Dec.06.2010
5:02 pm
by Laura
Appealing Appeal
Well, that was interesting. Let the analysis and commentary and discussion begin. If you haven’t had a chance to view or listen to or read about what went on in San Francisco today, check the links out first.
It will probably take some time for the rulings. Even though they heard both arguments today, they don’t have to issue rulings on both at the same time. (They kind of had two different trials back-to-back today.) One legal pundit said (before the trial) that he could imagine a 3-0 ruling against standing, but could not imagine a 3-0 ruling in either direction based on the merits of the case.
First, the justices have to decide whether the yes on 8 folks or the Imperial County Deputy Clerk are even allowed to bring the appeal to court in the first place. If they decide the prop 8 folks (proponents) had no right to appeal to begin with, then Walker’s ruling stands as is. I doubt they’ll find the county clerk had standing, but they could go either way on the proponents rights’ to appeal. If they say there’s no right to appeal, they can avoid ruling on SSM altogether. I suppose the proponents could appeal that decision either to the full 9th Circuit or to the Supreme Court. There were a couple of questions which indicated the Federal District Court judges needed some clarification on California law from the state’s Supreme Court. The question there was whether there’s a difference between proposition supporters in California and proposition supporters in Arizona. (The Supreme Court already said that under Arizona law proposition supporters had no right to appeal a constitutionality case because of Arizona laws. Apparently California
laws are not as black-and-white, and that might mean the difference between the two states, both of which are in the 9th Circuit.) On the other hand, if they say the proponents have no right to appeal, there’s the question about whether citizens are subject to the whims of a District Attorney who won’t defend the law; and, if the DA isn’t defending the law, is that different from the DA not enforcing the law. If the DA won’t defend the law, how is a court to be assured the
DA will enforce the law?
So, assuming the courts eventually decide the proponents had a right to bring the appeal at all, then the judges sit down and look at the constitutionality arguments. The proponents seemed to argue that there is a rational basis (a legal term of art) to differentiate between same-sex marriage and opposite-sex marriage. Their arguments centered around the “unique” procreative powers of a man/woman pair and how the state has an interest in creating stable relationships where children - even unwanted children - are cared for by biological parents and not by the state. (Because children in single-parent families need more resources from the state.) They also cited tradition - marriage has been between male/female from “time immemorial.”
The justices tried to get both sides to explain why the word “marriage” is so important, particularly when California has such broad domestic partnership benefits. This was something Mormon judge N. Randy Smith raised questions about several times. I’m not sure he got a very clear answer, other than that marriage is important because children deserve to be raised by their biological parents.
The Olson/Boies team argued that marriage is an individual right, not a right of the state, and that removing the rights of anyone to marry was not different from removing a whole passel of rights that were litigated over in the Romer case in Colorado. The US Supreme Court said that removing that bundle of rights from homosexuals was unconstitutional. Olson told the court they could decide the case narrowly, saying that Prop 8 removed an already existing right under
California’s constitution, just like Romer, and that because of the Romer situation, Prop 8 was unconstitutional in California. There would be no need to find a federal constitutional right to marriage. However, Olson also argued that the case needn’t be narrowly defined (and that he’d prefer a broader decision). He suggested that denying
same-sex couples to marry was unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment and the district court could come to that conclusion.
Proponents argued that SSM was different from inter-racial marriage because children can occur in inter-racial opposite sex marriages (but, at the same time, trying to regulate OSM sexual reproduction would require “Orwellian” tactics which violate citizens’ rights to privacy and a bunch of other stuff). One example they cited was a case where two homosexual men wanted to marry, but the Supreme Court said they couldn’t. That case went through courts in the late 1960s/ early 1970s, as I recall, after the case that struck down anti-miscegenation laws but before more more recent cases that have found homosexuals have rights to do whatever they want to behind closed doors and they cannot be discriminated against because of those rights.
Then San Francisco’s assistant attorney came in, and she did a much better job this time than she’s done in earlier situations. She pointed out to the justices that California law does not care how kids get into families - whether they’re adopted, IVF’d or traditionally built - the law just wants them to be taken care of. She argued that since California’s Family and Health codes don’t distinguish between childrens’ parents, it would be irrational for the state to prevent marriages solely on the basis of the ability to pro-create naturally.
The justices seemed to be searching for a distinguishing rational basis argument, and if I were on the court, I wouldn’t have been convinced by Cooper’s (proponent’s) arguments, particularly in light of the trial court’s record. Smith even suggested that the word marriage might be kind of an advertisement about creating secure relationships or something along those lines, but nobody took that bait. There were some questions about where the judges should look to find evidence of harm which might show a rational reason for creating two separate classes of unions, but Olson pointed out that the Supreme Court directed reasoning had to be real- not just something someone somewhere might, under the right conditions, pull out of the blue sky.
If the judges deny proponents’ standing to appeal, Judge Walker’s decision could stand and same-sex marriages could begin again in California as soon as the injunction is lifted. However, proponents will likely try to appeal such a decision, so we’d have to wait for either the en banc panel from the 9th Circuit or the Supreme Court to give thumbs up or down on standing.
If the judges decide that the appeal is legal, then they look at the merits of the case. Whatever decision they make there will almost certainly be appealed either to the full district (which can decide whether or not to hear the case) or directly to the Supreme Court. It appears from arguments that there are several ways the decision could go: First, overturn Walker’s decision entirely and say Prop 8 is constitutional, therefore no more same-sex marriages in California; Second, decide narrowly that Prop 8 took away constitutional rights and that Californians can resume same-sex marriages, but other states cannot/don’t have to; Third, decide broadly that denying marriage to same-sex couples is a violation of the U.S. Constitution and that all states must allow SSM, regardless of what their constitutions say about definitions of marriage.
Maybe there are other possible decisions as well. What do you think?
Filed in homosexuality, prop 8 |
85 Responses to “Appealing Appeal”
A person whose office is ministerial (like the deputy county clerk’s) does not represent the state — and cannot show particular harm to them in this specific case (which is what would be required to demonstrate standing). The deputy clerk’s job is to sell marriage licenses based on state law — no more, no less. They do not make law. This is the equivalent of a notary public trying to intervene in the case on the grounds that they notarize things. Seriously.
I cannot imagine how standing could be established, as you point out.
Having spoken with both Cooper and Stewart (2 of the 4 speakers) during the last few months, I found the oral arguments very interesting as well!
A few of my thoughts-
- One judge asked Cooper pretty much the same question that I did when Cooper spoke at BYU Law- “The family has been deteriorating. Okay. What does that have to do with the definition of marriage?” I’m glad I’m not the only one whose eyebrow was raised by trying to tie society’s single parenting and broken homes to homosexuals and same-sex marriage. (the account of my challenge to Cooper: http://bradcarmack.blogspot.com/2010/09/in-re-proposition-8-perry-v.html). Cooper’s answer was a touch less disappointing that when I asked him the question in September.
- Cooper: The substance of marriage is already given to same-sex couples in California (e.g. adoption, parenting, domestic partnership recognition, spousal benefits, etc.). That’s fine, but don’t give them the title of marriage. The state has an interest in the traditional marriage definition.
My response: Hmmm. Suffrage analogy: Let women cast ballots, but don’t call it voting because voting is a traditionally men-only institution, and there’s a rational basis for maintaining that men-only definition. Let them ballot-cast, but don’t let them vote!
- Cooper: There’s no rational basis for prohibiting different-race marriages, but there is for prohibiting same-sex marriages.
My response: Why isn’t there a rational basis for prohibiting different-race marriages? Couldn’t you show with social science evidence that mixed-race couples don’t parent quite as much or as well on average as, say, certain other racial combinations (perhaps because of relative cultural friction, or an association of mixed-race marriages with poverty and divorce)? Why seek to show that same-sex marriage has a net negative comparative societal impact and thus a rational basis for prohibiting it exists, but preclude any possible rational basis for prohibiting miscegenation? How about children’s interest as a basis for prohibiting poor people from marriage (given the causative relationship between poverty and negative child outcomes)?
- Cooper: Society has an interest in natural reproduction, and hence in esteeming opposite over same gender marriages. Emotional intimacy or companionship is not the telos (purpose) of marriage.
My response: Sorry old and infertile people- society is no longer interested in your marriage. You will be chopped off soon.
- Olson: If the state could promote reproduction through marriage, it could later outlaw it to reduce reproduction. Marriage is an individual right as expressed by the US Supreme Court 14 times which California cannot constrain on a societal basis.
My response: Hadn’t thought of that first part.
- Olson, responding to judge’s “isn’t accidental procreation a rational state interest?:” Same-sex marriage doesn’t affect opposite-gender sexual conduct.
My response: I’m not convince Olson is right here. The absence of same-sex marriage may result in some homosexuals entering opposite-gender marriage and reproducing (whereas otherwise they would likely prove less fecund in a same-sex relationship). It’s hard to gauge whether prohibiting same-sex marriage (SSM) will result in more reproduction, though- because there will likely be some homosexuals that reproduce together more than in the absence of SSM. On the other hand, there will likely be some homosexuals who will refrain from reproducing in the absence of SSM (because they choose to be celibate rather than reproduce in an opposite-gender marriage). In any case, promoting reproduction may be a legitimate state interest sufficient to provide a rational basis, as long as the means is also rational. Rational is a pretty low standard. However, Olson points out that the state couldn’t restrict or eliminate reproduction if it decided overpopulation was a problem. I hadn’t considered that argument- still thinking about it.
I do wonder how the analysis and decision will come out on standing. I analyzed standing in my international environmental law final this morning, but the context was quite different; I’m not sure what to conclude.
I was surprised that both sides brought up the California Supreme Court’s earlier finding that same-sex marriage was guaranteed by the the California constitution. I would think that the California Supreme Court’s finding would be irrelevant to the determination of Prop 8’s FEDERAL constitutionality. I still don’t quite get why both sides addressed the fact.
I wonder if there’s a correlation for individual judges between the time that lapses between that judge’s question and when he reclines in his seat and his eventual vote on the case. Perhaps one or the other party is more likely to win where that lapse is longer.
I’m pretty sure I saw Jennifer Roback Morse in the background. She’s from the Ruth Institute and gave a keynote address at the Stand For the Family Student Symposium I helped organize at BYU last year. She seems very nice and I appreciated her comments and affirmation of the students’ efforts last year. Though I would part ways with her as to opposing SSM, I appreciate her pro-family and pro-marriage efforts more generally (including on issues of early sexual activity, pornography, and divorce). She seems to be well-read, active, prolific, and thoughtful- all attributes I applaud. A criticism of Morse’s pre-hearing blogging (http://prop8trialtracker.com/).
I’d be interested to see what a #2 decision would look like (upholding Walker’s decision but limiting the affirmed decision’s impact to California rather than the whole Circuit.
re: “Olson points out that the state couldn’t restrict or eliminate reproduction if it decided overpopulation was a problem. I hadn’t considered that argument- still thinking about it.”
Is there a Fundamental Right to Procreate? See Gerber v. Hickman.
The Court analyzed Gerber’s claim in two stages. First, it asked whether there is a fundamental right to procreate. The answer to that question, outside of the prison context, is clearly “yes.” In a long line of cases beginning in the 1970s, the Supreme Court has recognized a fundamental constitutional right to procreate and make decisions about procreation. The right led the Court to strike down laws that prohibited the sale of contraception, laws that refused to allow unwed fathers to have custody of their children, and laws that unevenly imposed sterilization as a punishment for certain crimes. It also led to the Court’s invalidating a variety of laws placing restrictions on the availability of abortions.
—–
re: “I’m not convince Olson is right here. The absence of same-sex marriage may result in some homosexuals entering opposite-gender marriage and reproducing (whereas otherwise they would likely prove less fecund in a same-sex relationship).” Perhaps a better argument, with many supporting examples are Mormon Gay Men and Women who marry in order to “cure” or diminish their homosexuality. Gay and lesbians not likely to “opposite sex” marry each other because they are more Fecund. They are more inclined to marry the person they love and want to have a family with. Strange concept I know, but can easily be verified.
–
Since SCOTUS doesn’t like broad constitutional decisions, a narrow ruling applying only to California might be the more conservative approach. One where SCOTUS might even refuse to grant Certiorari. The taking away a “right” vs. granting one that never existed argumentation.
Tom wrote: The taking away a “right” vs. granting one that never existed argumentation.
Well, considering that same-sex marriage rights were granted and then removed in the state of CA, I think that it’s pretty easy to see the answer to that argument. Unless, of course, those arguing that the right never existed also believe that the 18K legally married same-sex couples in CA are figments of their own imaginations …
@Tom- Thanks for shedding some light on a couple of my many areas of ignorance.
I’m still wondering how a narrow ruling could be issued. There are two checks on state supreme courts: state constitutional amendments and federal judicial review. I imagine Proposition 8 properly amended the state constitution. That being said, the only grounds for finding Prop 8 unconstitutional under the federal constitution would then turn on the federal judiciary’s definition of the right to marry (which right it has deemed fundamental 14 times in previous opinions). Thus, if the 9th Circuit upholds Walker’s decision, it would seem that affirms Walker’s reasoning, including the finding that prohibiting same gender marriage violates the US constitution. How would this finding apply only to California rather that the entire Circuit? The US Constitution doesn’t apply differently depending upon in which state in the circuit one lives (and though impractical, ideally the US constitution would be interpreted uniformly in all states).
If the argument is that after In Re Marriage Cases the right to SSM was recognized in California, then was removed by Prop 8, then the matter is left to the state’s discretion unless the US constitution guarantees SSM. In other words, if SSM is not guaranteed by the US constitution, then a state can grant or remove it from the state’s constitution or laws at will. I don’t think the federal courts review the state supreme court’s decisions for constitutionality under that state’s constitution. Thus, the bottom line is still whether the US constitution guarantees SSM.
On the other hand, perhaps the argument is not whether the right exists or not, but whether California is equally applying the right, as it is bound to extend to the privilege non-prejudiciously if it extends it at all. In that case, however, all those states which offer legal opposite-gender marriage (which includes not only all 9th circuit states, but all United States) would be similarly obligated (or not obligated) to offer SSM based on the Circuit’s decision- thus again defeating a narrow, California-only ruling.
Then again, perhaps marriage-granting states don’t have an affirmative duty to offer SSM, but are merely prohibited from barring SSM, in which case California could be singled out within the Circuit. I fail to see, though, how the bar from prohibiting SSM would be upheld without, based on the same reason, imposing an affirmative duty on marriage-granting states to avoid discriminating the allocation of the benefit based on opposite or same-genderness of the requesting couple (i.e. requiring those states to offer legal SSM).
Or, perhaps California’s granting of most of the privileges associated with marriage obligates them more than less domestic partner/civil union-friendly states in the Circuit to give same-sex couples the title of marriage. Perhaps the analogy would be that if you’ll let a group of people ballot-cast, it’s not constitutional to forbid attaching the label of voting to that activity.
Please help me fill in this gap in my understanding.
re: Perhaps a better argument, with many supporting examples are Mormon Gay Men and Women who marry in order to “cure” or diminish their homosexuality. Gay and lesbians not likely to “opposite sex” marry each other because they are more Fecund. They are more inclined to marry the person they love and want to have a family with. Strange concept I know, but can easily be verified.
–
I think it would be hard to verify the intents of why people want to get married. I don’t know of very many Mormon Gay Men and Women who marry in order to “cure” or diminish their homosexuality. Most that I have met marry out of love.
A New York Times Article states:
“On the whole these are not marriages of convenience or cynical efforts to create cover. Gay and bisexual men continue to marry for complex reasons, many impelled not only by discrimination, but also by wishful thinking, the layered ambiguities of sexual love and authentic affection.” http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/health/07broke.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
I think it is easy to discount the sexual love and authentic affection of other people’s relationships. It is real
The next question, is given the choice, would a person with same-sex attraction rather commit to another man or to a woman?
In 1990, 3.5% of married men and 2.1% of married women reported same-sex attraction. Given a figure of 52,317,000 married couples in 1990, that would come to 1,831,095 men and 1,098,657 women who were married, giving a total of 2,929,752. 3.0% of divorced men and 6.4% of divorced women reported same-sex attraction, which is higher than the national average, but it is hard to determine what percentage of the divorces were related to same-sex attraction. 12.1% of single men and 7.7% of single women reported same-sex attraction. This is much larger than the married or divorced population. It is difficult to determine how many are celibate and how many would marry a same-sex partner if it were legal in 1990.
http://books.google.com/books?id=72AHO0rE2HoC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=the+social+organization+of+sexuality+1990&source=web&ots=kHfFtQQH7j&sig=ZS5sk4GqzcR4e8mLVIHTNPsHt-Y#v=onepage&q=the%20social%20organization%20of%20sexuality%201990&f=false
A good way to estimate is to see how many same-sex couples there are. Certainly, many same-sex couples would not want to marry given the option, but we can use it as a ballpark figure.
In 1990, there were 145,130 same-sex couples or 290,260 people in the Census. 10 years later, there were 601,209 couples or 1,202,418 people in a same-sex couple. This pales in comparison to the 2,929,752 in opposite sex marriages.
I think part of the reason is that many people who have gay sex do not want to be in a lifelong committed relationship. The argument that banning same-sex marriage prohibits people with same-sex attraction from getting married just doesn’t hold water when you realize that more people with same-sex attractions are in committed relationships with people of the opposite sex than people of the same-sex.
So, Joshua, what you are saying is that, based on the statistics you have provided, it is okay to discriminate against the minority? by that rationale, we would not have legalized interracial marriage, after all, the majority of married people were married to a member of the same race.
I also wonder how many of those with same-sex attraction, i.e., homosexuals, who are married to members of the opposite sex would be in opposite sex marriages if same-sex marriages had been available to them when they married a member of the opposite sex. How many of them are in opposite sex marriages because society did not accept homosexuals? How many of them have extra-marital affairs with a member of the same sex?
And, even though you are not old enough to remember this, the church used to counsel homosexuals to marry a member of the opposite sex and live their covenants and the same-sex attraction would go away. That does not happen and I’m very glad the church no longer gives that counsel.
Joshua, how about if you stop quoting 20-year-old stats from a time when same-sex marriage was available NOWHERE? I am really tired of your disingenuous attitude. We get it. You’re ex-gay and married to a woman. You’re thrilled and delighted and so, allegedly, is she (at least, that’s what *you* report).
Speculating about how many GLBT people would have married a same sex partner 20 years ago is pointless. Instead, why don’t we talk about why you voted to take away rights from people who were enjoying them?
Sheryl’s right; your church (and many others) used to tell gay and lesbian people to marry someone of the opposite sex on the grounds that “the feelings will go away.” That’s a falsehood.
Joshua wrote: I think part of the reason is that many people who have gay sex do not want to be in a lifelong committed relationship.
Well, Joshua, I guess you probably don’t know too many folks “who have gay sex.” All of my gay friends? Are either in lifelong committed relationships or want to be.
And guess what else? I know you like to pretend that being gay and “having gay sex” are different, but they aren’t. What’s the difference between being Mormon and “doing Mormon things,” again? I seem to have forgotten.
I get the feeling a lot of people think gays are just adventuresome. We like to just do things for the thrill of it to be contradictory. We are only trying to have sex with a member of the same sex for a thrill or experimentation?
Look, if you have ever have had a broken heart…then, you KNOW what love is.
Love: It’s not experimenting. I know what I felt when I was in love and I wish everyone could experience once in their lifetime the same sort of love I once had.
Love: It’s not pretending.
And I get the feeling some people think the primary reason to marry is S-E-X. While that is clearly a big part of why some people (especially heretofore celibate 20-somethings) get married, couples who have been together for years most often have other reasons for marrying.
Part of the problem with splitting same-sex actions from same-sex attraction does, indeed, make being homosexual only about The Act(s).
As for marriage statistics, there are so many problems with gathering data about same-sex marriage when (a) SSM (or even domestic partnerships) are not legal (and laws are in a state of flux); (b) people can be fired for admitting to being homosexual; and (c) there is a significant amount of pressure to “conform” to societal (heterosexual) norms.
re : So, Joshua, what you are saying is that, based on the statistics you have provided, it is okay to discriminate against the minority?
Absolutely not. I don’t care how small the minority is, they should have all the rights and protections they need to protect their families. For the record, I don’t care how much of a minority they are. I think siblings who want to be together, or groups of people who want to be together, should have the legal standing to raise their children and have the benefits. Siblings who marry each other are certainly in the minority.
If they conclude that gay people have the right to marry whoever they choose, that would be one thing. But the argument that gay people WILL choose someone of the same sex or that they CANNOT have a happy and fulfilling marriage with someone of the opposite sex is not true, and it hurts real people in real marriages. Marginalizing people with same-sex attraction in opposite-sex marriages as a method to legalize same-sex marriages is harmful. I know of too many couples who have almost split up because of this mentality.
The point of the statistics is to show that gay people who want a committed relationship are more likely to go after someone of the opposite sex than someone of the same sex. That is all. It is not an argument in and of itself that same-sex marriage should be legalized.
The ends do not justify the means.
re: Part of the problem with splitting same-sex actions from same-sex attraction does, indeed, make being homosexual only about The Act(s).
The problem Laura, is that not everyone fits nicely into the box that you try to place them. The fact of the matter is that there is a difference between same-sex attraction and same-sex actions. Many people experience one, but not the other. When you blur the difference, you hurt real people. People like me end up in no-man’s land. This only serves to push us back further in the closet. Why do think many celibate/heterosexually married people with same-sex attraction are closeted? We have no ability to come out, because we have been defined out of existence.
The church distinguishes between opposite sex attractions and opposite-sex actions. Teenagers are allowed to be heterosexual, but are asked not to act on it. Missionaries are allowed to be heterosexual, but are asked not to act on it. Does that make being heterosexual only about the act? Why should homosexuality be treated differently than heterosexuality?
The other problem is that when you blur the difference, you mess up the statistics. It breaks down communication. What we need in this debate is more clarity and better communication, not more confusion.
@Brad re: “I’m still wondering how a narrow ruling could be issued. There are two checks on state supreme courts: state constitutional amendments and federal judicial review.”
The possibility of a narrow ruling is based on my interpretation of the line of questioning during the appeal hearing. 1. California took away the marriage right of homosexual couples, as opposed to other states in the 9th that have yet to recognized this right. 2. California offers almost all of the marriage benefits to same sex couples and their children but now without the honorific designation (no rational basis in my opinion). Also, more closely aligned with Romer v. Evans (and a difference with some force than Baker) in taking away rights albeit only one, but a very important one. So if I were to make a prediction (from my limited snapshot of current knowledge) I say Prop 8 will be ruled unconstitutional only in California for the reasons above. Leaving the broader question of a fundamental right to marriage for homosexuals to be addressed by SCOTUS (states that have yet to recognize this right).
@ Joshua re: “I think it would be hard to verify the intents of why people want to get married. I don’t know of very many Mormon Gay Men and Women who marry in order to “cure” or diminish their homosexuality. Most that I have met marry out of love.”
I know of some who marry only for benefits. Flight Attendant and a Hotel Hospitality Employee and perhaps in some cases for US citizenship of a homosexual spouse to the opposite sex . I agree that most marry out of love, but a secondary concern of diminishing same sex attraction is a possibility. Speaking only from personal experience, where I might have some bias.
If the court accepts the argument that the rational basis test is met because homosexual marriage taints the traditional institution, there are under- inclusive public policy legal tests that fail in this logic. Generally laws cannot be over or under-inclusive in accomplishing public policy objectives. An example is passing a law that says in order to preserve traditional home heating, while leaving a back door and windows open, only the front door must be kept closed at all times. This kind of law would be under-inclusive in meeting a public policy objective. A law banning homosexual marriage is also under-inclusive in that felons, murderers, child molesters, and spouse abusers still retain their right to marry.
The reason child molesters are not allowed to marry is because the child is not old enough to give consent, and may not give it even if they want to. That is a totally different thing than two people who are old enough to legally give consent to a union.
I would argue that convicted (adult) child molesters are indeed allowed to marry. Marrying their victims is a different thing.
Yes, but they are not allowed to marry the person they are naturally attracted to. Isn’t that the whole point? I know of a convicted child molester who had to learn to overcome his naturally attraction to a child and was able to develop an attraction to an adult and got married, but not to who he was naturally attracted to.
But the point is that child molesters are not allowed to marry who they are naturally attracted to because who they are naturally attracted to cannot give legal consent. That is a totally different issue than allowing two adults to give consent to each other to marry. Gay people are allowed to marry, and many marry the ones they love, but they are not allowed to marry the ones they are naturally attracted to. Same thing with child molesters. The only difference is for gay people, who they are naturally attracted to can give legal consent, as opposed to child molesters.
Okay, before this devolves any more, let’s get our definitions straight:
“Pedophile” is a psychological diagnosis and refers only to persons who are sexually attracted *only* to pre-pubescent children. Not all diagnosed pedophiles actually molest children, but some do. They all feel the attraction.
“Child molester” is a legal category, one that includes all persons who actually victimize children sexually. In the group “Child Molesters” we see that:
83% are heterosexual men attracted to adult women
9% are bisexual men attracted to both adult men and women
7.2% are pedophiles attracted only to pre-pubescent children
0.7% are homosexuals men attracted to other adult men
So, in fact, the majority of child molesters may marry the adults to whom they are attracted.
Joshua, What part of the meaning of “consenting adults” do you not get?
“but they are not allowed to marry the ones they are naturally attracted to”
First of all, there are lots of places where gay people can marry the folks they’re attracted to. There are more places every day. Someday California will be such a place.
And why, again, would somebody want to marry someone he/she is not attracted to? Oh, I know: Green cards, tax status, inheritance rights, shotguns, dynasty-creation/maintenance, health insurance benefits.
The only child molester that I have known their story was a pedophile. I guess I got the two confused. I am sorry.
Anyway, pedophiles are banned by law from marrying the person that they are naturally attracted to, which is a good thing since the people they are naturally attracted to cannot give legal consent. However, just because they are banned from marrying the person they are naturally attracted to does not mean they are banned from marrying someone that they love and are sexually attracted to. It may not be the one they are “naturally” attracted to. This is the case with the pedophile whose story I know. He was naturally attracted to children, but he developed an attraction for an adult woman and was able to get married.
It is a similar situation with gay people. They are not barred from getting married to someone that they love and are attracted to. In fact, many get married in all 50 states. I am one of them. We are barred from getting married to the person that we are naturally attracted to, just like pedophiles. The only difference is that the situation with pedophiles is more justifiable, even though they did not choose to be pedophiles, because the people they are attracted to cannot give legal consent. But just like us, they did not choose to be pedophiles.
I don’t like when people say pedophiles can get married, but gay people can’t, when we are in the same situation. I guess I jumped the gun when Tom said child molesters can get married. I am sorry.
17Joshuaon 22 Dec 2010 at 10:34 am
Yes, but they are not allowed to marry the person they are naturally attracted to. Isn’t that the whole point? I know of a convicted child molester who had to learn to overcome his naturally attraction to a child and was able to develop an attraction to an adult and got married, but not to who he was naturally attracted to.
Joshua, stop it. Just stop it. Your disingenuous nonsense has gone beyond what I am able to tolerate. Pedophilia and same-sex marriage is not comparable. STOP THIS CRAP. We are talking about consenting ADULTS who want to marry other consenting ADULTS.
If I shout, do you get it?
Gah.
Joshua wrote: It is a similar situation with gay people. They are not barred from getting married to someone that they love and are attracted to. In fact, many get married in all 50 states. I am one of them. We are barred from getting married to the person that we are naturally attracted to, just like pedophiles.
STOP IT, STOP IT, STOP IT! STOP PERPETUATING STUPID MYTHS THAT EQUATE CONSENTING ADULT ACTIVITY WITH A CRIME!
You disgust me, Joshua.
I feel sorry for anyone who needs to equate himself with a pedophile in order to justify a marriage.
It must be hard to live with that kind of self-image.
Dr. Bones, you raise an excellent point. Self-loathing is such a sad thing to witness.
18Lauraon 22 Dec 2010 at 11:13 am
Okay, before this devolves any more, let’s get our definitions straight:
It has been my experience that Joshua defines words in ways that the rest of the whole damned *universe* does not. :-/
Tom was the one comparing child molesters to homosexuals, not me. I said it was not similar because one is not consenting while the other is consenting. The only similarity I saw was that pedophiles, which I incorrectly confused with child molesters, likewise did not choose who they were attracted to nor are they legally allowed to marry the person they are naturally attracted to.
We are making a distinction between naturally attracted to and attracted to. Pedophiles and gay people can marry someone they love and are attracted to in all 50 states, but they cannot marry the person they are naturally attracted to in California. They do not choose who they are attracted to. That is the comparison that Tom brought up, not me. I didn’t think his comparison was accurate, so I called him on it. It was not my comparison.
I know a couple pedophiles. Exodus is one of the few places that accepts them and helps them overcome their sexual orientation. They are decent people. Many are striving hard not to act on their sexual orientation. Kudos to them. We need more places like that to help pedophiles. I have no problem comparing people who are naturally attracted to the same sex with people who are naturally attracted to children or with people who are naturally attracted to the opposite sex. We can all overcome the natural man. I don’t judge a person based on what they are inclined to do, but what they do.
God loves the pedophile. He made them that way. Doesn’t mean He wants them to act on it.
Oh spare us the “God loves the pedophile” as if you are equating the “God loves the homosexual” meme we have heard so often. Stop patronizing us.
Joshua, do you read and comprehend what Laura commented above? Does it just go to your ground-wire? (In electrical terms, when a signal doesn’t reach its destination, it is because it went down the ground wire.)
You insult both straights and gays when you preach that love & passion are malleable. You can’t make people change their sexual orientation. None of your countless comments have convinced anyone…certainly not me. In fact, you are a case study for how people so irrationally dismiss scientific fact.
So, having a discussion with you is a waste of electrons.
So…to the original topic at hand:
I am beginning to think the LDS Church is changing. The latest episode with Boyd Packer and the subsequent “toning down” of his original dogma and now the reports of some conciliatory movement to the gay community is certainly welcomed. It’s has been reported on in some gay blogs. It’s a good thing.
Love and compassion is not malleable, or at least it shouldn’t be. God’s love is absolute, unconditional and perfect. I strive for that love, but I know I am imperfect. I am seeking to perfect that love. Some pretty nasty things have been said about people who are naturally attracted to children. I defended them, and I am sincere about that.
I am not sure when I wanted anyone to change their sexual orientation. Overcoming and changing are two different things. I don’t know if pedophiles can change their orientation. I don’t know enough about it. I do know that it is not chosen and it can be overcome. We expect missionaries to overcome their sexual orientation on their mission - whatever sexual orientation that might be. That doesn’t mean they have to change it, just not act on it.
Joshua, in post 18, Lara was kind enough to provide the definitions and supporting data that supports my understanding and knowledge of the issue. Do you have any main stream peer reviewed factual data to support your classification of “people that are naturally attracted to children” or supports your claim that pedophilia is a sexual orientation?
Further, even reading the church hand book of instruction (CHI book one and two), I cannot find any statement that missionaries are expected to “overcome their sexual orientation - whatever that orientation might be.”
A few credible facts or sources to back up your claims Joshua would be ever so helpful.
Tom, don’t hold your breath …
Joshua wrote: Some pretty nasty things have been said about people who are naturally attracted to children. I defended them, and I am sincere about that.
Of course you are, Joshua. @@
NARTH, Evergreen, Exodus, etc., do not change anyone’s sexual orientation (no matter what you think, Joshua, you’re still gay). Pedophiles are not “curable.”
And BTW, you can stop pretending that you were NOT comparing pedophilia to homosexuality with your posts, okay? By far the vast majority of pedophiles are men who self-identify as heterosexual. So, where’s your campaign to deny the rights of straight men to marry? Or is that campaign limited solely to consenting adult gay people who want to marry another consenting adult person of the same gender?
i cannot fathom why you would vote against your own self-interest, to be honest. I also cannot fathom why you continue to come here and rail against Laura’s purpose in providing a supportive place for those who feel significantly harmed by your church’s involvement in Props 22 and 8 … and who want to know that they are not the only LDS people who thought it was wrong.
27Joshuaon 22 Dec 2010 at 5:00 pm
Tom was the one comparing child molesters to homosexuals, not me.
Wrong, Joshua.
Here is what you wrote:
15Joshuaon 21 Dec 2010 at 5:26 pm
The reason child molesters are not allowed to marry is because the child is not old enough to give consent, and may not give it even if they want to.
Now, here’s what Tom wrote: A law banning homosexual marriage is also under-inclusive in that felons, murderers, child molesters, and spouse abusers still retain their right to marry.
You were the one who immediately equated what Tom said with marriage to a victim — which is not what Tom said at all. Convicted felons are allowed to marry; law-abiding gay couples are not. Convicted murderers and child molesters are permitted to marry; law-abiding gay couples are not. Spousal abusers are permitted to marry; law-abiding gay couples are not.
But, let’s talk about that, shall we? Once again, why would you donate money and time to take away existing rights from gay people, as you did with your self-professed support of Prop 8?
Joshua also wrote this: I don’t like when people say pedophiles can get married, but gay people can’t, when we are in the same situation.
No, Joshua. You’re not. You chose to marry a straight woman because, in your mind, that means you are no longer gay … that you have “overcome the natural man,” as you like to use as your catchphrase. Most pedophiles self-identify as straight.
Gay couples? You know those people whom you worked hard to remove existing rights from? They want to be able to marry their loved one and have it still “count,” for lack of a better term, if they have to move due to a job. Or, in fact, to have it “count” when they go back home if they get married in a state that allows same-sex marriage.
Stop being deliberately obtuse, Joshua. It reflects poorly on you. No one worked to prevent you from being allowed to marry a woman (no matter what you say), and yet you did just that to same-sex couples. Your ridiculous argument that “people can marry someone of the opposite sex, just like I did,” is why CowboyII called you out as saying love and passion are malleable.
I’ll be very curious to hear from you in, say, 15-20 years, Joshua. Because I suspect that your tune will have changed. A lot.
Tom,
I guess that is just the impression I got from talking to people that I know. It doesn’t seem like they chose their attractions.
By “overcome” I do not mean cease to have. I mean to not let it interfere with what you are trying to do. It is frequently referenced in the scriptures, with possibly the most popular being Mosiah 3:19, in which all people are commanded to overcome the natural man. That does not mean that we are commanded to cease to have temptations. Even Christ was tempted. I think the confusion between overcome as in “cease to have” and overcome as in “don’t give heed”
In the case of missionaries, the counsel is to “lock your heart”. That is the same thing as overcome. It is okay to be straight, just as long as you don’t act on it. That is the same counsel given to gay missionaries.
Anyway, I said at the beginning that the comparison between pedophiles and gay people was invalid because consenting adults is such a huge issue. You can’t ignore that. I would much rather have consenting adults of the same sex marry then non-consenting children of the opposite sex (which unfortunately does happen in some parts of the world.)
fiona64,
>You chose to marry a straight woman because, in your mind, that means you are no longer gay.
That is not true in the least. I married here because I loved her.
>Most pedophiles self-identify as straight.
Most gay people self-identify as straight too. If you make being gay simply a matter of how you identify yourself, then you make being gay into a choice.
> Your ridiculous argument that “people can marry someone of the opposite sex, just like I did,” is why CowboyII called you out as saying love and passion are malleable.
I don’t understand what you are trying to say here. There is a difference between saying people CAN get married like I did and saying people SHOULD get married like I did. I still offer the same love and compassion regardless of the path people chose. Wanting people to acknowledge the validity of my relationship is different than wanting them to do as I do.
I don’t think you understand me at all fiona64, and that makes me sad. I came on here in hopes that I could communicate how many gay Mormons feel. The gay Mormon world is a whole new world that I don’t think many people on here understand. I feel like I spend a lot of time on here correcting my stance. Let me be clear:
- I do not want to pressure anyone to do as I did. I just want my choices to be respected. There is a difference and I don’t think you understand that.
- I want same-sex couples to be completely free to chose their lifestyle and have it recognized and subsidized by the government. I will continue to call it a lifestyle because I know people who have changed their lifestyle. Anything less would discredit their lifestyle change.
- I married my wife because I loved her. End of story. No attempt to cover up, to change my sexual orientation, to please other people, to put others down or anything else.
Fiona, remember that a lot of my comments don’t make it past moderation. There are several times I have responded to you and they haven’t made it on the board.
Joshua wrote: Most gay people self-identify as straight too.
Oh, bovine excrement, Joshua. Now you have completely jumped the shark.
And this, which you wrote: I want same-sex couples to be completely free to chose their lifestyle and have it recognized and subsidized by the government.
Then why did you donate time, money and YOUR VOTE to Prop 8, which removed the right of same-sex couples to marry? Stop with the lies already.
As for your other assertion, I have only this to say: I understand you completely, Joshua, and I feel tremendously sorry for you as a result.
Joshua wrote: I came on here in hopes that I could communicate how many gay Mormons feel. The gay Mormon world is a whole new world that I don’t think many people on here understand.
No, Joshua. That is not why you came here. The truth of the matter is that you are here to try to cast aspersions on Laura’s work *in support of* same-sex marriage.
Most of us know exactly how gay Mormons feel, Joshua: disenfranchised, lonely and hurt. You are NOT representative of the majority of gay Mormons, because you have married a woman *as your church directs you to do.*
Please, I beg you. Just stop trying to pretend that you are typical of what gay Mormons experience. I know far too many who have left the Church to believe what you are trying to pedal. I have spent a lot of time reading this site: http://www.affirmation.org/ . I know what the experience is, Joshua — and you do not, so far as I am able to see, represent it to any degree.
Affirmation is only a subset of gay Mormons, and many of them are actually gay ex-Mormons. Most active members of the church with same-sex attraction are not affiliated with Affirmation. Not that there is anything wrong with being affiliated with Affirmation. I know some amazing people who are, but the fact is most active members are not.
I am not trying to be a representative. I happen to be marry, but I fully realize that many gay Mormons are not married and do not want to get married. I do not want to pressure them to get married. About half of Evergreen members are not married.
I am trying to communicate. I honestly did not come on here to stop Laura’s work in support of same-sex marriage. You have put a lot of words in my mouth that I have not said. I am glad that there is a site where believing Mormons can come in support of same-sex couples who want to marry.
I only come on here because to correct some bad stereotypes of gay Mormons which Laura seems insistent on perpetuating. It seems to her being gay is just about sex.
Joshua wrote: I only come on here because to correct some bad stereotypes of gay Mormons which Laura seems insistent on perpetuating. It seems to her being gay is just about sex.
No, Joshua. To *you* being gay is just about sex. You are the one who keeps insisting that there is a difference between being gay and “having gay sex.” In this very thread, in post #6, you said this: “I think part of the reason is that many people who have gay sex do not want to be in a lifelong committed relationship. ”
This is a clear-cut insistence that being gay is just about sex. You insult every single couple out there when you make remarks like that. There are gay couples that have been together longer than *I* have been alive (and I am old enough to be your mother, so you can do the math yourself).
You insist that there is a difference between being gay and “having gay sex” when you say things about “overcoming the natural man.” I have asked you before, Joshua, to explain the difference between “being Mormon” and “doing Mormon things” — because that is *exactly* the differentiation you are trying to make about being gay.
And Joshua? I keep asking you the same question. You insist that you want same-sex couples to be able to:” be completely free to chose their lifestyle and have it recognized and subsidized by the government.”
So, I’m asking you again: if this is true, then why did you donate time, money and YOUR VOTE to Prop 8, which removed the right of same-sex couples to marry?
You are either a liar or a hypocrite, or possibly both. I really do pity you.
Joshua, I’m having trouble backing up your statements in the Church Handbook of Instruction, can you give me the page number that backs up what you claim is said to gay missionaries?
“… It is okay to be straight, just as long as you don’t act on it. That is the same counsel given to gay missionaries…”
And if I may ask a personal question if you are married does your wife believe fully and without reservation, that you are sexually attracted to her as a woman?
Fiona64 said: To *you* being gay is just about sex. You are the one who keeps insisting that there is a difference between being gay and “having gay sex.””
I guess I just don’t understand this at all. I make a difference between being gay and having gay sex because I believe being gay is not just about sex. There are plenty of gay people who do not have sex, and do not want to have sex, just like there are plenty of straight people who feel the same way.
It is when you fail to make a difference between being gay and having gay sex that you reduce being gay to just about sex. You insult many gay people who are celibate or faithfully married to the opposite sex when you reduce being gay to just about having gay sex.
Gosh, I feel like we’ve had this conversation before. Oh, yes, here we go and here, too? (”the DIFFERENCE between a gay lifestyle and a straight lifestyle is just about sex.” - Joshua)
Of course, that was in the context of gay/straight LIFESTYLES, which are somehow different from just BEING gay/straight, apparently, in some universe I have yet to figure out. So when we finally got tired of running around in circles trying to figure out the difference between being straight and participating in a straight lifestyle, the definitions-by-fiat ended up being:
Which means to me that being gay is about being attracted to people of the same sex, whether or not you are having sex; being straight is about being attracted to people of the opposite sex, whether or not you are having sex; being bisexual is about being attracted to people of both sexes, whether or not you are having sex; and being asexual is about not being sexually attracted to anyone (as opposed to being celibate).
In short, I see no difference between gay lifestyles and straight lifestyles (and I eschew the euphemism “lifestyle” altogether). A difference between gay sex and straight sex? Well, only as it pertains to the people involved (since there’s nothing people of the same sex do that is not also done in opposite-sex couplings).
Thank you, Laura.
Well, Joshua, looks like you are hoist on your own petard, since Laura has the quotes that show you saying, when you get down to brass tacks, that being gay (or being straight) is only about the party with whom you have sex.
So, which is it? Liar, or hypocrite? Or perhaps both?
Laura,
I agree that using the term “lifestyle” is problematic. Different people have different interpretations. For me, being gay and living the gay lifestyle refer to two completely separate groups of people. For this reason, I have avoided using the term “lifestyle”. It was another poster who used that term, and I just pointed out that fiona64 was misinterpreting his statement.
Which is why I think it is so important to distinguish between same-sex attractions and homosexual behavior. There are many gay Mormons who are happy and living the gospel standards, either celibate or married to the person they love and are sexually attracted to.
It is by erasing the distinction between attractions and actions that all of a sudden this whole group of gay people fall into obscurity. When both having the attractions and acting on them are considered as being gay, you deny the existence of our segment of the population. We get pushed further and further into the closet, which just creates more problems. No one deserves to be in the closet.
That is why it is so important to distinguish between attractions and actions.
Or we could all just accept that there’s nothing wrong with being a gay person. period. end of sentence.
If it’s not a stigma, then nobody cares who’s sleeping with whom and we all agree to live chastely and faithfully, married to the spouses of our choice.
But while we’re on the threadjack subject, when exactly does a person become gay or straight? When she first notices an attraction to someone of the same- or opposite-sex? Or when she actually has sex with someone?
If you are straight because you are attracted to opposite sex people, then how can you be anything but gay if you are attracted to same-sex people? Acting on the attraction doesn’t make you gay or straight.
>>Or we could all just accept that there’s nothing wrong with being a gay person. period. end of sentence.
I totally and 100% agree with this sentence.
>>If it’s not a stigma, then nobody cares who’s sleeping with whom.
See, now you are the one making being gay about sex. I thought being gay was about attractions, not about actions.
>>we all agree to live chastely and faithfully, married to the spouses of our choice.
Now all of a sudden you care about who’s sleeping with whom. I support people in whatever lifestyle choice they chose, even a promiscuous one, as long as it is consensual.
>>If you are straight because you are attracted to opposite sex people, then how can you be anything but gay if you are attracted to same-sex people?
I agree with this definition. I have always used this definition. Being gay is being attracted to the same sex. There are many gay Mormons who are happy and living the gospel standards, either celibate or married to the person they love and are sexually attracted to. They are gay, but they don’t act on it.
>>Acting on the attraction doesn’t make you gay or straight.
So why did you complain about distinguishing between the attractions and actions? The attractions make you gay, the actions don’t.
Joshua writes: “I want same-sex couples to be completely free to chose their lifestyle and have it recognized and subsidized by the government. I will continue to call it a lifestyle because I know people who have changed their lifestyle. Anything less would discredit their lifestyle change.”
What, exactly, is the difference between a same-sex lifestyle and your lifestyle? It’s who you have sex with, isn’t it? You have sex with your wife and “they” don’t.
Drawing a distinction between being gay and choosing a same-sex lifestyle makes as much sense as drawing a distinction between being straight and choosing an opposite-sex lifestyle. Whether you call it “a lifestyle” or “sleeping together” or “discussing Uganda” it all boils down to the bedroom, doesn’t it? “Lie back and think of England.”
If there’s no stigma, there’s no need to distinguish between “being gay” and “chosing [sic] a gay lifestyle.”
If there’s no stigma, sayings like, “That’s so gay” have no meaning.
If there’s no stigma, there’s no need for organizations like Exodus or Evergreen to teach gays/lesbians how to overcome their same-sex attractions.
If there’s no stigma, there’s no need to worry about “discredit[ing] their lifestyle change.”
If there’s no stigma, there’s no need for organizations like NOM to rail against same-sex marriage.
If there’s no stigma, there’s no need for books like this, Encouraging Heterosexuality: Helping Children Develop a Traditional Sexual Orientation
As long as heterosexual behavior is more valued than homosexual behavior, there will be a stigma attached to being gay.
As long as homosexual behavior earns stricter punishments than heterosexual behavior, there will be a stigma attached to being gay.
As long as being gay is bad, people who don’t want to be called gay will need to distinguish between being gay (”attracted to same-sex persons”) and acting gay (”choosing a gay lifestyle”).
Now, I can see where some people could run into problems introducing themselves at a party when they are asked how they identify: “Hi. I’m James and I’m gay, and this is my wife.” Kind of automatically puts you in the hot seat for lots of second glances at best and several very personal questions at worst.
For sure there are places where introductions like this would be welcome and praised, but I can’t imagine that there are many, and that’s got to be hard. It might even make a person feel like s/he is constantly being attacked because of a “lifestyle choice.” It might even color one’s view enough to see prejudice, homophobia, fearmongering and smear campaigns around every corner.
Assuming positive intent is probably the best approach to overcome the negative perception.
The entity we blithely talk about here is called love. When we say we love someone what does that mean?
Let me try to explain.
Why would a woman want to love me? I could never give her the full complete spectrum of what it means to love. It would be much better for any woman to find a heterosexual man than to be with me.
When a heterosexual man loves a woman it is vastly different than when a homosexual loves a woman. If you cannot see the difference there is nothing more to talk about because you don’t understand the concept of L O V E.
The discussion of lifestyle…the act of sex…are all meaningless unless you understand what love is. And, frankly, I’m not sure everyone here knows what I am talking about.
I sometimes curse God for allowing me to experience love. It probably would have been easier for me to live my self-imposed celibate life without ever feeling love…but I have experienced love and the absolute wrenched pain of being broken hearted.
So, my quest in this life is to rekindle and even garner a little spark of what I had before.
The talk about love and sex is just a minor part of what it means to love or be attracted to someone.
So, if I know I cannot and would never be able to give a woman the kind of love she so rightly deserves…why would you force me to enter into a relationship with a woman in order to simply placate some sort of religious dogma.
That seem completely unfair and certainly not what I feel my God thinks I should do.
Cowboy II wrote: The talk about love and sex is just a minor part of what it means to love or be attracted to someone.
So, if I know I cannot and would never be able to give a woman the kind of love she so rightly deserves…why would you force me to enter into a relationship with a woman in order to simply placate some sort of religious dogma.
That seem completely unfair and certainly not what I feel my God thinks I should do.
—–
I agree. This is why I have said, and will continue to say, that I would prefer having the honest gay friend to having a husband who had to force himself to be attracted to me.
I *have* been involved with a man who was gay and closeted. He felt strong pressure to “be straight” from society, family, etc., so he started dating me. Two years into our relationship, he finally came out — and I was relieved, because it explained so many things. I have been involved with a man who is now transgendered m-to-f. Again, learning this long after the breakup was a relief to me.
I think I am most bothered that these two men did not feel safe to be who they were — and it is indeed because of external pressures, not because of what a loving God wants someone to be.
So please, Joshua, don’t ever say again that I don’t understand you. I have first-hand, primary experience with men who were trying desperately to be something they weren’t.
Cowboy II also wrote this: When a heterosexual man loves a woman it is vastly different than when a homosexual loves a woman. If you cannot see the difference there is nothing more to talk about because you don’t understand the concept of L O V E.
Exactly. I love my gay male friends, and they love me. But it is NOT the same thing, no matter how much you try to make it so. Marrying one of those gay male friends (were I not already married) would be a farce, no matter how much we love each other.
Joshua wrote: For this reason, I have avoided using the term “lifestyle”. It was another poster who used that term, and I just pointed out that fiona64 was misinterpreting his statement.
Bovine excrement, Joshua. Laura provided the links. You use the term constantly. We have had this argument, as I tried to get you to nail down *ages ago* what you meant by the “gay lifestyle,” and you yourself said it all boiled down to sex. Again, Laura provided the links. We can all see it.
Liar, or hypocrite? Or both?
Joshua writes: “I want same-sex couples to be completely free to chose their lifestyle and have it recognized and subsidized by the government. I will continue to call it a lifestyle because I know people who have changed their lifestyle. Anything less would discredit their lifestyle change.”
And yet, you insist that you do not use the term lifestyle …
Stigma? Are you serious, Laura? You think I entered a mixed-orientation marriage to AVOID stigma? You think I went to Exodus to AVOID stigma? On the contrary, I did all of this IN SPITE of stigma. If you were really concerned about stigma for gay members of the church, why on earth would you use scare tactics like “Would you want your child to marry someone in this situation?” How is this supposed to reduce the stigma. I have asked you that question many times and you have never answered it. Why do you use scare tactics against us?
If there were no stigma against being gay, mixed-orientation marriages and groups like Exodus and Evergreen would THRIVE. Because finally, we would feel free to be open and live the lifestyle that we want to live. Marriage inequality groups like this one who attack are lifestyles keep our numbers small. Assuming we go to these organizations to avoid stigma demeans us.
Cowboy said: When a heterosexual man loves a woman it is vastly different than when a homosexual loves a woman.
You are discriminating against homosexual men with that statement. You assume that homosexuals are incapable of doing something as well as heterosexuals. You might not have had much luck, but I love my wife. Do not assume I do not. Do not assume my love is inferior. Do not assume I do not have gay sex because I do not understand love. If you think a gay man cannot love a woman the way that she needs to be loved then you are reducing love to sex, because the ONLY difference between a gay man and a straight man is sexual attraction.
Cowboy said: why would you force me to enter into a relationship with a woman in order to simply placate some sort of religious dogma.
When have I ever used religious dogma to explain my actions? When have I ever tried to force anyone into a relationship? I have always advocated freedom to chose any relationship you want without stigma. You are the one trying to put a stigma on my relationship.
Fiona said: I think I am most bothered that these two men did not feel safe to be who they were
Fiona, my situation is different than yours. I feel safe to be who I am. You do not understand my situation when you say I do not love my wife or when you say it would be a farce to marry a gay man. You do not understand that everyone’s situation is different.
Laura,
Stigma? Really? You think we go to Evergreen and Exodus because of stigma? That has got to be one of the most insulting things I have heard on this site.
Stigma is NOT the reason I went to Exodus, so your theory doesn’t work.
I posted this in another related thread as well, but the 9th Circuit has sent a certified question to the CA Supreme Court over whether or not private citizens have standing to defend a ballot initiative. This is a separate question from whether they have standing to appeal a decision in Federal court, BTW.
Particulars are here: http://prop8trialtracker.com/2011/01/04/analysis-9th-circuit-appears-ready-to-grant-proponents-standing-to-appeal/
In some ways, granting standing could make a stronger case — because Prop 8 is clearly a violation of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, and has been since Day One. If there is standing, the case must be decided upon its merits and could have a more broad effect. If there is no standing, the appeal is pitched out and Judge Walker’s ruling stands. That means that same-sex couples could once again be married in the state of CA, but that the ruling would not reach outside the state’s borders.
It is my sincere hope that those who voted to remove existing rights from law-abiding citizens will think again if similar issues are put to the vote in the future. Next time it could be *your* rights on the chopping block if some group decides that you are “icky” … and that is the real slippery slope (unlike the whole hand-wringing “won’t someone think of the children” bovine excrement that NOM and their ilk spread all over the fields). (To say nothing of the fact that you’ll most assuredly be on the wrong side of history in the long run … right next to the KKK.)
Joshua asks “Stigma? Are you serious, Laura? You think I entered a mixed-orientation marriage to AVOID stigma? You think I went to Exodus to AVOID stigma?”
Umm, no. I don’t believe your name ever came up at all.
Furthermore, I don’t believe I said they existed to provide an escape from stigma.
Evergreen and Exodus (and similar organizations) would not exist if people did not want someone - themselves or others - to stop being (or appearing to be) gay. If nobody were looking for ways to change their thoughts or behaviors, nobody would be looking for an organization to effect those changes.
If being gay were truly okay (i.e., stigma-free), there would be no problems with being gay, having gay children or siblings, allowing gays to marry people of the same sex, fighting side-by-side with gays in the military, having gay teachers in school, permitting straight-gay alliance groups at schools, attending gay weddings, and a myriad of other things.
Joshua wrote: If there were no stigma against being gay, mixed-orientation marriages and groups like Exodus and Evergreen would THRIVE.
I’m sorry, Joshua, but I can’t help laughing out loud at this. If there were no stigma against be gay, groups like Exodus and Evergreen would *disappear.* Those groups make their living on the stigma against being gay.
Joshua wrote: Fiona, my situation is different than yours.
Yes, Joshua, it is. My situation is comparable to your wife’s, not yours.
Again, I’ll be interested to hear from you in 15-20 years …
And to receive an answer to the question I’ve asked repeatedly: you insisted several times throughout this thread that you think that same-sex couples should have the right to marry.
So, why did you lend your time and treasure to taking away those rights?
Joshua,
You still don’t understand. YOU (emphasis YOU) are the one that reduced the differences to the simple aspect of the sex act.
You don’t understand why a homosexual would love a woman differently than a heterosexual man? I’m with fiona64…I want to have this conversation with you in 10 or 15 years from now.
Perhaps you believe gays cannot have as great and abiding love for their partners as heterosexuals. That’s the gist of the problem we have with the ‘stigma’ problem. People are unable to understand there can be a deep, symbiotic gay relationship just as strong as those in the straight world.
And luck is not a factor in how people love. I’ve been lucky to find at least one person who I loved. But it wasn’t luck that had anything to do with the love we felt it was only some luck that our paths crossed.
So…Are you saying I haven’t found the right woman to make me non-gay? Sex with the right woman would turn me straight?
Gee. If it were only that simple.
Let me clarify something. In mentioning “you” forcing me into a relationship: I was referencing all the general advice and counsel I have heard from church members and some General Authorities and some people in my office. That was a generic/general “you”.
I’ve never said you can’t marry a woman. I know other people l know who are as gay as they come and living with woman and having kids. And so I know the hardships they endure. They have confided with me about the struggles and problems in the bedroom. A homosexual having a relationship with a woman is nothing like what a heterosexual would have.
So, you see there are vast differences…but, you (Joshua) cannot see that.
Fiona can see it. A whole lot of people reading this blog here know and understand the differences and it’s not just sex.
Amen to CowboyII and Fiona.
I don’t think Joshua wants to find out that it’s not just sex. As someone who has been married to a woman and now married to a man, I too can unequivocally say that it’s not just sex.
To this day I’ve never loved a woman nearly as much as I loved my wife. If there were anyone who could have “changed” me, it would have been her.
How can I describe the feeling of waking up in the middle of the night, night after night, next to the woman I love more than I’ve ever loved anyone, yet feeling extremely lonely and not knowing why? This was before I acknowledged that I was gay, so these feelings of loneliness weren’t me consciously “wishing” I could be with a guy. Sharing my life with another man hadn’t even entered my thoughts at that time. I was just really, really lonely and didn’t understand why.
I no longer have those feelings of loneliness and though I can still say that I’ve never loved another woman more than my wife, I can tell you that my husband and I are on a whole new plane. It is a very deep emotional connection and though sex is nice, it is just a very small expression of the emotional connection we have.
He is the one I would choose to spend eternity with, if that were possible. Without my experience with him, I would have never understood the deep emotional connection expressed in the movie Four Weddings and a Funeral: “Stop all the clocks, cut off the telephone, Prevent the dog from barking with a juicy bone, Silence the pianos and with muffled drum Bring out the coffin, let the mourners come. Let the aeroplanes circle, moaning overhead Scribbling on the sky the message ‘He is Dead’. Put crepe bows ’round the white necks of the public doves, Let traffic policemen wear black, cotton gloves. He was my North, my South, my East, and West. My working week and my Sunday rest, My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song; I thought that love would last forever: I was wrong. The stars are not wanted now; put out every one, Pack up the moon and dismantle the sun, Pour away the ocean and sweep up the wood; For nothing now can ever come to any good.”
Laura,
I guess I do not understand. You said:
“If there’s no stigma, there’s no need for organizations like Exodus or Evergreen to teach gays/lesbians how to overcome their same-sex attractions.”
If I understand you correctly, that seems to indicate that you think stigma is the reason many people join Exodus or Evergreen. That is not the case for me, and that is not the case for many people I know. In fact, many people avoid going there because of the stigma against gay people. Like I said, these organizations would thrive if the stigma were gone. Whether you mentioned my name or not, I am included in the group of gay people that goes to Exodus and Evergreen.
You later said:
“Evergreen and Exodus (and similar organizations) would not exist if people did not want someone - themselves or others - to stop being (or appearing to be) gay.”
Neither Exodus nor Evergreen claim to change people from being gay to being straight. Most people do not go there for that. About half of the people in Evergreen are married. What is wrong with someone wanting to improve their relationships with their wife? Especially if some people want everyone to “agree to live chastely and faithfully, married to the spouses of our choice”. We are already married to the spouse of our choice. What is wrong with wanting to improve that relationship? That is totally different from wanting to stop being gay or appearing to be gay.
Then you said: “If nobody were looking for ways to change their thoughts or behaviors, nobody would be looking for an organization to effect those changes.”
My question is what is wrong with that? Don’t straight people do the same thing? Stake pornography addiction recovery programs are completely filling up. Organizations like Sexaholics Anonymous and Discover Recovery are all set up to help straight people change their thoughts and behaviors. Are they doing that because of stigma against being straight? Are they trying to stop being straight or appearing to be straight? No! They want help in living a lifestyle that they want to live. Are gay people that much different than straight people? They want help in living a lifestyle that THEY want to live. What is wrong with that? Why would you try to interfere with that? Let people live how they want.
You make too many assumptions about gay people. We do not all fit in the box you want us to fit into.
Dave, CowboyII, and Fiona,
Look, I love my wife. I do. Me and many other LGBT people in every state in the nation marry the person we love and are sexually attracted to. I am not saying all gay people get to marry who they are sexually attracted to. I am not arguing that point. I am saying that a great many of us do. Saying I don’t really understand love doesn’t mean I don’t. I love my wife more than I ever thought possible. I don’t feel lonely. I am fulfilled, and I fulfill her. I think I am just as good of a husband as a straight guy would be. I don’t think I am lacking anything because of my sexual orientation.
I am fully aware that other people have tried and failed. I imagine a big problem is that they were not up front with their spouse. How can you have a relationship with someone who is pretending to be something they aren’t? That is the big difference between my wife’s situation and Fiona’s situation. I wasn’t trying to pretend to be straight, where it sounds like Fiona’s gay boyfriends were. My situation is different than Dave’s because I don’t sit up at night feeling lonely. I used to feel lonely, but then I came out
I don’t want to discount your experiences. I fully believe same-sex couples can love each other. I don’t think I ever said otherwise. I don’t want to pressure you to do anything, and hope that in the future you will be able to find that special someone and have that relationships honored not only in California but across the US.
But please recognize that your experiences are not mine, and are not the experiences of many LGBT people. That doesn’t mean we don’t understand love. Love is not just about sex, nor is it just about sexual orientation. We love our spouses.
We do you think I do not understand love?
Joshua wrote: Like I said, these organizations would thrive if the stigma were gone.
No, Joshua. If the stigma were gone, those organizations would shrivel up and die. They make their income on people like you, who (because of the stigma against being gay) go to them to be “cured.”
And this argument: About half of the people in Evergreen are married. What is wrong with someone wanting to improve their relationships with their wife?
Nothing. But that’s not the purpose of Evergreen. It’s to help gay people be married to straight people. Again, if there were no stigma against gay people, Evergreen would cease to be.
I see you use the word “lifestyle” repeatedly again in your response. Could you explain the straight lifestyle again? I seem to have forgotten.
No one is trying to stop you from living however you want to Joshua (as you claim in your last paragraph). You, OTOH, have gone to a great deal of trouble to try to stop people you don’t even know from living how they want to live.
So, why did you do that, Joshua? In your own words: “They want help in living a lifestyle that THEY want to live. What is wrong with that? Why would you try to interfere with that? Let people live how they want.”
So, why did you donate time and money, and your vote, to Prop 8? You know, that little ditty that interfered with other peoples’ rights to live as they wish?
Or is it now a matter of “do as I say, not as I do”?
Okay, then. I guess I’ve been told. FROM HERE ON OUT I PROMISE: I will never interfere with two consenting adults wishing to commit matrimony.
I FURTHER PROMISE: I will not ask either consenting adult for proof of sex, gender, orientation, fecundity, virginity, citizenship, nationality, race, ethnicity, religion, handedness, box size/type/color/style, blood type, health history, FICA score, literacy, true hair color, head-banging ability, or handedness (or lack thereof).
Those of you desiring I take my oath before a supernatural being(s), please provide me with a stack of the appropriate holy books on which to place my hand or other body parts as I recite the promises (though I would prefer not to take the oath Old Testament style, thankyouverymuch).
Joshua wrote: Neither Exodus nor Evergreen claim to change people from being gay to being straight.
You’d better re-read Exodus’ mission statement, Joshua. http://www.exodusinternational.org/content/view/33/61/
Quote: Exodus International is a Christian organization dedicated to equipping and uniting agencies and individuals to effectively communicate the message of liberation from homosexuality
And Evergreen: http://www.evergreeninternational.org/
Quote: Evergreen provides education, guidance, and support to those involved in the transition from homosexuality.
Just a couple of pertinent lines from the links I included.
Exodus and Evergreen, along with NARTH, have been discredited by all reputable psychiatric and psychological professional organizations. There are no long-term, longitudinal studies to prove any kind of effectiveness, but there are plenty that prove long-term harm.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_exod.htm
Again, Joshua … I’ll look for you about 10 years down the road. I wish you all the best.
PS to Joshua: When you refer to my “gay boyfriends,” you conflate transgender with being gay. It isn’t. One of the people I mentioned was gay. One of them is transgendered. If you are not sure about the differences, please look them up.
My transgendered ex was and still is only attracted to women; the only thing that changed was her gender (she is now a woman). My gay ex was and still is only attracted to men … yet, he “managed to develop a sexual attraction” to me and has often said that if anyone could ‘change” him it would have been me. After two years, he could not lie to himself anymore.
Joshua you wrote: “Look, I love my wife. I do. Me and many other LGBT people in every state in the nation marry the person we love and are sexually attracted to. ..”
So are you saying that you are “Bi-Sexual” in orientation? Just trying to understand where you might fall on the Kinsey scale from 1 to 6. I would classify myself as a 6 and in denial about that during my 10 years of marriage.
fiona,
“Liberation from homosexuality” is different than changing people from being gay to being straight. Being captive to your sexual impulses could happen to any sexual orientation.
As Mormons we are commanded to put off the natural man. That goes for gay and straight alike. Anything keeping you from living the life you want, whether sexual, chemical, emotional, or what have you, needs to be overcome. In Mormonism, if you do not overcome you cannot make it into heaven.
Usually, these organizations define homosexuality as sexual actions, not sexual orientation. They advertise that you can stop having gay sex, not that you will start lusting after people of the opposite sex. You say may vocabulary is different than other people. It is more that the vocabulary from the other side is unfamiliar with you. If both sides stopped to learn each other’s vocabulary, we would be in a very different place.
Tom,
It depends on your definition of gay and bisexual. I have seen a lot of conflicting definitions. This is what happened. For years, I was only sexually attracted to other men. I tried to force myself to be attracted to women, but nothing I tried ever worked. I began to worry that because I was gay, I would never be able to marry the person I loved if I wanted to be true to my standards.
Then, I met my wife. I first fell in love with her, and then I developed a sexual attraction to her. This seems to be a common experience with my friends. She is the only woman I have ever been sexually attracted to.
Some people say I changed my sexual orientation, and that I was gay but am now bisexual. Other people say that I really didn’t change, because my sexual attraction to my wife comes from love, not from my hormones, and that at a root level I am still only attracted to men, as evidenced by the fact that I haven’t found any other woman that I find sexual attractive.
Which one is it, I don’t know. All I know is way too many people think that happiness and love in marriage is out of reach for them if they follow their standards. I am not so interested in putting people in boxes as I am in spreading the message of hope.
Joshua wrote: In Mormonism, if you do not overcome you cannot make it into heaven.
Really? Could you please show me where, in Christ’s teachings, this is established?
>Could you please show me where, in Christ’s teachings, this is established?
Revelations 3:21
To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
D&C 75:16
And he who is faithful shall overcome all things, and shall be lifted up at the last day.
D&C 76:63
And who overcome by faith, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, which the Father sheds forth upon all those who are just and true.
D&C 63:47
He that is faithful and endureth shall overcome the world.
D&C 64:2
For verily I say unto you, I will that ye should overcome the world; wherefore I will have compassion upon you.
D&C 76:58-60
Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God — Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s. And they shall overcome all things.
D&C 63:20
Nevertheless, he that endureth in faith and doeth my will, the same shall overcome, and shall receive an inheritance upon the earth when the day of transfiguration shall come.
Here are some scriptures showing if you do not overcome, but instead are overcome, you will not make it into heaven.
D&C 52:18
And again, he that is overcome and bringeth not forth fruits, even according to this pattern, is not of me.
D&C 50:8
But the hypocrites shall be detected and shall be cut off, either in life or in death, even as I will; and wo unto them who are cut off from my church, for the same are overcome of the world.
2 Peter 2:19
For of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.
As you can see, the idea of overcoming is very central to Mormonism. All are asked to overcome. This isn’t just a new thing asked of gay people. This is the center of Mormonism.
It seems we are getting into a grace/works discussion here, and that would be really, REALLY off topic, and it also seems to me that quoting verses from the Doctrine & Covenants is not going to go very far in response to a request about Christ’s teachings (as those generally refer to portions of the New Testament). It’s also probably important to remember that Mormon heaven looks a lot different than the general view of heaven in that Mormon heaven is pretty complicated and basically says nearly everyone who was born will eventually get a heavenly reward much better than anything we can imagine here on earth (with the biggest sinners (murderers, etc.) basically having to go through hell first). Now if you want to talk about Paradise and Prison (both way stations on the way to the Ultimate Reward), it might make a better comparison, but not necessarily.
Despite the (nearly) all-dogs-go-to-heaven approach, there are a few requirements in the Mormon plan, however, and if you were to ask just about any Mormon walking down the street, “What do you need to do to be saved?” They’d probably reply something along the lines of: Have faith in Christ, repent of your sins, be baptized by the proper authority, keep the commandments/repent in order to become/remain worthy to enter into covenants in Mormon temples and endure to the end until you find yourself in the presence of God. They probably would not reply: Ask Christ into your heart and declare him your Savior.
There’s definitely a requirement of works in Mormon belief, and “works” includes “overcoming” sin and temptation (or at least trying to do so). Some Mormons would say that no matter how hard you try to overcome, you still need Christ to make up the difference, so in that sense you are saved by His grace. Others would say that if you don’t try hard to overcome, you won’t be able to earn your reward in heaven - you will be counted a slothful servant and your name won’t be on the “A” list, so in order for Christ to cover the gap between you and God, you have to make an effort.
Thanks for the explanation, Laura. As Joshua was essentially non-responsive to my question, I appreciate your explanation of what he’s trying to get at.
Joshua typed:
I’m surprised some let that statement go by. I’m not surprised that Joshua is fulfilled (at least right now) but how do we know he fulfills his wife. Plus, many women would not let their husbands/partners get away with such a proclamation.
If a man boasted to people that he fulfills his partner, I might expect a polite humorous scoff or, at least, a demonstrative turn on one’s heels and walk away.
We really don’t know if our partners are ever fulfilled. I might venture: That’s why divorce is so rampant and maybe a good portion of the rest are just “tolerating” each other.
Cowboy II wrote: I’m surprised some let that statement go by. I’m not surprised that Joshua is fulfilled (at least right now) but how do we know he fulfills his wife. Plus, many women would not let their husbands/partners get away with such a proclamation.
I have said many times that I find it fascinating that Joshua can make such a statement … and how, when the men participating in MoMs post here, they claim that their wives are happy — but we never hear such a thing from the wives.
Joshua’s response, IIRC, was that his wife does not like to get on the computer.
In any event, I would agree that NO ONE can say for sure whether or not they fulfill their partner … the only one who knows that is the partner, who may just be saying what they think the other party wants to hear.
CA Supreme Court has decided to take up the question of standing in re: Prop 8.
http://prop8trialtracker.com/2011/02/16/ca-supreme-court-decides-it-will-answer-question-from-9th-circuit-regarding-prop-8-standing/
I just can’t help wondering who the people who want to deny equality would be without their story that GLBT people are not worthy of 14th Amendment protections (just like their similarly situated straight counterparts). Sad.
So this means that the CA Supreme Court is going to answer the 9th
Circuit’s questions about whether or not the Prop 8 folks have
standing to appeal Judge Walker’s decision.
After the 9th Circuit gets the answer from California’s court, then they’ll move forward on their decision about whether the PM folks can bring a lawsuit (appeal) to the 9th Circuit. But since the California courts aren’t going to hear arguments in the case until September at the earliest, it will be awhile before the 9th Circuit can do anything about the appeal.
Courts can’t just write letters to answer questions, so both sides in
the case will have to argue why the Protect Marriage folks are or are not in the same boat as the ballot initiative sponsors in Arizona who were denied the right to file an appeal in Federal court a few years ago.
So for sure we won’t have any decision/movement on the 9th District decision until after the Supreme court finishes hearing arguments and
issues its own decision.
Hopefully the CA Supremes will hear the case in September and then
issue their decision by October. Then the 9th circuit court will either grant/deny standing to appeal based on what the CA Supremes say. If standing to appeal is denied, then Judge Walker’s decision allowing SSM in California will be the final word. If standing is allowed, the 9th Circuit will issue a decision which will likely be appealed to the US Supreme Court.
Looks like briefs are due fairly quickly - initial briefs March 14th, answers April 4th, responses April 18th, amicus briefs May 2nd and replies to amicus briefs by May 9th. The Protect Marriage folks will be the Petitioners, so their briefs are due first.
Dept. of Justice and Pres. Obama will no longer defend DOMA in courts:
http://prop8trialtracker.com/2011/02/23/breaking-doj-announces-theyll-no-longer-defend-doma-in-court/
Isn’t this just the best news ever???
Tom and Brad - you both appear to be attorneys who have studied this issue. I am as well and in a previous post on this site under another thread, I posited the question of whether the administrators and others on the site would be interested in submitting an amicus brief on behalf of Mormons For Marriage in the event this case reaches the United States Supreme Court. The site administrators are on board, and I volunteered to coordinate an amicus committee. Of course, this is something I cannot do alone. We will also need to raise a few thousand dollars for printing costs. Are you interested in assisting with the research and briefing of the issues, and do you know others who would like to be involved in this efffort? Thanks.