stay in their homes to prevent homelessness and the need for custodial care in the foster care and juvenile justice systems; 4) inform public policy and family policy; and 5) develop a new evidence-based, family model of wellness, prevention, and care to promote well-being and decrease risk for LGBT youth. For more information, please visit: http://familyproject.sfsu.edu/

Joanna Brooks: “Mormonism doesn’t simply wash off,” she said, adding that the church can’t make it that “either you are gay or you are Mormon, or either you support gay rights or you support the church.”

Mitch Mayne: “Here in the Bay Area … we are no longer seeking out LGBT members of the church and excommunicating them,” Mayne said. “Our role is to bring people closer to the Savior, so if we are routinely excommunicating people, then we are really not doing our job.”

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/17/gay-rights-activists-see-mormons-softening-attitudes-toward-their-community/?hpt=hp_c3

Attention Registered Voters who are Residents of Maryland:

As you have probably heard, the Maryland legislature passed a same sex marriage bill last February. A coalition of inter-denominational churches throughout Maryland has joined together to try to get a referendum on the November ballot that would allow the residents of Maryland to vote on this bill before it becomes law. Sister [Redacted], who is a member of the LDS Church, is organizing signature collection within Montgomery County and within the LDS Church.

We need to collect approximately 200,000 signatures by the end of May. We are looking for people to gather signatures within the LDS community. If you are willing to help with this important effort please contact Sister [Redacted] as soon as possible at REDACTED@gmail.com or Sister [Redacted] at REDACTED@juno.com.

If you would like to volunteer, you must attend a 30 minute training session due to the stringent Maryland laws concerning referendums. To register for a session please contact us as soon as possible. There will be several training sessions offered, but if transportation to them is a problem for you, a trainer would be happy to meet with you at a more convenient time and location.

The LDS Church is neutral of matters of party politics. The Church does encourage its members to play a role as responsible citizens, including becoming informed about issues and voting in elections, and becoming engaged in the political process in an informed and civil manner. Please consider helping with this very important effort. Every signature is important and every little bit helps!

I’m not sure if you are working on an update for this Laura, but in case your readers haven’t heard, here’s a link to the play “8″ written by Dustin Lance Black, directed by Rob Reiner, with an all star cast including, Brad Pitt, George Clooney, Martin Sheen, Kevin Bacon, Jamie Lee Curtis, and more. I watched it streaming live. For those who don’t know, they reenacted the transcripts from the Prop 8 trial closing arguments because the judge would not allow them to be made public. So this all star group got around that in a very clever way. It was awesome to watch. No wonder Prop 8 proponents didn’t want it made public - their arguments could hold water.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlUG8F9uVgM

The Family Policy Institute of Washington is a Washington state-based group that advocates for maintaining the legal definition of marriage as between “one man and one woman”.  Focus on the Family is national organization that also opposes same sex marriage.  Both groups are part of a coalition called “Preserve Marriage Washington” that submitted the referendum.

It is unknown what was discussed or agreed to at the meeting, or which church leaders attended.  During proposition 8, members of the church were encouraged to donate time and money to support the proposition, which won at the voting polls but has been struck down by the courts (currently under appeal).

A new facebook page has been created for Mormons in Washington state who support marriage equality: https://www.facebook.com/groups/wamo4ma/.

February 13, 2012

(Reuters) - Washington state became the seventh in the nation to put a law on its books recognizing same-sex marriage on Monday, as opponents of the measure signed by Governor Christine Gregoire vowed to try to prevent it from ever taking effect.

The measure, which won final approval from state lawmakers last Wednesday, remains essentially on hold until at least early June, following a standard enactment period that runs until 90 days after Washington’s legislative session ends.

Opponents launched their own campaign on Monday to seek the statute’s repeal at the polls in November through a ballot measure that could delay enactment further or halt it entirely.

The dissenting judge, N. Randy Smith of Pocatello, Idaho, opined that Plaintiffs had not met their responsibility to remove all debatable issues surrounding potential legitimate governmental interests in supporting “responsible procreation” (that children should be born in wedlock) and “optimal parenting” (that the best place for raising children is in the homes of two married, biologically related adults). In taking his conservative view that courts should be reticent to strike down legislation, he concluded his dissent by saying,

[B]oth sides offer evidence in support of their views on whether the optimal parenting rationale is a legitimate governmental interest. Both sides also offer evidence to undermine the evidence presented by their opponents. However, the standard only requires that the optimal parenting rationale be based on “rational speculation” about married biological parents being the best for children….Considering “the question is at least debatable,”… the optimal parenting rationale could conceivably be a legitimate governmental interest.

In anticipation of questions regarding his own thoughts and feelings about same-sex marriage (Smith appears to have many Mormon and BYU ties and is probably LDS), he wrote,

“Our personal views regarding the political and sociological debate on marriage equality are irrelevant to our task. Instead, we are only asked to consider the constitutional validity of Proposition 8 under the federal Constitution.”

The majority opinion, however, written by Judge Stephen R. Reinhart, put it this way:

“By using their initiative power to target a minority group and withdraw a right that it possessed, without a legitimate reason for doing so, the people of California violated the Equal Protection Clause [of the federal Constitution]. We hold Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional on this ground.”

The question of whether Prop 8 proponents had standing to bring the appeal at all was unanimously upheld, and the question as to whether Judge Vaughn Walker should have recused himself was unanimous also - there was no reason he should not have heard the case.

This judgment is a narrow one, crafted to apply to Californians mostly because Prop 8 took away the existing right to the name, “marriage” for same-sex unions. As a result, even if the U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear an appeal, chances that it will be precedent-setting for the rest of the nation are slim to none.

The stay on the judgment remains in place for at least three more weeks, so no same-sex marriages will be created in California immediately.

There are two possible paths to appeal at this point: An en banc hearing in front of all 11 judges in the 9th Circuit or a request directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Looking for more analysis? Try here or here or here.

On Tuesday, February 7th, by 10 a.m. Pacific Standard Time, the 9th District panel will release its opinion on these matters and on another matter, that of whether Walker’s long-term same-sex relationship should make his opinion invalid. The decision will likely be appealed, most likely to the U.S. Supreme Court (an appeal to the full 9th District is also possible), and if the court upholds Walker’s decision, Prop 8 supporters will likely file for a stay of execution which, if granted, would prevent same-sex marriages from taking place until the stay is lifted.

Here’s a review of some of the Findings of Facts and of Walker’s Conclusions of Law, taken from our original post, here. The findings were based on evidence presented at trial. They are not statements about what the judge believes or does not believe, any more than a fact in a murder trial could be something like, “A bloody knife was found next to the victim’s body. A stab wound matching the knife was found on the victim.” Walker’s opinion was based on the facts created by the evidence presented at this specific trial by the witnesses who testified in his courtroom. The Conclusions of Law are the opinion of the judge, based on and supported by the evidence - the Findings of Fact - presented at trial. While there may have been other evidence for or against the constitutionality of same-sex marriage in California, the judge’s opinion was, of course, limited to the evidence presented at this trial.

Finding of Fact 19 (p. 60):
“Marriage in the United States has always been a civil matter. Civil authorities may permit religious leaders to solemnize marriages but not to determine who may enter or leave a civil marriage. Religious leaders may determine independently whether to recognize a civil marriage or divorce but that recognition or lack thereof has no effect on the relationship under state law.”

Finding of Fact 34
A definition of marriage: “Marriage is the state recognition and approval of a couple’s choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one another and to form a household based on their own feelings about one another and to join in an economic partnership and support one another and any dependents.”

The state has many purposes in licensing and fostering marriage. Some of the state’s purposes benefit the persons married while some benefit the state:
a. Facilitating governance and public order by organizing individuals into cohesive family units. …;
b. Developing a realm of liberty, intimacy and free decision-making by spouses, …;
c. Creating stable households. …;
d. Legitimating children. …;
e. Assigning individuals to care for one another and thus limiting the public’s liability to care for the
vulnerable. …;
f. Facilitating property ownership.

Finding of Fact No. 44:
Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as a characteristic of the individual. Sexual orientation is fundamental to a person’s identity and is a distinguishing characteristic that defines gays and lesbians as a discrete group. Proponents’ assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence.

Finding of Fact No. 46
Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation.

Finding of Fact No. 47
California has no interest in asking gays and lesbians to change their sexual orientation or in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in California.

Finding of Fact No. 48
Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions. Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners. Standardized measures of relationship satisfaction, relationship adjustment and love do not differ depending on whether a couple is same-sex or opposite-sex.

Finding of Fact No. 54:
The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships.

Finding of Fact No. 55:
Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages.

Finding of Fact No. 58:
Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians, including: gays and lesbians do not have intimate relationships similar to heterosexual couples; gays and lesbians are not as good as heterosexuals; and gay and lesbian relationships do not deserve the full recognition of society.

Finding of Fact No. 62:
Proposition 8 does not affect the First Amendment rights of those opposed to marriage for same-sex couples. Prior to Proposition 8, no religious group was required to recognize marriage for same-sex couples.

Finding of Fact No. 70:
The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment. The sexual orientation of an individual does not determine whether that individual can be a good parent. Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted. The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of
developmental psychology.

Finding of Fact No. 76:
Well-known stereotypes about gay men and lesbians include a belief that gays and lesbians are affluent, self-absorbed and incapable of forming long-term intimate relationships. Other stereotypes imagine gay men and lesbians as disease vectors or as child molesters who recruit young children into homosexuality. No evidence supports these stereotypes.

Finding of Fact No. 77:
Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.

Finding of Fact No. 79:
The Proposition 8 campaign relied on fears that children exposed to the concept of same-sex marriage may become gay or lesbian. The reason children need to be protected from samesex marriage was never articulated in official campaign advertisements. Nevertheless, the advertisements insinuated that learning about same-sex marriage could make a child gay or lesbian and that parents should dread having a gay or
lesbian child.

From the Conclusions of Law portion:

(References to FF [number] are to Findings of Fact for the number cited.)

The marital bargain in California (along with other states) traditionally required that a woman’s legal and economic identity be subsumed by her husband’s upon marriage under the doctrine of coverture; this once-unquestioned aspect of marriage now is regarded as antithetical to the notion of marriage as a
union of equals. FF 26-27, 32. As states moved to recognize the equality of the sexes, they eliminated laws and practices like coverture that had made gender a proxy for a spouse’s role within a marriage. FF 26-27, 32. Marriage was thus transformed from a male-dominated institution into an institution recognizing men and
women as equals. Id. Yet, individuals retained the right to marry; that right did not become different simply because the institution of marriage became compatible with gender equality.
…
The evidence shows that the movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an
institution free from state-mandated gender roles reflects an evolution in the understanding of gender rather than a change in marriage. The evidence did not show any historical purpose for excluding same-sex couples from marriage, as states have never required spouses to have an ability or willingness to procreate in
order to marry. FF 21. Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed. The right to marry has been historically and remains the right to choose a spouse and, with mutual consent, join together and form a household. FF 19-20, 34-35. Race and gender restrictions shaped marriage during eras of race and gender inequality, but such restrictions were never part of the historical core of the institution of marriage. FF 33. Today, gender is not relevant to the state in determining spouses’ obligations to each other and to their dependents. Relative gender composition aside, same-sex couples are situated identically to opposite-sex couples in terms of their ability to perform the rights and obligations of marriage under California law. FF 48. Gender no longer forms an
essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.

The evidence at trial shows that domestic partnerships exist solely to differentiate same-sex unions from marriages. FF 53-54. A domestic partnership is not a marriage; while domestic partnerships offer same-sex couples almost all of the rights and responsibilities associated with marriage, the evidence shows that the withholding of the designation “marriage” significantly disadvantages plaintiffs. FF 52-54. The record reflects that marriage is a culturally superior status compared to a domestic partnership. FF 52. California does not meet its due process obligation to allow plaintiffs to marry by offering them a substitute and inferior institution that denies marriage to samesex couples.

Proponents argue that Proposition 8 does not target gays and lesbians because its language does not refer to them. In so arguing, proponents seek to mask their own initiative. FF 57. Those who choose to marry someone of the opposite sex —— heterosexuals —— do not have their choice of marital partner
restricted by Proposition 8. Those who would choose to marry someone of the same sex —— homosexuals —— have had their right to marry eliminated by an amendment to the state constitution. Homosexual conduct and identity together define what it means to be gay or lesbian. See FF 42-43. Indeed, homosexual conduct and attraction are constitutionally protected and integral parts of what makes someone gay or lesbian.

Tradition alone, however, cannot form a rational basis for a law. Williams v Illinois, 399 US 235, 239 (1970). The “ancient lineage” of a classification does not make it rational. Heller, 509 US at 327. Rather, the state must have an interest apart from the fact of the tradition itself. The evidence shows that the tradition of restricting an individual’s choice of spouse based on gender does not rationally further a state interest despite its “ancient lineage.” Instead, the evidence shows that the tradition of gender restrictions arose when spouses were legally required to adhere to specific gender roles. See FF 26-27. California has eliminated all legally mandated gender roles except the requirement that a marriage consist of one man and one woman. FF 32. Proposition 8 thus enshrines in the California Constitution a gender restriction that the evidence shows to be nothing more than an artifact of a foregone notion that men and women fulfill different roles in civic life.

Proponents presented no reliable evidence that allowing same-sex couples to marry will have any negative effects on society or on the institution of marriage. The process of allowing same-sex couples to marry is straightforward, and no evidence suggests that the state needs any significant lead time to integrate same-sex couples into marriage.

The evidence does not support a finding that California has an interest in preferring opposite-sex parents over same-sex parents. Indeed, the evidence shows beyond any doubt that parents’ genders are irrelevant to children’s developmental outcomes. FF 70. Moreover, Proposition 8 has nothing to do with children, as Proposition 8 simply prevents same-sex couples from marrying.

Proponents argue Proposition 8 advances a state interest in encouraging the formation of stable households. Instead, the evidence shows that Proposition 8 undermines that state interest, because same-sex households have become less stable by the passage of Proposition 8. The inability to marry denies same-sex couples the benefits, including stability, attendant to marriage.

These purported interests fail as a matter of law. Proposition 8 does not affect any First Amendment right or responsibility of parents to educate their children. See In re Marriage Cases, 183 P3d at 451-452. Californians are prevented from distinguishing between same-sex partners and opposite-sex spouses in public accommodations, as California antidiscrimination law requires identical treatment for same-sex unions and opposite-sex marriages.
…
Proposition 8 is not rationally related to an interest in protecting the rights of those opposed to same-sex couples because, as a matter of law, Proposition 8 does not affect the rights of those opposed to homosexuality or to marriage for couples of the same sex. FF 62. To the extent proponents argue that one of the rights of those morally opposed to same-sex unions is the right to prevent same-sex couples from marrying, as explained presently those individuals’ moral views are an insufficient basis upon which to
enact a legislative classification.

Many of the purported interests identified by proponents are nothing more than a fear or unarticulated dislike of same-sex couples. Those interests that are legitimate are unrelated to the classification drawn by Proposition 8. The evidence shows that, by every available metric, opposite-sex couples are not better than their same-sex counterparts; instead, as partners, parents and citizens, opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples are equal. FF 47-50. Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause because it does not treat them equally.

California’s obligation is to treat its citizens equally, not to “mandate [its] own moral code.” Id (citing Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa v Casey, 505 US 833, 850, (1992)). “[M]oral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest,” has never been a rational basis for legislation. Lawrence, 539 US at 582 (O’Connor, J, concurring). Tradition alone cannot support legislation. See Williams, 399 US at 239; Romer, 517 US at 635;
Lawrence, 539 US at 579.
…
Proponents’ purported rationales are nothing more than post-hoc justifications. While the Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit post-hoc rationales, they must connect to the classification drawn. Here, the purported state interests fit so poorly with Proposition 8 that they are irrational, as explained above. What is left is evidence that Proposition 8 enacts a moral view that there is something “wrong” with same-sex couples. See FF 78-80.

Today’s hearings addressed a motion to vacate Judge Walker’s decision and an appeal of Judge Ware’s decision to release videotapes made of the trial in Walker’s courtroom.

Just one year ago, on December 6, 2010, the 9th District heard oral arguments regarding the validity of Prop 8. Traditional marriage proponents, unhappy with Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling that California’s constitutional amendment violated the U.S. Constitution, appealed that decision, but there was some question as to whether they had the right (the “standing“) to file that appeal. To keep the wheels of justice moving, the district court heard two sets of arguments last December: One which addressed the ability of Prop 8 supporters to bring the appeal and one which addressed the merits of the case.

Before the district court could issue a ruling on either argument, it needed to know what rights California initiative supporters have in bringing appeals within the state. You see, there is already a U.S. Supreme Court decision on another 9th District case (from Arizona) which said initiative supporters don’t have the right to bring appeals merely because they got initiatives on the ballot. But California law is different than Arizona law, and voters have more power in California than they do in Arizona. Since there was no existing case law from California that the Federal court could rely on, they asked California’s highest court to give them some advice.

It took nine months of calendar time, but California’s Supreme Court finally heard arguments and issued an advisory opinion stating that the Protect Marriage folks did have the right to bring an appeal.

In the mean time, attorneys had challenged a couple of other aspects of Judge Walker’s original case: First, that he’d heard the case at all and second, that videos of the Walker trial were being made available to the public.

Today, the District Court heard oral arguments for both of these aspects of the trial.

Protect Marriage proponents argued that Walker, a gay man in a long-term (eight year) relationship should have disclosed the fact that he was gay and in a relationship and that he should have recused himself from hearing the case at all (since he appeared to have a personal stake in the outcome of the decision if he wanted to marry his partner), and that since he didn’t do that, his opinion should be vacated.

Same-sex marriage proponents argued that the motion to vacate was untimely (since it came only after the adverse decision had been made) and that there is no evidence that Walker wanted to marry in the first place. Finally, they argued it is a “violation of the Equal Protection Clause, to question a judge‘s impartiality simply because he is a member of a minority group whose rights are implicated in a case before the court, regardless how the minority group is defined.”

On the issue of releasing trial videotapes, same-sex marriage proponents argued that both the First Amendment and Common Law compel access to the trial recording and that the defendant-intervenors who want to keep the videos under seal have not met their burden of presenting compelling reasons for maintaining a seal on the videotapes. They argue that “More than 13 million Californians cast a vote for or against Proposition 8. Those voters, along with the rest of the public, deserve access to the recording so they can better understand and appreciate what transpired in this historic trial. Proponents say this benefit is ‘marginal, at most,’ because the transcript of the trial is already public. Prop. Br. 44 (internal quotation marks omitted). But unsealing the recording will allow the public to witness the trial firsthand, to hear from the parties’ experts, to see the parties’ exhibits, and to better evaluate the arguments each side advanced so they can determine their agreement or disagreement with the district court’s decision.”

The district court will issue decisions on any of these matters when it is ready, but the court has acknowledged the need for expediting things. Many rulings by the court in this matter have come within 30 days of hearings. Same-sex marriage proponents are hoping that the District Court will lift the stay on Judge Walker’s ruling during the anticipated U.S. Supreme Court appeals process and that the plaintiffs in these cases, as well as other same-sex couples in the state, will be able to marry once again.

This interview with Joanna Brooks needs to be read.

Or you could just watch the talk here:

Plaintiffs argued that donors were harassed and that the $100 cumulative threshold for disclosing donor identification is too low. The state defense team argued that publicizing campaign donor identities is critical for an informed electorate.

U.S. District Judge Morrison England, Jr. ruled in favor of the state. The ruling is expected to be repealed.

The Sacramento Bee’s Capitol Alert blog reports:

California law requires the disclosure of the identity of anyone who contributes $100 or more to a campaign. ProtectMarriage.com said the $100 limit was too low, and it claimed it qualified for an exception to disclosure laws once granted by the U.S. Supreme Court to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the Socialist Workers Party.

England was skeptical throughout the hearing. The Socialist Workers Party involved relatively few people, he said, and belonging to the NAACP in the early 1950s “could cause you to be killed.” In contrast, he said, Proposition 8 proponents not only enjoyed the support of millions of people, but prevailed in the election.

The judge read from a batch of declarations in which people claimed yard signs were stolen, that they received harassing phone calls, or, in one case, that people protested outside someone’s business. “That’s the extent of what happened,” he said.

The docket for the case, including the January 2009 order denying a preliminary injunction on disclosures is available here. The October 20, 2011 ruling had not been uploaded to that site as of today’s post (it may be available on PACER, I haven’t checked).

There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all people. …For just as the body is one and yet has many parts, and all the parts of the body, though many, form a single body,….But now God has arranged the parts, every one of them, in the body according to his plan.

So there are many parts, but one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you,” or the head to the feet, “I don’t need you.” On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are in fact indispensable, and the parts of the body that we think are less honorable are treated with special honor, and we make our less attractive parts more attractive. However, our attractive parts don’t need this.

But God has put the body together and has given special honor to the parts that lack it, so that there might be no disharmony in the body, but that its parts should have the same concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it. If one part is praised, every part rejoices with it. - 1 Cor 12:6, 12, 18, 20-26

Smith published a 24-page article in the FARMS Review (FARMS Review: Volume 23, Issue 1, Pages 61–85) entitled, “Shattered Glass: The Traditions of Mormon Same-Sex Marriage Advocates Encounter Boyd K. Packer” wherein he applauds Mormons for Marriage for reaching out in support of our GLBT friends and neighbors, while at the same time taking the opportunity to critique a handful of the site’s posts regarding Pres. Packer’s April 2010 conference remarks, now titled, “Cleansing the Inner Vessel.”

First, Smith notes that this site’s “opposition to the mistreatment of homosexuals” is laudable. In general he finds “…recent years have seen at least some of the casual cruelty and unthinking disdain inflicted upon this subset of God’s children become less acceptable. Even yet there is clearly work to do—for example, in opposing verbal and physical violence—that no one of goodwill would oppose.” (p.62)

Despite agreeing that it’s time we treat each other better, he still finds plenty to criticize and takes the opportunity to say to all of us,

“With no more authority than accrues to ‘fellowcitizens with the saints’ (Ephesians 2:19; D&C 20:53–54), I urge all who have erred to repent privately and publicly (Mosiah 27:35; D&C 42:90–92), trusting that God will be as merciful to them in their errors as he is to me in mine. If they choose not to, or insist they have done nothing wrong, the proximate and eternal consequences will be tragic, but not unexpected.” (p.84)

Most scholarly reviews don’t include calls to repentance like this. And, by his own admission, this well-footnoted paper may not be fully academic. “A purely academic review would likely end here,” Smith writes. Then he continues, “Elder Holland has remarked, however, that Pres. Packer’s response to instruction or exhortation is often to ask, ‘Therefore, what?’ I suspect, then, that Pres. Packer would tell me that as an aspiring disciple of the Master, I have a duty to conclude with my own answer to his question, though unlike him I can speak only for myself.” (p.84)

Taking up a sword on behalf of Pres. Packer, Smith’s primary complaint is that our site is hypocritical in saying we don’t allow criticisms to be published, but that apparently Pres. Packer is fair game for any and all critics, as evidenced primarily by the two blog posts referenced below.

[Mormons for Marriage]’s founders ought to either apologize and clean up their conduct online and in the media or be honest enough to concede that their behavior is not consistent with their purported aim to publicly oppose the church’s political activities while refraining from criticism of the church and its leaders. It is not clear to me that such a goal is feasible; it is, however, abundantly clear that [Mormons for Marriage] has failed to achieve it. If they intend to continue as at present, they ought at least to have the decency to admit that they are criticizing the church and its leaders. The issue is simply one of integrity. (p.84)

In the maelstrom of rhetoric that gave birth to Mormons for Marriage, it was nearly impossible to hold a civil conversation about homosexuality and marriage on the internet. Readers may recall frequent flame wars on other sites and arguments with one side likening marriage equality supports to Sons of Perdition and the other side castigating all believers as non-thinking bigots. This kind of “debate” is not what Mormons for Marriage needed. We needed a place where people could ask questions without fear of retribution, where people could share experiences coping with in-church politicking, where people could find support regardless of how they identify themselves and where people could share their personal, sometimes intimate, stories in an effort to build bridges of understanding.

As time has passed and as arguments have been heard and re-heard millions of times, the tension has lessened. There’s a fine line between having a hard conversation and having a hate-fest (or a love-fest). That is a line drawn and re-drawn every day by discussion moderators and editors alike. It is hard to have a conversation saying you disagree with someone’s ideas without explaining what those disagreements are. It is hard to express pain without sounding hurt or sometimes even lashing out. If every negative comment is seen as personal criticism (or, more harshly, an attack akin to stoning (p.84-85)), there would not be much to say on the topic of opposing discrimination. At Mormons for Marriage, we don’t see negative comments as personal criticism.

As a well-read researcher and medical professional, Smith is surely aware of the nature of scholarly criticism. Rigorous peer review is the standard for publication in any quality scholarly journal. All scholarly criticism requires critics to pick and choose portions of another’s work to point out flaws and strengths, but also demands accurate representation of another’s arguments and positions.

Scholars know that true scholarly criticism does not include personal attack and that expression of an opinion is not necessarily criticism, much less a frontal assault. Scholarly criticism examines arguments, methodologies, facts, logical flaws and conclusions. Often scholarly criticism includes strong differences of opinion, and scholars know that when they submit their work for publication, they open it up for debate, examination and criticism. Granted, comments on blogs are not regularly scholarly, and many lack carefully thought-out or cogent arguments for or against specific topics, but blogs are not scholarly journals; commenters are not degree-holding researchers.

The ephemeral and immediate nature of blog comments is regularly at odds with the need for scholarly documentation and thorough analysis, and finding a balance is challenging. Certainly there is room for strong opinion and tough examination in blog comments, however. One might ask whether it is reasonable to hold blog comments to the same rigorous standards as peer reviews.

What is criticism

What qualifies as criticism in Smith’s view? He writes,

“[Mormons for Marriage] ‘tolerates’ such statements as Compton’s insistence that ‘the Church definitely has a long, LONG way to go.’ Laura [Compton], 13 November 2010 (9:58 am), comment on “Latest LDS Instructions on GLBT Issues.” ) This strikes me as criticism. It certainly isn’t praise,…” (p.71)

While it may not be praise, is it criticism or observation? In context is part of a response to another, less-positive comment (which, like this one, is partially included in Smith’s paper as well) from CowboyII who wrote that “The LDS Church will never give homosexuals an equal status.” In addition to the frustrated dismay shown here, to which I responded there’s a long, LONG way to go, his comment also included pleasant surprise that homosexuals could hold church callings and receive temple ordinances.

Smith lines up parts of a number of comments to show his readers examples of poor treatment of Pres. Packer by Mormons for Marriage, calling this the “President Packer Treatment” (p.77). He appears to ascribe the opinions of commenters to Mormons for Marriage, perhaps because comments at the blog are moderated. More on that later.

Where is the “President Packer Treatment” coming from?

The two main posts Smith draws his conclusions from are:

-Why Would God Allow His Children to be Born Homosexual? As of today, there are 120 comments on the post – a relatively busy post for this site. It was written in reaction to the general angst expressed among LDS Conference watchers who listened to Pres. Packer’s talk and interpreted it to mean Pres. Packer was saying their homosexuality was not in-born.

and

-Edits to Boyd K Packer’s talk, another relatively popular article with 102 comments as of today. This post includes a comparison of the original and printed versions of his talk, and my first comment in that talk discusses some of the issues people focused on in their reactions to it.

Smith’s examples of how Pres. Packer was allowed to be criticized come primarily from the comments on these posts, not the actual posts themselves, and Smith took care to choose portions of comments (as noted above) that would best support his thesis that Mormons for Marriage does, indeed, allow criticism of church leaders and is a site in need of a course correction. Since Smith neglected to say when he accessed each of the posts, it is a bit difficult to know whether he saw all of the comments which now exist on the site, but the sites he did note access dates for were in the February-May, 2011 timeframe.

One more example from the comments critique, showing his careful editing: Smith presents this quote from Benjamin (Oct 3, 2010 10:53 p.m.), edited to remove the positive portions of Benjamin’s comments, some of which are included below. Smith’s version:“I am not really interested in reading another shame-based talk by Elder Packer. . . . It is unfortunate that when Elder Packer is given this topic to talk about his words are so rife with negativity and shame.” (p.73)

In context, in the first part of his comment, Benjamin identifies himself as a gay man who was profoundly and negatively affected by Pres. Packer’s “To The One”. Later on, Benjamin’s comment continues where Smith picks begins it (emphasis indicates portions used by Smith):

“I am not really interested in reading another shame-based talk by Elder Packer. I am sure I’ll probably force myself to look at it and see if there is some change in his worldview but I am doubtful that there will be as I have seen his modus operandi over the years and that has left me feeling nothing short of depressed. I’m sure God has called him to this calling for some special purpose. Many of his other talks about charity and other discussions have given me hope and have inspired me. It is unfortunate that when Elder Packer is given this topic to talk about his words are so rife with negativity and shame. It simply proves that he does not understand who we are. I do know God knows who we are and rejoices in the fact that His creations are diverse and beautiful. I believe one reason why we are created different is to humble those who think they know it all when in all reality they do not and never will as long as they continue thinking they do know all of God’s will on this subject. I believe our Father will continue sending His children who are “different” into LDS households until finally family truly becomes more important than the Church as an institution when the choice is put up to embrace your gay and lesbian children or reject them (and those they love) for the Church’s sake. Keeping that in mind what is the Church if not the members? The Church as an institution is made up of many families and gay and lesbian people are part of that tapestry. One day that tapestry will be celebrated as part of that beautiful quilt and not shamed as a mistake in the weave.”

And finally, one directly from me, with no indication by Smith that the comment actually begins half a sentence before where he picks it up, inserting his own capitalization. Smith’s version: “Many listeners got the distinct impression,” Compton tells us, “that Elder Packer was suggesting homosexuality is a choice. While that may be what he believes or understands, it is not in line with current church teachings which indicate General Authorities do not know what causes homosexuality.” (p.71)

The complete sentence: “Even though Elder Packer did not use the words “homosexual” or “gay” or “same-gender attraction”, because of the placement of the question, the references to the Proclamation and marriage equality referenda, the stories of gender confusion (which is regularly conflated with homosexuality within LDS circles), and the use of words like “unnatural” many listeners got the distinct impression that Elder Packer was suggesting homosexuality is a choice. While that may be what he believes or understands, it is not in line with current church teachings which indicate General Authorities do not know what causes homosexuality.”

The point was that Packer’s position, expressed in his standard slightly ambiguous euphemisms, did not seem to be in line with more current church teachings. This is a reasonable point to make, and it is quite possible that there are differences of opinion on this matter, even among the highest quorums of the Church, just as there are differences of opinion in our larger society.

The conversations, in context, are available for all to read and judge whether the overall tone is one of finger-pointing and castigation or whether it is one of an attempt to process difficult information, “calm fears,” and make sense of something that was hard to hear and understand. There might even be some comments supporting Pres. Packer in those pages.

Comment attribution

Like letters to the editor or other public forum publications, the fact that comments appear on a website does not mean the site endorses the opinions shared, even though comments make it through moderation filters on any particular day. And, like listening to one end of a telephone conversation, it is often hard to tell what’s really happening when you only have access to a few snippets of information, as is the case when comments are removed from context and strung together in a static journal article and, in some cases at least, significantly misconstrued in order to prove a point.

Journal editors do not usually solicit letters to the editor representing a particular viewpoint, they work with what is sent in and publish what they have physical room for. Online publications don’t generally have space constraints, but they suffer from the same readership comment problems journals have: When conservatives dominate readership, conservative voices dominate the comments. When people who are hurting or distressed dominate readership, comments primarily reflect their hurt and distress.

The posts at Mormons for Marriage which dealt with Pres. Packer’s remarks were posts that necessarily attracted readers seeking solace or an opportunity to vent. As the redline post was the only place one could easily see the changes between Pres. Packer’s spoken text and the published version, traffic was unusually broad-based, but still leaning toward people interested in why an apostle would change a talk. Commenters supporting Pres. Packer were certainly a minority, but their thoughts are part of the record.

Building the historical record

Another of Smith’s critiques of these two posts is that they fail to address Pres. Packer’s previous statements about homosexuality. Had either post been lengthy footnoted and cross-referenced research pieces, an analysis of Pres. Packer’s previous statements would make sense. However, that was not the purpose of these pieces. Like many posts at Mormons for Marriage, the intention of the first piece, just eight short paragraphs long, was to be supportive of those who were immediately hurting as a result of hearing those words spoken over conference weekend.

The second piece was merely to document and address only the changes made in this particular talk. Since people were talking about the changes made, it was important to record them.

The nature of the ephemeral bits and bytes of the internet allows for both immediate emotional reactions and thoughtful analysis. Smith holds this first post to the standard of scholarly research and analysis and then proceeds to point out all the ways it is mere emotional reaction, easily knocking it down from a pedestal it should never have been placed on to begin with. It appears to be emotional reaction because it is emotional reaction. Had the post been a lengthy footnoted and cross-linked analysis of Pres. Packer’s historical stance on homosexuality, it might deserve such scholarly criticism.

Priesthood ordination vs. same-sex marriage

Smith points out several legitimate differences between the church’s stance on priesthood ordination and its stance on homosexuality (and same-sex marriage, in particular) in an effort to show how the issue of giving priesthood to all worthy men is significantly different from the issue of seeking marriage equality (pp. 75-77). As many often draw parallels between changes they’d like to see in the Church and this enormous shift and revelation that came in June, 1978, it makes sense for Smith to compare and contrast the two.

He neglects to note perhaps the biggest difference, however: Black people were not killing themselves because they could not hold the priesthood or enter temples. How many young gay people have killed themselves because of their interpretations of the church’s stance on homosexuality? How many live in fear that parents, spouses or friends will find out and disown them? One is too many. How many more suicide notes do we need to read that say things like, “I prayed and prayed. I tried and tried, but I didn’t change. I can’t try any longer.” How many more late-night calls to bishops and crisis hotlines will be made because somebody has been fighting [either a temptation or a tendency, depending on which talk you read] for 20 or 40 or 60 years and just can’t do it any longer?

Thankfully, LDS rhetoric surrounding homosexuality has softened quite a bit since the early 1970s and there are clear and specific efforts by church leaders to promote charity toward all. That shift from “Hope for Transgressors”to “God Loveth His Children” is an institutional big step. No longer do we hear about “crimes against nature, deviate behavior, perversion, or abominations. We hear about same-gender attraction, a much more benign description. Part of the reason that shift is happening is because people, especially GLBT people and their families, are stepping up to share their stories and experiences.

Many of those conversations began happening because the Church involved itself in supporting Proposition 8 (and other traditional marriage initiatives and constitutional amendments).

A final postscript

Smith suggests it is time for us at Mormons for Marriage to sit down, shut down and silence ourselves or leave. He writes,

“If my patients do not like what they hear, they might choose to remain silent or leave my practice. Likewise, those who differ with the united voice of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve might disagree silently or leave the church.” (p.83)

Thankfully, Smith is not the host at this banquet and while he can express his opinion about who should stay and who should go, it’s not his job to decide who is on Christ’s guest list. We can cut off body parts and walk around maimed in an effort to save our souls (p.83) or we can accept that each part of the body has a function and a purpose – even the body parts that seem at first to be useless or offensive. We can pull up the tares now, when they’re small, and burn them in a corner of the field, or we can let them grow along with the wheat and let the Master Gardner do the sifting. Maybe the reason God created gay people (and anyone else we regard as Other) is so that we can all learn how to find new ways to relate to and with one another.

Smith further suggests that to continue to allow a forum where people may come to express themselves and learn about the Church’s positions on homosexuality is to expose ourselves to hell fire in the future (p.83).

And yet, open discussion has great value:

If it keeps even one child from committing suicide,

If it means just one mother doesn’t have to worry that her son will question God’s love for him,

If it means just one father can understand his lesbian daughter’s spirituality and accept her children,

If it means just one bishop opens his door to a depressed HIV+ member and acts as Christ’s stand-in to embrace him fully and completely,

If it means just one Primary teacher changes a lesson because one of the children attending that day has two dads,

If it means just one gay activist thinks twice before labeling all Mormons as bigots,

Even if it makes Smith and others like him question my integrity, my support of priesthood leaders and my understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ, yes, these conversations have value. There are some things that just need to be said, and there are some forums that just need to exist and we all need to do it together.

He’s written an open letter about the circumstances in his life which have lead to this leadership role at his blog.

It ends with these paragraphs:

I understand that for my gay Mormon brothers and sisters and those who support them both inside and outside our faith, there is special meaning here: For it demonstrates that not only do we as gay Mormons have a home within our faith if we so choose, but that we also have a path.

It is a humbling honor to be asked to serve in this capacity, and I am grateful for a Church leadership that views me as an asset that can help serve our community. Nonetheless, I am simply an ordinary man, blessed to have been placed in extraordinary circumstances. And as such, a man who is willing to bring that experience to bear to help others as they strive to find their place within the gospel, and within the Mormon family.

Thank you for sharing, Mitch, and may you be blessed in your service to the people of your ward and stake.