First, a bit of background from the judge:

In deciding whether a stay is appropriate, the court looks to four factors:
(1) whether proponents have made a strong showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits;
(2) whether proponents will be irreparably injured absent a stay;
(3) whether the stay will substantially injure other interested parties; and
(4) whether the stay is in the public interest.

The first two requirements are the most important in deciding whether a stay should be granted. The following quotes are the line of reasoning of the judge. (Document numbers refer to documents filed in the action. So you could go to PACER or Justia and look up the document by number if you wanted to see the original document the Court is relying on in its decision.) Emphasis is mine.

First, the proponents aren’t prevented from doing anything because they aren’t responsible for enforcing marriage law. Plus, they didn’t provide any other specific ways they would be harmed if the judgment was entered and same-sex marriages were allowed again:

While the court has ordered entry of a permanent injunction against proponents, that permanent injunction does not require proponents to refrain from anything, as they are not (and cannot be) responsible for the application or regulation of California marriage law. See Cal Health & Safety Code § 102180. The court provided proponents with an opportunity to identify a harm they would face “if an injunction against proposition 8 is issued.” Doc #677 at 7. Proponents replied that they have an interest in defending proposition 8 but failed to articulate even one specific harm they may suffer as a consequence of the injunction. Doc #687 at 30.

Because the Prop 8 Proponents (the ProtectMarriage coalition) are not the actual defendants in the case, merely a private organization that was allowed to step in to defend the case when the state would not, they may not be able to appeal the case anyway - they don’t have “standing.” If they can’t bring the case up, they certainly can’t win, so they likely haven’t met the requirements under (1) above. Not only that, but the proponents’ evidence was lacking and they couldn’t produce “even one credible witness” about the government interest in Prop 8:

Proponents chose not to brief the standing issue in connection with their motion to stay, and nothing in the record shows proponents face the kind of injury required for Article III standing. As it appears at least doubtful that proponents will be able to proceed with their appeal without a state defendant, it remains unclear whether the court of appeals will be able to reach the merits of proponents’ appeal. In light of those concerns, proponents may have little choice but to attempt to convince either the Governor or the Attorney General to file an appeal to ensure appellate jurisdiction. As regards the stay, however, the uncertainty surrounding proponents’ standing weighs heavily against the likelihood of their success.

Even if proponents were to have standing to pursue their appeal, as the court recently explained at length the minimal evidence proponents presented at trial does not support their defense of Proposition 8. See Doc #708 (findings of fact and conclusions of law). Proponents had a full opportunity to provide evidence in support of their position and nevertheless failed to present even one credible witness on the government interest in Proposition 8. Doc #708 at 37-51. Based on the trial record, which establishes that Proposition 8 violates plaintiffs’ equal protection and due process rights, the court cannot conclude that proponents have shown a likelihood of success on appeal.

Proponents suggested that the government might be harmed if a stay were to be lifted, but

Both plaintiffs and the state defendants have disavowed the harms identified by proponents

The proponents also failed to say how they, themselves, would be harmed as well. By not providing any suggestions of how they could be harmed, the court had nothing on which to base its judgment when weighing the decision:

If proponents had identified a harm they would face if the stay were not granted, the court would be able consider how much weight to give to the second factor. Because proponents make no argument that they —— as opposed to the state defendants or plaintiffs —— will be irreparably injured absent a stay, proponents have not given the court any basis to exercise its discretion to grant a stay.

Despite the proponents’ argument that Domestic Partnerships remain available to same-sex couples, the trial record showed that domestic partnerships are “inadequate and discriminatory” substitutes for marriage and that enforcing a stay would harm the plaintiffs and other same-sex couples wishing to marry:

Proponents point to the availability of domestic partnerships under California law as sufficient to minimize any harm from allowing Proposition 8 to remain in effect. Doc #705 at 11. The evidence presented at trial does not support proponents’ position on domestic partnerships; instead, the evidence showed that domestic partnership is an inadequate and discriminatory substitute for marriage. Doc #708 at 82-85 (FF 52-54). Proponents claim that plaintiffs’ desire to marry is not “urgent,” because they chose not to marry in 2008. Doc #705 at 11. Whether plaintiffs choose to exercise their right to marry now is a matter that plaintiffs, and plaintiffs alone, have the right to decide. Because a stay would force California to continue to violate plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and would demonstrably harm plaintiffs and other gays and lesbians in California, the third factor weighs heavily against proponents’ motion.

Finally, the judge examined the issue of public interest. Since the Governor and the Attorney General both want same-sex marriages to resume, it was fairly cut-and-dry:

The evidence presented at trial and the position of the representatives of the State of California show that an injunction against enforcement of Proposition 8 is in the public’s interest. Accordingly, the court concludes that the public interest counsels against entry of the stay proponents seek.

So after examining the four requirements for issuing a stay, the court found that:

None of the factors the court weighs in considering a motion to stay favors granting a stay. Accordingly, proponents’ motion for a stay is DENIED.

An appellate court would be hard-pressed to come to a different conclusion about whether to enforce a stay, given the facts of this case. Proponents simply did not present arguments or provide evidence needed to support their case. While there may be other arguments or justification “out there” the appellate court may only examine what the record of this case is, and presumably proponents set forth their best arguments already. The appellate court can’t ask for new evidence.

So on the issue of the stay, if the appellate court agrees with Judge Walker, ProtectMarriage could ask the Supreme Court to look at the issue as well, and it’s feasible that the appellate court could extend the stay another week or two to allow Justice Kennedy to look at the issue while the Supreme Court is on Summer break (just as Walker allowed enough time in his decision for an appellate court to examine the issue).

On the other hand, the appellate court could also (perhaps) look at both the stay and at the proponents’ right to even bring an appeal and tell ProtectMarriage that they have to live with Walker’s decision. Should that happen, it would mean the appellate process is over and Walker’s decision is final for California. It would also mean that Walker’s decision is not precedent-setting (although other attorneys could use similar arguments in their cases, particularly in the 9th District).

Even if ProtectMarrige is allowed to appeal the whole decision, the appellate court could agree with Walker that there’s no likelihood of success and that there’s more harm in the discriminatory effect of a stay than there is in allowing same-sex marriages to resume. Based on the trial record so far, there’s not much reason to support a stay, whether or not ProtectMarriage can appeal the case.

ProtectMarriage’s other option would be to work really hard to convince the State of California to change its mind and appeal the decision itself, which would remove the issue of standing. But even if California does change its mind and asks to appeal Walker’s decision, it would have to rely on the paltry defense presented by ProtectMarriage at the original trial - and convincing the appellate court to reverse Walker’s decision based on the evidence and witnesses presented at trial would be an uphill battle, except perhaps on the narrowest of decisions.

Prop 8 Ruling FINAL

I spent the evening remembering young gay Mormon men and women like Todd Ransom who have committed suicide. Three this month in Utah. And the list was already too, too long. Adding on to the toll was the accidental death of two matriarchs of the gay Mormon community, Ina Mae Murri and Stella Butler. While we cannot stop accidents, I hope and pray we can stop the suicides and the attempts .

For all the people who were upset about blacks not having access to priesthood and temples and even prayers during Sacrament Meetings, they didn’t kill themselves over it. For all the people who were upset about the Church’s support for the ERA or the banning of women praying in Sacrament Meeting or of mothers with children at home working in temples, they didn’t kill themselves over it. What is it about young gay Mormons? We must find a solution because too many lights are going out.

I’ve hesitated putting some of the following links on this site because they are hard to read. But we cannot solve problems until we know what those problems are. We cannot answer the why? questions until we have some insight into history.

We are all products of our culture. What we grow up learning, hearing, reading and watching influences the way we see the world and the way we communicate about it. Our experiences frame our questions and our answers.

So what have today’s LDS leaders heard, read, and listened to regarding homosexuality? And what are they currently saying?

Certainly, we’ve come a long way, but there is still a long road ahead.

Finding information about what LDS leaders have said about homosexuality is not always easy, because they were more likely to use euphemisms (Crime Against Nature; Deviate Behavior; Perversion; Same-Gender Attraction; HLM (for homosexual lesbian marriage). Not surprisingly, other sex-related terminology is dressed up in non-precise language as well - Self Abuse; Virtue; Morality - for instance.

In 1970, the Church published a pamphlet for local leaders called, “Hope for Transgressors.” It advised that “homosexuality can be cured…. [and]… forgiven” It encouraged leaders with particularly difficult cases to contact [Quorum of the Twelve] President Spencer W. Kimball and Elder Mark E. Petersen if they needed specific assistance. As men worked through the curative and repentance processes, leaders are counseled:

When you feel he is ready, he should be encouraged to date and to gradually move his life toward the normal….If they will close the door to intimate associations with their own sex and open it wide to that of the other sex, of course in total propriety, and then be patient and determined, gradually they can move their romantic interests where they belong. Marriage and normal life can follow.

In 1971, a pamphlet specifically written for homosexual men, “New Horizons for Homosexuals” was published over Spencer W. Kimball’s signature. It begins, “I am your friend, your real friend, for I am trying hard to help you save yourself from pitfalls which, I am sure, you do not fully realize are gaping wide to swallow you, the victim.” It clearly follows the advice for leaders given in the “Hope for Transgressors” pamphlet, providing appeals to confidante relationships, scriptural references, a purpose in life, reason, assurance of loneliness, and the path of repentance.

In 1969, while Kimball was in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, the Miracle of Forgiveness. This book has been a go-to reference for all sorts of transgressions and sins, quoted in lesson manuals and distributed by bishops guiding people along the path of repentance. Most, if not all, English-speaking adult members of the Church have heard of this book and many have read it cover to cover. We’ve discussed in other places some of the quotes found in his tome.

In October 1976, Elder Boyd K. Packer addressed the Priesthood session of conference, focusing his talks to the 12-18-year-old young men in the audience. This talk was later published as a pamphlet called, “For Young Men Only”. A theme of both this talk and of many official church documents was that, “There is a falsehood that some are born with an attraction to their own kind, with nothing they can do about it.”

There are two parts to this argument: First, that there is something you can do about your orientation (change it, cure it, overcome it, fight it, ignore it); and Second, that God doesn’t make mistakes and create people destined to live with abominations. It could imply that there are other causes for homosexuality, for instance: Something non-genetic/non-biological/non-hereditary, Parental failure, disease/contagion, Satanic influence, biology, environment, pornography, masturbation, selfishness, abuse, speaking about it, and others (see this .pdf for a sampling of what causes were said in what year ).

Since 1990, church leaders have acknowledged that they don’t know what causes homosexuality, specifically relieving concerned parents from the burden of worrying that their actions somehow caused their children to be attracted toward members of the same sex.

In March, 1978 Elder Packer addressed an older group of people, BYU students. Again, his talk was published as a pamphlet provided to anyone dealing with homosexuality in the church, entitled, “To the One“. Advise from that talk included:

“You must learn this: Overcoming moral temptation is a very private battle, and internal battle. There are many around you who want to help and who can help - parents, branch president, bishop, for a few a marriage partner. And after that, if necessary, there are counselors and professionals to help you. But do not start with them. Others can lend moral support and help establish an environment for your protection. But this is an individual battle.”

In November, 1980, President Kimball addressed the youth of the church about morality. His words as prophet reiterated what he taught a decade earlier in book on repentance:

“Sometimes masturbation is the introduction to the more serious sins of exhibitionism and the gross sin of homosexuality. We would avoid mentioning these unholy terms and these reprehensible practices were it not for the fact that we have a responsibility to the youth of Zion that they be not deceived by those who would call bad good, and black white.”

In light of this history of rhetoric, it is a breath of fresh air to read current publications and statements about homosexuality:

“You are a precious son or daughter of God. He not only knows your name; He knows you. His love for you is individual. You lived in His presence before you were born on this earth. You cannot remember your premortal relationship with Him, but He does. Although His children may sometimes do things that disappoint Him, He will always love them.”

and

“Some people with same-gender attraction have felt rejected because members of the Church did not always show love. No member of the Church should ever be intolerant. As you show love and kindness to others, you give them an opportunity to change their attitudes and follow Christ more fully.”

We’ve certainly come a long way, but there is still much farther to go. And as we approach Pioneer Day, the day when we remember Mormon ancestors who walked across a continent in order to establish a religion, we remember all those who walk alongside us as well as those who have fallen by the wayside. In the words of Carol Lynn Pearson, author of No More Goodbyes: Circling the Wagons around Our Gay Loved Ones:

“When we see a need, we respond. When we are conscious, we act. That new pioneer journey I spoke of in the first part of this book is a journey of consciousness. Now that you have read the stories of anguish and of healing, have met our gay loved ones and the parents, sisters, brothers, and friends who have circled the wagons around them, you have journeyed in consciousness and have, I believe, arrived at a new place. Now you know….

“Today there is a despondent gay man somewhere who has checked to see if his father’s gun is still where it used to be. Tonight there is a lesbian who again cries herself to sleep over her awful alternatives, ‘You may choose between being gay or being a member of this family.’ Today there are parents whose tears are for the pain of their loved gay child, for the lack of support they receive from their church, for the condemning rhetoric they continue to hear, and for the fear that the members of their congregation might find out the family secret. Today there takes place a marriage ceremony for a young, gay man, anxious to please God and his church, and an eager starry-eyed young bride who believes her groom’s romantic restraint has come from his righteousness. Today a child cries before going to school, terrified that a classmate may learn that his father is gay and start calling him names.

“These people are still on the plains. I am asking you to load up the wagons. You can do it without fully understanding, even without fully ‘approving.’ You have the supplies, parcels of love, compassion, encouragement, respect, good information, and humility in knowing that there is much we have yet to learn. You have the words of Jesus: ‘Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these, ye have done it unto me.’ And you have the words that still echo across the century and a half: Go and bring in those people now on the plains.”

What have you done today to silence the rhetoric? To shout the love? To save a life?

First, in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case (aka the Prop 8 trial): We are anxiously awaiting the judgment from the district court on this case. On the day the verdict is announced there will be gatherings in several places around California:

- If you’re in San Francisco, the Coalition of Welcoming Congregations will be holding a march and rally beginning at 5:00 p.m. at the Harvey Milk Plaza (Castro & Market Streets) with a march to the Civic Center beginning at 6 p.m. The main rally will begin at the Civic Center Plaza at 6:45 p.m.

- If you’re in San Jose, Marriage Equality Silicon Valley invites you to the Billy DeFrank Center (938 The Alameda, San Jose) for a rally showing support of marriage equality beginning at 6:00 p.m. the day the verdict is announced.

Other San Francisco Bay Area events include:

Walnut Creek: City Hall 1666 North Main Street
Concord: Todos Santos Plaza Willow Pass & Grant
Martinez: County Clerk’s Office 822 Main Street
Richmond: City Hall 450 Civic Center Plaza
Mountain View: Begin at Caltrain Station at 6:00 and march to City Hall. Raging Grannies will be there at 6:30 p.m. and speakers begin around 7 p.m.

Other events across California (and in a few other states as well) can be found here check the left-hand “Events” sidebar for your locale. There are events in West Hollywood, Orange County, Sacramento, Inland Empire, Palm Springs, Ukiah, Kern County, Denver, San Antonio, Austin, Dallas, Houston, and other places. If your city’s not listed, you can add it.

Interfaith Service
On the first Tuesday after the verdict is announced* there will be an Interfaith Taize-inspired service at Congregation Sha’ar Zahav (290 Doloros Street at 16th Street) in San Francisco. Someone from Mormons for Marriage will be speaking at that service, provided the decision doesn’t happen when we’re all out of town for Sunstone.
* If the verdict comes on a Monday, the service will be the Tuesday of the following week

Sunstone Symposium Aug 4-7
The Sunstone Foundation has been very supportive of the LDS GLBT community and there are several sessions at this year’s Salt Lake City symposium which might be of particular interest to this community, including such topics listed below. Register before July 30 for early registration discounts. Single-session, single-day and full symposium registrations are available. The full program and registration information are here.

WEDNESDAY, 4/4/10
9:00 AM – 12:30 PM (For-fee Workshops)
Navigating an LDS Faith Crisis, John Dehlin
2:00 – 5:30 PM (For-fee Workshops)
Navigating a Marriage after One Spouse Has an LDS Faith Crisis, John Dehlin
8:00 – 10:00 PM: Plenary Session
The Fate of New Religious Movements

THURSDAY, 4/5/10
11:15 – 12:45 PM: Panel Discussions
Peculiar Portrayals: Mormons on the Page, Stage, and Screen
8:00 – 10:00 PM: Plenary Session
Mister Deity and Sister Dottie

FRIDAY
8:45 – 9:45 AM
The Cost of Discipleship: Thoughts on What it Means to be a Mature Believer
10:00 – 11:00 AM
Same-Gender Marriage & Religious Freedom: A Call to Quiet Conversations and Public Debates
2:15 – 3:15 PM
Responses to 8: The Mormon Proposition
4:45 – 6:15 PM
Mormonism, Politics, and Ideology (Panel)
Exit, Voice, and Loyalty in the Mormon Community (Panel)

SATURDAY
8:45 – 9:45 AM
Church, Priesthood, and the Gay/Lesbian Journey towards Spiritual Maturity
The Future of Catholic-Mormon Dialogue
11:15 – 12:45 PM: Panel Discussions
The Gay Mormon Literature Project
Mormonism and Radical Politics
No More Fellow Citizens but Still Strangers
2:15 – 3:15 PM
The Epistle of Paul: Homosexual Spirituality and the Redemption of Pleasure
Toeing the line: The Church as Moral Agent or Political Machine
3:30 – 4:30 PM
Two Loves: Documenting Gay Mormon Stories (Film)
4:45 – 6:15 PM: Panel Discussions
Gay and Mormon on the Stage and Screen

Affirmation Conference
Registration is also available for Affirmation’s annual conference, October 8-10, 2010. This year, they’ll be in San Francisco with a new format encouraging conference-goers to STAND UP! for Suicide Prevention, Reducing Homelessness, Political Activism and Understanding.

Many of you have already seen this story about reaching out between Mormons and others in Berkeley, but if you haven’t, it’s worth your time.

LDS Church, Same-Sex Marriage and Argentina
Earlier this week, Argentina became the first South American country to recognize same-sex unions, despite protests organized by religious leaders around the country. A public affairs representative from the Mormon church (who also happens to be a former Area Authority 70) was among the religious leaders who met in early July to plan the protest. The Church officially stated that it took no position on the legislation, and a letter read in Sacrament Meetings on Sunday, July 11, 2010 reiterated the LDS stance on traditional marriage and urged members to study the Proclamation on the Family. Unlike in California, the First Presidency did not urge Argentinian members to get involved in the politicking.

Meanwhile, here in the U.S.A., Washington, DC upheld same-sex marriage recognition while Hawaii’s governor vetoed civil unions which would have provided rights equivalent to marriage to same-sex couples.

The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) voted to allow non-celibate gays to be ordained but did not recognize same-sex marriages. Before the ordination stance can go into effect, individual presbyteries need to ratify it as well.

NOM Tour Tracker
The National Organization for Marriage has been taking its fight for traditional marriage on a 23-city tour east of the Mississippi this month. Marriage equality folks have been following right along, staging counter-rallies and providing opposing viewpoints in the cities where the NOM tour buses have been stopping. To follow the adventures (and mis-adventures) along the way, check out this link.

There’s been quite a bit going on, so if we’ve left something out, feel free to add it in the comments.

“How will these be stopped? Only by the destruction of those who practice them. The only way is… for the Lord to wipe them out.” – George Q. Cannon, Mormon Apostle

George Quayle Cannon was the First Counselor in the First Presidency when he uttered those words at the October 1897 General Conference. The background for the whole quote included below describing how “a man” in England was known to be author Oscar Wilde can be found at this link which is a revised and expanded version of an article written by Connell O’Donovan, “‘The Abominable and Detestable Crime Against Nature’: A Brief History of Homosexuality and Mormonism, 1840-1980”, Brent Corcoran (ed.), Multiply and Replenish: Mormon Essays on Sex and Family, (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1994), pp. 144-5

“In England a short time ago a man [Oscar Wilde] who had posed in society as a man of culture and of taste, and who lectured upon esthetics, was found to be guilty of a most abominable crime - a crime for which under the old law the penalty was death; a crime which was practiced by the nations of old, and caused God to command their destruction and extirpation. This crime was proved against this man, and some of his associates were what are called noblemen. He was sent to prison. His term of imprisonment having expired, he comes from prison, and is now engaged, it is so published, in writing a book, and, we suppose is received into society, though guilty of this nameless crime. And is this common; If we may believe that which is told to us, without going into researches ourselves, it and other kindred wickedness, is far too common. The same sin that caused the utter destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah! This and other abominable crimes are being practiced. How will these be stopped? Only by the destruction of those who practice them. Why, if a little nest of them were left that were guilty of these things, they would soon corrupt others, as some are being corrupted among us. In coming to these mountains we hoped to find a place where we could live secluded from the abominations of Babylon. But here in this secluded place wickedness intrudes itself, and is practiced in this land which we have dedicated to the Lord as a land of Zion! How can this be stopped? Not while those who have knowledge of these filthy crimes exist. The only way, according to all that I can understand as the word of God, is for the Lord to wipe them out, that there will be none left to perpetuate the knowledge of these dreadful practices among the children of men. And God will do it, as sure as He has spoken by the mouths of His prophets. He will destroy the wicked, and those who will be left will be like the Nephites after the wicked were all killed off; they were righteous men and women who lived for over two hundred years according to the law of heaven.” [emphasis O’Donovan’s]

“Homosexuality is an ugly sin. Repugnant, like adultery and incest and beastiality (sic), they carry the death penalty under mosaic (sic) law.” – Spencer W. Kimball, Mormon prophet

This quote is from the oft-cited book, Miracle of Forgiveness written by Spencer W. Kimball in 1969 before he was the President of the Church. As he was an apostle at the time, however, church members sustained and viewed him as a “prophet, seer and revelator.” Although it is now more than 40 years old, it continues to be used and quoted from in Church materials and lesson manuals, although much of the harshest language has been toned down or not referred to. Edward Kimball, son and biographer of Spencer Kimball, was interviewed in a podcast in March 2010 and discussed the realization that, “We achieve more by a soft word rather than we do by the harsh.”

The full quote in context is from Chapter 6, Crime Against Nature. (Other “ugly sins” in the book include fornication, (unwed) pregnancy and abortion.)

Homosexuality is an ugly sin, repugnant to those who find no temptation in it, as well as to many past offenders who are seeking a way out of its clutches.  It is embarrassing and unpleasant as a subject for discussion but because of its prevalence, the need to warn the uninitiated, and the desire to help those who may already be involved in it, it is discussed in this chapter.

This perversion is defined as “sexual desire for those of the same sex or sexual relations between individuals of the same sex,” whether men or women. It is a sin of the ages. It was present in Israel’s wandering days as well as after and before. It was tolerated by the Greeks. It was prevalent in decaying Rome. The ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are symbols of wretched wickedness more especially related to this perversion, as the incident of Lot’s visitors indicates. (See Gen. 19:5.) So degenerate had Sodom become that not ten righteous people could be found (see Gen. 18:23-32), and the Lord had to destroy it. But the revolting practice has persisted. As far back as Henry the Eighth this vice was referred to as “the abominable and detestable crime against nature.” Some of our own statutes have followed that apt and descriptive wording.

Sin in sex practices tends to have a “snowballing” effect. As the restraints fall away, Satan incites the carnal man to ever-deepening degeneracy in his search for excitement until in many instances he is lost to any former considerations of decency. Thus it is that through the ages, perhaps as an extension of homosexual practices, men and women have sunk even to seeking sexual satisfactions with animals.

Unnatural and Wrong

All such deviations from normal, proper heterosexual relationships are not merely unnatural but wrong in the sight of God. Like adultery, incest, and bestiality they carried the death penalty under the Mosaic law. (Miracle of Forgiveness, pp 77-78).

Homosexual abominations are fast becoming the way of life among the wicked ungodly.  - Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Apostle

Elder McConkie said these words in the October, 1980 General Conference (as reported in the November 1980 Ensign, p. 50). He is perhaps most well-known for writing the now-out-of-print book, Mormon Doctrine. Until recently nearly every manual and study guide in the Church had at least one quote from that book, despite the fact that it is was not every an official study guide created by a unanimous vote of Church leaders.

We live in a day of evil and wickedness. The generality of men are carnal, sensual, and devilish. They have forgotten God and are reveling in the lusts of the flesh. Crime, immorality, abortions, and homosexual abominations are fast becoming the norm of life among the wicked and ungodly. The world will soon be as corrupt as it was in the days of Noah.

If any of us are to escape the perils that lie ahead, if any of us are to abide the day of the Lord’s return, if any of us are to gain peace in this life and be inheritors of eternal life in the world to come, we must receive the message sent from on high and conform to the counsel it contains.

Gays have a problem. – Gordon B. Hinckley, Mormon Prophet

Former Church President Gordon B. Hinckley made this statement during an interview with Larry King on CNN on December 26, 2004.

KING: … I know that the Church is opposed to gay marriage.

HINCKLEY: Yes.

KING: Do you have an alternative? Do you like the idea of civil unions?

HINCKLEY: Well, we’re not anti-gay. We are pro-family. Let me put it that way.

And we love these people and try to work with them and help them. We know they have a problem. We want to help them solve that problem.

KING: A problem they caused, or they were born with?

HINCKLEY: I don’t know. I’m not an expert on these things. I don’t pretend to be an expert on these things. The fact is, they have a problem.

KING: Do you favor some sort of state union?

HINCKLEY: Well, we want to be very careful about that, because that - whatever may lead to gay marriage, we’re not in favor of.

We - many people don’t get married. Goodness sakes alive. You know that.

Many people who have to discipline themselves. If they transgress, they become subject to the discipline of the Church. But we try in every way that we know how to help them, to assist them, to bless their lives.

One more quote from Bruce R. McConkie and one from Harold B. Lee and then we’ll move on to a few more thoughts about the movie.

Satellite Broadcast Training

Reed Cowan begins this movie with clips from a satellite broadcast which originally aired October 8, 2008 from Salt Lake City to every stake center in California.  He uses a (probably) surreptitious audio recording of the broadcast, so the audio is not great.  It is accurate, however, and the text is subtitled for ease of viewing.  A transcript of the whole meeting can be found here.  The video for these clips is based on the short video clips once publicly available from the church’s website, www.lds.org and www.preservingmarriage.org.  Since the officially available video clips did not include much of what Cowan used in his movie, he elected to use clips of the video, edited to obscure the details, as background for the audio quotes he wanted to include.  The visual effect is a bit ominous.

“Secret” Documents and Hawaii

A good portion of the early part of the movie includes references to LDS Church documents received by Fred Karger.  The documents are correspondence between Elder Loren C. Dunn and several other LDS General Authorities.  Elder Dunn served in the LDS Area Presidency for the North America Northwest Area, which included California and Hawaii in the mid-1990s when the LDS Church involved itself in Hawaii’s same-sex marriage struggles.  Church involvement in this campaign has been documented here and in The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power by historian D. Michael Quinn.  Karger’s documents expand on what was already known and provide even more depth and details of the Church’s Public Affairs Committee actions.  Documents cited in the movie include  the documents here.

Mormon Financial Contributions

Karger suggests that individual Mormons donated 70% of the money contributed to the Protect Marriage coalition.  [Other sites here and here don’t attribute quite that much to LDS donors, but neither do they say their information is complete or exhaustive.  Karger hints that some of those he identified as being LDS were people who (a) contributed to Mormon Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign and (b) sent in large sums of money to the Protect Marriage coalition after the First Presidency letter was read in Sacrament Meetings across California at the end of June, 2008.  Notations about BYU attendance were also likely indications that donors were Mormon as well.  And, in reality, Mormons are not particularly quiet about their religious affiliations online – they talk about wards and stakes and Relief Society and FHE and home teaching/visiting teaching and callings on a regular basis, so it’s not too hard to identify them.

Total donation information can be found at the California Secretary of State’s page, and Mormonsfor8.com includes a breakdown of donations by state, indicating that the majority of donations came from California residents.

There were special PO Boxes for receiving LDS donation forms to the Protect Marriage coalition.  Forms from the general public were sent to P.O. Box 162657, Sacramento, CA and those from LDS members were sent to P.O. Box 819, Placentia, CA.  Assessments were made for stakes, as had been done in Hawaii and previously in California during Prop 22.  Individual members were contacted with suggested donations as was done in this blog post.

Certainly the Church knows how much its members gave, and if the media reports were way over the top and completely inaccurate, the Church could certainly provide correct numbers.  Thus far, it has not.

Church Discipline and Excommunications

While it’s possible that one or two members may have been directly threatened with church discipline as strict as formal excommunication or loss of salvation when they were asked to donate, the vast majority of potential member donors did not receive overt, explicit pressure like that.  Many were told that donations to support Proposition 8 should be given the same importance as tithing (which is necessary to pay in order for a member to be worthy to enter the temple).  Many were told that supporting Proposition 8 was the same thing as supporting the prophet (implying that non-support of the initiative was the same as non-support of the prophet).

More than a few members were subject so some form of ecclesiastical pressure regarding their involvement (or lack thereof) in the campaign.  Several had temple recommends revoked and others were unable to get renewed recommends.  Others were released from callings within the church, and others were asked to stop speaking out against the proposition if they wanted to continue to serve in callings.  Some members resigned from callings on their own, or turned down callings, citing their lack of support for the Church’s actions during the campaign.

There is no doubt that members were given a not-so-subtle message that supporting Proposition 8 was a righteous, obedient and holy thing they needed to do as good members of the Church.  As ecclesiastical leaders hold the ability to judge whether their adherents are worthy of eternal salvation or not, those leaders must be very, very careful what they ask of their followers.  When using this lever to move the Saints, Church leaders need not exert much effort at all before members are enthusiastically picking up the banner and moving forward with gusto.

National Organization for Marriage

Karger suggests that the National Organization for Marriage is a Mormon-instigated and/or controlled “front group” to fight SSM across the nation, much like Hawaii’s Future Today or Save Traditional Marriage-’98 were when they were created in Hawaii.  Certainly, Matthew Holland is LDS and was one of the early founders of the group.  It’s also no secret that Mormon author Orson Scott Card is now serving as Holland’s replacement on the NOM Board.  The jury is still out on the details of Mormon involvement in NOM, but it’s clear that Proposition 8 would not have gotten onto California’s ballot without NOM’s involvement.

Electroshock Therapy at BYU

The film discusses electroshock therapy at BYU a couple of decades ago, and a more complete account may be found here.

Gay Suicides and Stuart Matis

Stuart Matis committed suicide at an LDS church building in Los Altos, California, in March 2000, just before Californians voted on Proposition 22, the predecessor to Prop 8.  Information about his suicide has been discussed here and here.

In a couple more days, we’ll examine some more things like accounts about:
—Training members to be election volunteers walking precincts, supervising efforts in every ZIP code
—Political Tactics/fearmongering arguments/6 Consequences
—LDS Church official reporting of Non-monetary contributions and fines assessed
—Homelessness/Rejection of Gay Youth
—Quotes by church leaders about homosexuality cited in the film

Then, last night, I watched 8:The Mormon Proposition and rode the emotional rollercoaster one more time as I watched friends, acquaintances and strangers describe the elation they felt when they were able to marry and the despair that came when they realized their marriages were being voted on – and voted on negatively – by my friends and neighbors. And I wondered if California was really as nice as I’d been hoping.

The movie shares the now-familiar (to me) stories of LDS Church leader involvement; of the massive amounts of money, volunteers, leadership and organization my Church and its members provided to the campaign; the old stories of electric shock and surgical treatments for homosexuals in Provo; the continuing stories of rejection, homelessness and suicide; and the familiar strains from the likes of Gayle Ruzicka and Chris Buttars. I read the infamous quotes about homosexuality from former church leaders and I relived the experience of sitting in a church building hearing and watching latter-day apostles describe in detail how to run a political campaign.

While the movie’s treatment of some of these issues was over the top (I’ll address these in another post), I found myself wondering at the end what positives could possibly come from these sometimes painful memories? What can we learn from this so we don’t have to live through it again? I can’t help it, it’s my nature to search for lessons from life’s struggles. And this is what I came up with.

So what could we take away from this movie?

First: Learn, Use and Teach Critical Thinking Skills. This is especially important when people are telling you that you will lose basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution, or when people are telling you that if you do/don’t do something the way they advise you to, society as we know it will crumble to pieces.

Second: Don’t be afraid to stand alone. If something seems too good (or too bad) to be true, step back from the crowd and tell them it doesn’t seem right. If you’re the only one speaking, keep speaking until somebody listens.

Third: Speak Up. For every person who is willing and able to speak out, there are dozens, if not hundreds, who cannot do so. If you are in a safe place and do not speak out on behalf of your brothers or sisters who would be risking their lives or livelihoods if they were to speak out, you are letting them down.

Fourth: Show Respect. No matter what you think of the people who are not standing with you, show them respect. Don’t poke fun at their beliefs or prejudices. The most persuasive arguments begin with common ground and bridge-building. Attacks result only in hardening the defenses and increasing fear and misunderstanding.

“We learn best – and change – through stories that build emotional connections.”

We are seeking stories from LDS or former LDS Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals and Transgenders or their families and loved ones. The purpose of these stories is to create an emotional connection to LDS members and to the public at large, so that greater empathy and understanding will be created and reconciliation of the LGBT community and the Mormon Church can commence. We believe that change will come from members whose hearts have been softened and who will not tolerate discrimination and mistreatment of LGBT members.

The best of these stories will be published in a book called Road to Reconciliation. Publication is expected by the end of 2011. Proceeds from this book will be donated to the Foundation for Reconciliation for furthering the work of reconciliation. The submission of your story constitutes your permission to have your story included in this book.

The suggested length for these stories is 1,000 – 5,000 words, but no story will be disqualified based strictly on length. Stories will be judged by a 3 member panel, independent of the Foundation. You may submit your story anonymously. You may change identifying information to protect your identity. Please give your story a title.

We would like to hear about your upbringing, your church involvement, your realization regarding your sexual orientation; how you adjusted or how you failed to adjust, how you were treated, particularly with regard to the Church; the struggles you went through and how you have reconciled your orientation with, or despite, Church teachings. If you have not be able to reconcile your orientation, tell us about that, and any other information that is pertinent or that you would like to share. Stories should be submitted to ldsapology@gmail.com.

We would like to thank you in advance for sharing what must be some of the most personal aspects of your life. The power of stories cannot be underestimated. It is what has shaped cultures and societies throughout history and what can bring about change and acceptance in the LDS Church .

Thank you,

Janeen Thompson, Committee for Reconciliation

When I first saw the trailer for 8: The Mormon Proposition several months ago, my initial reaction was largely one of trepidation as it looked to be a decidedly one-sided portrayal of the events surrounding Prop 8. (Interestingly, the original version of the trailer is no longer up on the film’s website. You can catch the new trailer here.) Though it does not open in theaters until mid-June, I had a chance recently to see the film at the Atlanta Film Festival. While there are certainly some significant flaws, there is much to appreciate in 8:TMP.

The stars of the show are Tyler Barrick and Spencer Jones, two gay Mormons who get married in San Francisco on the first day same sex marriages are allowed in California. Their story — from how the two met, to their sneaking into City Hall without an appointment so they could get married on day one, to their attendance at Prop 8 protests — literally makes the movie. Clips from their wedding inside City Hall show a bronze bust of Harvey Milk looking over them as they are pronounced “partners for life.” We also see Tyler and Spencer embroiled in gut wrenching shouting matches at local protests. There are also extended interviews with Tyler’s mom, who gets caught between her love for her son and the actions of her church. Watching the drama of Prop 8 play out in the lives of these two young men and their families is moving and effective. It is the type of thing that can and should change hearts and minds. If you don’t see this movie for any other reason, go to see Tyler and Spencer.

The film, however, has a tendency to get carried away when it turns to Prop 8 and Mormonism more generally. As expected, the movie is an advocacy piece. In general, advocacy pieces are most effective when they take the opposing point of view seriously, hitting the toughest and most persuasive arguments head on. We see little of that in 8:TMP. Instead, clips from those in favor of gay marriage are always reasoned and thoughtful while opponents are generally made to look silly if not downright buffoon-like. So while the eminently reasonable Carol Lynn Pearson and Trevor Southey get substantial time to discuss the damage caused by attempts to ban gay marriage, supporters of Prop 8 get saddled with the likes of Utah State Senator Chris Buttars, the guy who in all seriousness calls gays “the greatest threat to America.” While it would be difficult if not impossible to report on the Prop 8 debate without making mention of the type of absurdity reflected by Buttars, uniformly reducing the other side to cartoon characters strikes me as an ineffective means of persuasion.

The film also takes liberties with time and space. There is a point, for example, where the movie turns seamlessly from a discussion of the challenges and turmoil Prop 8 has created for young gay Mormons to a segment about Stuart Matis, a young man who committed suicide on the steps of his LDS church. If you didn’t know otherwise, you would naturally assume this took place during the Prop 8 showdown; instead, Matis took his life some eight years earlier. (You can read more about Matis here and watch clips from the 10-year memorial of his death here.) As another example, the film includes a segment on the harsh and even brutal tactics of some BYU administrators in hunting down gay students and subjecting them to electroshock therapy and recommending they undergo frontal lobotomies. Again, there is no mention in the movie of when such tactics were used or, in all fairness, given up. (Connell O’Donovan has a helpful summary of these events on his website.) Instead, the most egregious aspects of Mormon history — and there are many to be sure — are intermingled with the current political debate as if it were all taking place simultaneously. The problem, of course, is not that these historical events are portrayed and discussed in the film but that they are taken out of their time and place and woven into the current story in such a way so as to create the impression that the Mormon approach to gays and lesbians is, even today, the sum of its worst parts. To put things back in context, viewers must turn elsewhere.

One of the centerpieces of the film is an extended discussion with Fred Karger, a political consultant from California, about a set of confidential church documents (some of which you can read here) that he received from a mysterious source at a Salt Lake City bar. The documents provide a fascinating behind-the-scenes look into what church leaders were thinking and how they developed and implemented their political strategy to ban same sex marriage. Compelling stuff, to be sure. But the film again seems to overplays its hand, trying to paint political strategy as conspiracy theory. The documents make clear that the church had been working behind the scenes for a very long time to oppose gay marriage, but had been exceedingly careful not to be at the forefront of the campaign. All things considered, this strikes me as just good politics. To quote one sage, “All in the game yo, all in the game.” Regardless, it is not as if the church had sought to keep its opposition to same-sex marriage, either as a matter of church doctrine or public policy, a secret. While we have only recently been able to see the tactics spelled out in black and white under the church’s own signature, none of this really matches up to the grand conspiracies depicted in 8:TMP.

To these sorts of problems could be added many others (has anyone really heard, for example, of bishops threatening to excommunicate members simply for not donating money in support of Prop 8?). I suspect that for most people watching the film, and certainly for those in the target audience, these issues are not likely to be seen as much to worry about. After all, the truth, even in context, is damaging enough. These types of problems, however, are likely to turn off and scare away those on the other side of the Prop 8 debate. If that turns out to be the case, and those folks miss out on Tyler and Spencer, it will be a significant opportunity lost.

Both groups share the same restorationist roots, both use the Book of Mormon to some extent, and both have an open canon of scripture, but their religious paths have diverged greatly in the 150+ years since Joseph’s death.   A quick examination of each church’s book of modern revelation, the Doctrine & Covenants, clearly traces the changes that began with differences of opinion on prophetic succession and polygamy and culminated today in the full recognition and acceptance of LGBT community members.

Yes, the Community of Christ (which was once called the RLDS church) added a new section of scripture to its Doctrine & Covenants this week, a section which opens the doors to full acceptance of LGBT members,  including performance of same-sex marriages where those are legal.  The language allows congregations in places like the United States, Canada, etc. to begin full fellowship of LGBT members immediately but doesn’t force congregations in more conservative places to do the same.  (In some countries, the leadership believes, if the CoC stepped up and announced open support of same-sex marriage, it would be effectively cut off from its ability to minister in those countries.)  So each country/mission could take as many steps as it can toward actions that are “rooted in the principles of Christ-like love, mutual respect, responsibility, justice, covenant, and faithfulness, against which there is no law.”

John Hamer, who is attending the World Conference in Independence, Missouri, blogged about the new scripture changes here.

The changes have been contemplated, discussed and prayerfully considered for many months.  Most recently, in January 2010, CoC President Steve Veazey presented his inspired thoughts as counsel to the church and encouraged members to spend time pondering the message so they could consider canonizing it at this week’s conference.

In presenting the verses that deal with homosexuality, Pres. Veazey wrote:

“Serious questions about moral behavior and relationships continue to arise in many nations. These  issues are complex and difficult to understand outside their particular settings because of strikingly different cultural histories, customs, and understandings of scripture. For example, the issues include  female submission, female genital mutilation, child brides, forced marriages, and sexual permissiveness. They include cleansing and exploitation of widows, harsh conflicts over same-gender attraction and  relationships, and varying legal, religious, and social definitions of marriage, to name just a few.

“Over the last several years the need to resolve various moral and justice issues has intensified and become more complicated because of the growing international diversity of the church. The church has been told in previous counsel that we have been given the struggles and joys of diversity for divine purposes. (Doctrine and Covenants 162:4) In response to my prayerful pleas for light regarding God’s purposes being worked out through our difficult struggles over various issues, God graciously blessed me with the following counsel:”

Then he proposed the following scripture:

5 It is imperative to understand that when you are truly baptized into Christ you become part of a new creation. By taking on the life and mind of Christ, you increasingly view yourselves and others from a changed perspective. Former ways of defining people by economic status, social class, sex, gender, or ethnicity no longer are primary. Through the gospel of Christ a new community of tolerance, reconciliation, unity in diversity, and love is being born as a visible sign of the coming reign of God.

6 a. As revealed in Christ, God, the Creator of all, ultimately is concerned about behaviors and relationships that uphold the worth and giftedness of all people and that protect the most vulnerable. Such relationships are to be rooted in the principles of Christ-like love, mutual respect, responsibility, justice, covenant, and faithfulness, against which there is no law.

b. If the church more fully will understand and consistently apply these principles, questions arising about responsible human sexuality, gender identities, roles, and relationships; marriage; and other issues may be resolved according to God’s divine purposes. Be assured, nothing within these principles condones selfish, irresponsible, promiscuous, degrading, or abusive relationships.

c. Faced with difficult questions, many properly turn to scripture to find insight and inspiration. Search the scriptures for the Living Word that brings life, healing, and hope to all. Embrace and proclaim these liberating truths.

While it doesn’t sound on the surface to be fully embracing of same-sex marriage, it might help to understand that the first presidency and apostles of the Community of Christ are very much ready to put an end to any kind of discrimination toward church members.   But they are operating in a reality which includes worldwide church congregations, some in countries where speaking up in favor of LGBT equality is a potential death knell.

The solution to dealing with this diversity has not been to hold back all action and continue institutional discrimination, and it has not been to charge forward disregarding the legitimate concerns and needs of the most conservative branches and congregations in the most conservative parts of the world.  Instead, the new section of scripture provides for the different missions of the church to enact and support non-discrimination policies in their own way and on their own timetables.  A goal has been set and the different parts of the church will be able to work toward meeting that goal.

For the majority of members living in the United States and Europe, that means full fellowship and recognition can start as soon as the congregations can set it up.  And for those congregations in places where condoning same-sex relations could be dangerous to the survival of either the church or the church members, those congregations can focus on other ways to create “new communit[ies] of tolerance, reconciliation, unity in diversity, and love.”

Some have voiced concern that the new scripture includes this phrase, “Be assured, nothing within these principles condones selfish, irresponsible, promiscuous, degrading, or abusive relationships.”  Certainly, these have been used as code words to label same-sex relationships for years.  But perhaps the phrase could be viewed another way as well. Perhaps it could mean there are same-sex relationships that are beyond these code words the same way straight relationships are.

By condoning, affirming and accepting same-sex marriages and commitments, perhaps Community of Christ members are recognizing that blessed and healthy expressions of love are not limited by sex assignments; that gays and lesbians are just as capable of forming unselfish, responsible, committed, uplifting and supportive relationships as straight people are.

It will be interesting to follow the policy developments within the Community of Christ as various congregations begin putting Section 164 into action.  As their new scripture says:

9 a. Beloved children of the Restoration, your continuing faith adventure with God has been divinely-led, eventful, challenging, and sometimes surprising to you. By the grace of God, you are poised to fulfill God’s ultimate vision for the church.

b. When your willingness to live in sacred community as Christ’s new creation exceeds your natural fear of spiritual and relational transformation, you will become who you are called to be. The rise of Zion the beautiful, the peaceful reign of Christ, awaits your wholehearted response to the call to make and steadfastly hold to God’s covenant of peace in Jesus Christ.

c. This covenant entails sacramental living that respects and reveals God’s presence and reconciling activity in creation. It requires whole-life stewardship dedicated to expanding the church’s restoring ministries, especially those devoted to asserting the worth of persons, protecting the sacredness of creation, and relieving physical and spiritual suffering.

d. If you truly would be Community of Christ, then embody and live the concerns and passion of Christ.

e. The challenges and opportunities are momentous. Will you remain hesitant in the shadows of your fears, insecurities, and competing loyalties? Or will you move forward in the light of your divinely instilled call and vision?

f. The mission of Jesus Christ is what matters most for the journey ahead.

Truly, may we all “become who we are called to be.”

For more information:

Here’s a link to the PDF version of the new D&C Section 164:
http://www.cofchrist.org/wc2010/pdfs/section164.pdf

Here’s a link to the minutes of the discussion about acceptance of the new scripture:
http://www.cofchrist.org/wc2010/minutes/minutes041310.asp

The conference continues through Saturday.