Apr.28.2010
10:37 am
by Guest
8:The Mormon Proposition - Good and Bad
Randy Butterfield works as an attorney in Atlanta, Georgia, where he lives with his wife and four kids. He is also trying desperately, largely without success, to beat an addiction to buying old Mormon books.
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.
Filed in Uncategorized |
Thank you. I couldn’t agree more. Although, I have to admit that I have yet to see an argument in favor of Proposition 8 that is consistent with the empirical evidence about sexuality in general and homosexuality in particular.
It’s not for lack of trying either.
That’s an interesting observation. Why do you think that it is smart politics? What’s wrong with the church that disqualifies it as an effective messenger of its agenda?
One thing is for certain. Without the church, its seed money, its fundraising capacity, and its ability to put boots on the ground, the Prop 8 campaign would have been a pretty sorry affair.
Perhaps, the church has become the cadre organization for the Christianists.
Hellmut, thanks for the comment. I think there are any number of reasons why it was and is good political strategy for the church to keep (or to try to keep) a low profile, not the least of which is the subsequent fallout we’ve seen over Prop 8. Moreover, the concept of creating a coalition that spans religious denominations avoids the potential prejudices that voters may have towards any single church. While there is a sizeable Mormon population in California, it still pales in comparison to the size of other denominations there. Also, whether rightly or wrongly, polling shows that the Mormon brand remains saddled with baggage over issues like polygamy and blacks and the priesthood. Given that hand, the church’s approach to the situation seems pretty well reasoned. In any event, the suggestion made by some that the church somehow acted improperly by forming a coalition to advance its political interests strikes me as fairly odd. That’s just how the system works.
The Church was more open about its involvement in Prop 22 than it was in Hawaii, and more open about Prop 8 than Prop 22, but even with its more open involvement in Prop 8, I’m fairly certain that it hasn’t said exactly how involved it was. And it’s been reluctant to be up front about how much it’s been involved in marriage-related issues since the 1970s, at least.
I don’t have a problem with a church being involved in a political matter or with a church encouraging members to become politically active. What I, personally, have a problem with is a church being politically active on a behind-the-scenes, influence-the-legislators, guide-the-campaign process while trying to hide that fact; or a church saying, “Your prophet says it’s time to be politically active, but don’t tell everyone else you’re doing it because the prophet said you should. You’re a citizen, do it because you’re a citizen.”
It’s kind of silly to say to the public, as they did in Hawaii, “we’re part of a coalition” but (forget, decline, avoid every opportunity) to say “The church members serving on the coalition have been recommended to serve on those committees by priesthood leaders and are in communication with The Brethren about what opinions they should be presenting/representing to the coalition.”
Lots of churches are politically active, but most (and probably all of the big ones) have a separate branch, department, entity or division that does the political legwork; the LDS Church does not do that. And considering the hassle and trouble (”political baggage”) the Church carries with it, it’s been more effective for the Church to influence politics/moral issues from behind the scenes. At least up until now.
At some point, the good PR move is going to be open, honest, forthright communication with the public about what’s going on. That’s the best way to avoid the muckrakers - stay out of the muck (or at least don’t try to hide the fact that you’ve been playing in it.)
Thank you, Randy. I agree with you that surreptitious involvement is in the church’s best interest.
However, I find it troubling when billion dollar corporations are trying to create law without letting voters know who they are. Most importantly, we are talking about a church here that claims to follow higher standards. It is not possible to reconcile camouflage campaigns with The Articles of Faith.
Of course, I am being naive here. The church is a self-interested actor just like any other organization. I only wish that I had recognized that before I turned my life upside down for the church.
In part, it’s my own fault for allowing the brethren to sucker me but, in part, they have carefully cultivated the naivete of the members, especially converts.
There is something parasitical about an organization that demands the selfless devotion of its members but only accepts the self-interest criteria for itself.
As a matter of politics, you are completely right, Randy. But I am sure that you can also appreciate that people who have sacrificed a lot for the church are upset when they realize that the paramount principle in the brethren’s operations is manifestly self-interest.
Thanks for the thoughtful write-up, Randy — my take is that you are overly kind re: the screen-time taken up by me and Tyler, and perhaps a bit overly sensitive/critical of the movie’s portrayal of the ‘Mormon’ perspective. Keep in mind they’re the ones, working in concert with others, that stripped away the equal civil rights and recognition of thousands of us here in CA. If the movie had been related to the banning of interracial marriage, for example, it’s a bit like being disappointed that the opponents of miscegenation didn’t get more air time! But I hear you that the movie does have a particular bent, and I’ll be disappointed if fair-minded people like yourself are turned off by it as a result.
It’s not a perfect piece, to be sure. With an actual budget (the filmmakers worked on their own dime) and access to Church officials (the Church has refused numerous times to participate in the movie and give its side), no doubt it could have been better. But regardless, I do think the movie has the power to shed needed light on the Mormon’s involvement in Prop 8 and drive some important dialogue on such issues as separation of church-and-state, the difference between civil/religious marriage, and just generally equality for and tolerance of long-demeaned and misunderstood gay/lesbian people in the Mormon fold — many of whom, like me, have faced a lifetime of added hurt, turmoil and difficulty because of the teachings (and now blatant political involvement) of the Mormon Church. If the movie touches just one person, encourages just a handful of new conversations on these issues, results in just one Mormon kid having an easier time of it — it’s done good work. And I’ve already seen it do much more than that.
Spencer, thanks for stopping by and sharing your thoughts! I don’t doubt that the movie has done much good, and I applaud you and Tyler for sharing your story.
As for my criticisms of the movie, I think they are perhaps best summed up this way: when you have a winning hand, just play it. The places where the film takes liberties aren’t needed to make the points intended and have the unfortunately potential to turn away folks who might otherwise be persuaded by the message of the movie. Moreover, if Mormon history has taught us anything, it is that the test of historical accuracy does not depend on the righteousness of the cause. If the story line is a little less dramatic, so be it.
But again, the movie while imperfect is undeniably important. And I stand by my assessment that 8:TMP is at its best when you and Tyler are on screen. Part of that is a testament to you both, to the unique story you have to tell, and to your obvious love for each other, and part is simply putting a human face on what for some is just an abstract concept. You should be proud.
California Voter is exactly right in his/her post. The Church of LDS functioned as a PAC. It took tithing money and spent the funds to support a campaign of discrimination.
I also agree with Hellmut’s point about opponents of marriage equality: I have yet to hear an argument grounded in anything but religious bias and ignorance from the Yes on 8 people.
Thank you for this write-up, Randy, and thank you, Spencer, for your comments. If the Church of LDS wanted a more “fair and balanced” approach to their behavior, perhaps they should have spoken with the film makers.
It would have been a long movie to adequately capture the historical developments surrounding the Mormon mindset of african american and homosexual discrimination, the mountain meadow massacre, the dissolution of polygamy and the equal rights movement. So many compelling historical events and personal stories that would lay a good foundation and historical perspective. TMP did capture the key elements to help frame Prop 8 for the audience. The reality is that homosexual Utah Mormon youth still die each from suicide, while others remain homeless after being kicked out of their Mormon homes. This is another side of the issue that goes begging to be addressed while we worry about who looks like a buffoon. A few dead Mormon homosexual teenagers appear to be acceptable collateral damage. Prop 8 financial resources a plenty, but homeless SLC youth, a question of misplaced priorities?
Something more comprehensive in the future will only add to this initial effort. Thanks to Reed, and all the folks in the movie who gave of their time and effort to get this information out. Hats off to Spencer, Tyler, my dear friend Linda, Millie, Carolyn, and Trevor.
I have posted a link to this post on my Facebook page. (username Joyful Mystic.) The respectful way commentors present their opinions (IMHO) is what has the power to open hearts and minds. Thank you.
I can’t wait to see the movie.
Sheri
I just saw 8:TMP at the Newport Beach Film Festival. Coincidentally I had read Randy’s post earlier in the day before seeing it.
I agree that the film isn’t perfect, but then what documentary has ever fulfilled everyone’s expectations? After reading what the Church and others have said about it, I was expecting some wild and unproven accusations, but I have to say that it was much better than I was expecting and I didn’t find anything that isn’t factual. I agree that there were things out of sequence, but that didn’t bother me. Maybe because I already know how it all fits together.
If Church Headquarters doesn’t like what the film presents and wants to “set the story straight”, they can always do a “Why we did Prop 8″. But the Church would never do that because there is no way they can paint that picture and have it look good except to their own members. Church Headquarters would really prefer to not let others (including their own members) know how they have been involved in denying and taking away rights from and the mistreatment of, the LGBT community. Regardless of how “fair and balanced” this film was or wasn’t, there was no way for the Church to look good.
And yes, Buttars is a buffoon, but having grown up in the Church, I’ve met a lot of Buttars. Most of them aren’t elected officials, however. And there are a lot of really genuinely nice wonderful people who just don’t understand. For some of them, I hope this film will plant a seed.
But I want to thank those that produced and participated in the film. It is a historical document that will be difficult for the Church to sweep under the rug.
Dave, Is the Newport Beach film festival over? I wish I would have known, I live in Laguna Beach and was just in Newport yesterday. I like your analysis of the film. Definitely makes me want to see it. Thanks~
Hi Sheri -
Unfortunately the film festival ended on Thursday last week. We didn’t know about it either but some friends (who knew about my Mormon background) called us to tell us they had extra tickets and invited us to go with them.
We were told before the showing that the film would go into limited release in selected theatres (I think they said somewhere around June 23rd) and would be released on DVD approximately one month after that.
Dave