Am I a Hypocrite?

"Judge Norman Randy Smith - He was confirmed in 2007 after being nominated by President George W. Bush. Born in Logan, Utah, Smith graduated from Brigham Young University with a bachelor’s degree in 1974, and received his J.D. from Brigham Young University’s J. Reuben Clark School of Law in 1977." (Note: In addition to practicing law and serving as a U.S. Ambassador, J. Reuben Clark was also a member of the First Presidency of the LDS Church for several years.)

This man is one of three who will, as a panel, judge the appeal of Perry v. Schwarzenegger...

This man (and I am making an educated guess), is a Mormon. Who graduated from the same law school that Lynn Wardle teaches at (note that it says he is a "Bruce C. Hafen Professor of Law" - I haven't been able to pinpoint what that means, exaclty).

(More on Lynn Wardle here. And here.)

(More on Bruce C. Hafen here. Also, Bruce C. Hafen used to be the Dean of BYU's J. Reuben Clark Law School.)

The other two Judges on the 9th Circuit Panel are more left-leaning (which is great for us!), but I have also heard that Judge Smith is pretty moderate (even on equality isses) for a "conservative judge."

However, I am not convinced. Let me preface this by saying that I am not calling for harassment, or a lynch mob, or anything of that sort, of Judge Smith. But I am not convinced.

His church is heavily invested in his ruling; one of the defendants (NOM) is a Mormon front-group; the law school he attended is replete with people in high positions (a Dean of the law school; a famous lawyer; the fact that the law school is named after a member of the LDS Church's First Presidency) who have come out with mean-spirited, unsubstantiated, and flat-out wrong statements and propositions that undermine not only our equality, but our humanity...

So, here is the question: Am I a hypocrite for thinking that Judge Smith should remove himself from the three-judge panel because of his multiple conflicts of interest? Especially since the last ruling was made by a man who is not-so-secretly gay (ahem, Judge Vaughn Walker). And especially since I thought it was ridiculous that Judge Walker was getting criticized for it by the pro-Proposition 8 Team (they insinuated that judges cannot be gay because you cannot trust a gay man's judgment)...?

I mean, really, come on, isn't this akin to my made-up analogy of a Judge, who graduated from Hitler Law School, deciding a case for/against a state constitutional ban on Jewish rights, with the defendants of the ban in question being created and funded by the Nazi's, with whom the Judge has personal and spiritual associations?

Evidence of Hate

The following is an actual text messaging conversation I had with a friend from high school last Saturday, the same night as the Priesthood session of General Conference (I, myself, did not attend). I will not comment much because I think it speaks for itself to the kind inner turmoil LGBT Mormons experience - it's just sad. It also speaks to the hatred of self and others that is taught and communicated in subtle ways in LDS culture.

I will not reference him by name, because I don't believe in "outing" people, even though I am 99.9% positive that no one who reads this even knows who this person is. However, he contacted me in late May/early June of this year to "come out" to me; if I remember correctly, he looked at my Facebook account and saw that I had "come out" and thought I would be a safe resource. I offered to introduce him to the Matis Firesides and other safe "family" functions, and he has yet to take me up on the offer. He also revealed to me an experience he's had with another guy. Recently, he has commented that he is actually bisexual. He is a member of the LDS Church and has communicated to me that he wants to get married to a woman in an LDS temple.

Warning: The conversation we had contains mutliple four-letter words and a gay slur. Also, it is rife with errors, which I will not correct because who ever really texts "properly?"

ME: Did you go to Priesthood session?

SAD FOOL: Sure did! Haha. Didn't pay attention

ME: I am hoping so badly that a softer stance will be taken tomorrow. It just takes one talk

SAD FOOL: Softer stance on? I like Nelson and Holland. I listen to them! One day I want to be Nelson!

ME: On gay issues. Be a heart surgeon?

SAD FOOL: Oh. I don't care about gay issues. Haha. Well a world famous surgeon who helps invent something.

ME: What did he invent? I am actually appalled that you don't care

SAD FOOL: He worked on an artificial heart valve. Yeah, why should I care. I'm not here to get approval from them. If they don't like it they don't like it, that's their right. We have the same rights also so I don't care. [emphasis added]

ME: I agree to an extent. I'm not going to base my happiness on their approval. But I'll be damned if they're going to abuse their authority and take away my rights

SAD FOOL: Ha. They don't have authority to do so!

ME: Well they just did it in California.

SAD FOOL: Are you shitting me?!!? That was not because of the church! It fucking pisses me off when people say the church did that. A. They don't have the power to pass or veto laws and B. The majority of the the population caused it, the lds faith does not make up the majority of California!

ME: With 2% of the population of California being Mormon, you are right... They didn't have the force of votes. But that same 2% raised half of the money. And now they don't want blame. People in the Church have said that without the Mormons it wouldn't've passed. Heck, even the Catholic Church has said that.

SAD FOOL: And because those members did that it is the fault of the general authorities? I don't think so! People are dip shits and only see what they want to see! And just because they raised money doesn't mean that's the reason, they didn't pay anyone off! Why do they want to get married so bad anyhow? Not missing out on anything. That's what I hate most about faggs is they think the world owes them and that they are so picked on. Get over yourself! [emphasis added]

SAD FOOL: [before I could respond to the previous message] Plus whose to say it would have passed? No one knows! It didn't, and now we move on with our life.

ME: The first presidency asked people to donate of their time and means to passing Prop. 8. So yes, I can blame the General Authorities. You don't have to be rude

ME: (before he could respond to my previous message] You don't know what you are talking about. It DID pass. Prop 8 passing basically repealed marriage. It was legal before the election.

SAD FOOL: Well whatever, I don't care, and its old news. You shouldn't either, you don't live there so it doesn't even effect you.

SAD FOOL: [again, before I could respond...] People just want to blame someone so they blame the people that are right, its human nature. If the GA's asked that why didn't I hear about it, never asked me

ME: I will email you a link to the letter that was read aloud during sacrament meetings in California in June of 2008.

SAD FOOL: No thanks.

ME: [his name], can I honestly tell you what I think? I think that you are in such deep denial over having sexual attractions to men. That's why you dance for the MoTab. That's why you defend the Church when it's wrong. Despite the fact that you go to the gym to hook up with guys and get blow jobs. That's why you just called me a fag, because if you can label gays as "them" then you don't have to confront your same-sex attractions. I have been nothing but nice to you, and then you treat me like this tonight? I frankly don't deserve it and don't appreciate it. But I guess I know how you really feel.

SAD FOOL: Haha. And you know me so well and have a Ph.D. so you can say that. But you know what, I don't think anyone is at fault, that's just how the world goes, life isn't fair but that doesn't mean its yours, mine or anyones fault, we just have to move on and get over it. When I used the term fagg I'm refering to the gay people that think they are something special and are always picked on, if that's not you, which I don't think it is, then I'm not talking about you. I dance for the motab because I'm good and I can. There are non members that dance with us! If you think I'm being offensive then that is you're problem not mine. I just say what I think if you disagree so be it, but that's no reason to get offended. That's like me getting offended because someone doesn't like country music and they call me a hick because I do. I don't care, they can listen to whatever they want.

ME: You don't understand. I am calling your bluff. You want to have the best of both worlds. You want a blow job in a gym from a guy but also to get married in the temple and become like Russell M. Nelson! I mean, come on! And then you call gays fags, use the F word and other profanitites. You can't have it both ways, man. It's just not possible.

SAD FOOL: What does Nelson have to do with this? I can say and do whatever I want. It's called free agency, its a god given right.

ME: And I should have the agency to marry whomever I want, as long as he or she is of legal age. Say bye bye to Mr. Six-Pack BJ if you want to go the Church route. That's all I'm saying.

SAD FOOL: For your information I haven't even been to the gym in a month and I've had a bj once! But if you really want to know me, then you need to try harder and not guess at everything I do!

ME: I can only go by what you've told me I think you are taking out your [own] self-loathing on me and i don't appreciate it. It's called projection, you know that term you are a Psych major. I will send you that email.

SAD FOOL: Haha. Not even close! You sure you want to be a psychologist? What year are you in?

ME: You don't care about the Church's stance on gay issues because you don't see yourself as having same sex attractions, though you admit to being bisexual. You just want to "have fun" and then repent later so that you can get married in the temple.

SAD FOOL: No, no, that's not it. I know I have same attractions, and I rarely repent.

ME: Well your repentance is between you and the Lord. And I'm so over it, [his name]. Figure out what you want in life before you go doing whatever it is you do.

SAD FOOL: Haha. People are right, you're really dramatic! I'm not self-loathing, nor projecting. And I know what I want thanks!

ME: Well that's good to know! Thanks!

And that was the end of the conversation. I know I shouldn't have said some of the things that I did, but it freaking pissed me off that someone who experiences same-sex attraction would call others who do as well, "fags." Totally uncalled for, and that's what compelled me to say some of the things I did. Also, I have not sent him the link to the First Presidency letter; I figured I would just move on and not escalate anything further. We probably will not have contact again, although we are still friends on Facebook (as far as I know).

I think the best part about all of this is that, ironically, the headline on the front page of the Deseret Morning News the following Monday read something like, "LDS Urged to Contain Anger." How timely!

What do you think of our conversation?

Metacontingencies: Giving Them a Reason

As I was studying for my Behavior Analysis final tonight, I read some interesting material that gave me some insight as to why society, in general, has a hard time changing its customary traditions and accepting gay marriage. It all has to do with metacontingencies.

Before I go any further, I want to cite the textbook from which I am borrowing information:

Pierce, W. D., & Cheney, C. (2008) Behavior Analysis and Learning. Great Britain: Psychology Press.

In addition, I will provided in-text notations regarding the page numbers on which I found the information.

First, in order to understand what a metacontingency is, one must understand what a contingency is in regards to the study of behavior. A contingency "defines the relationship between the [environment], the operant [a willful behavior], and the consequences that follow the behavior" (344). So, in other words, an environment or situation sets the occasion for a behavior to be willed, with positive or negative consequences following. These consequences influence whether the individual will emit (will) the particular behavior in the future.

Does that make sense?

So, a metacontingency describes "the contingent relations among cultural practices and the effects of those practices for the group" (354). Therefore, a metacontingency describes a contingency of behavior on a cultural level rather than on an individual level (which a contingency describes).

A further example, as provided by the text:

"A culture is said to be evolved when the community adopts these innovations. Adoption of innovations depends on the metacontingencies facing the group. For example, a new food crop with higher yield is selected when the metacontingencies favor increased grain production. This could occur when a community is impoverished or when higher yielding crops support the feeding of domestic animals used for work or consumption. Higher yield crops may not be selected when food is overly abundant, when increased grain supply leads to problems of storage, or when a new crop attracts pests that spread disease" (337).

In other words, our behavior as individuals, families, societies is influenced by its consequences. If a behavior or practice will produce a benefit, then we are more likely to emit this behavior than if the consequences were neutral or negative.

It is with this premise that I present a new approach to establish gay marriage as an option throughout this country: we must give society a reason to not just want gay marriage, but to need it. The bottom line is that society will change with its circumstances - just look at the current recession. Would the Bush and Obama administrations have bailed out companies if there were no benefits (that may be real or perceived)? If there was not economic worry, these administrations would not have bailed out anybody. And if these bailouts do not work, then future administrations will be more likely to refuse the bailing-out of companies.

At the end of the day, those who are against gay marriage don't see any benefit for themselves. In fact, most don't even see the issue's consequences as neutral - they see them as negative and harmful. It is our job to illustrate to them the benefits that gay marriage will bring to them as individuals, as families, and as an American society. Now, I believe that there are indeed some benefits to legalizing gay marriage, but that is not the issue. Even if those benefits are only perceived by society, then they will be more accepting of gay marriage. Now, I'm not advocating that we lie to them or promote a false agenda; all I am saying is that we need to get them to become more comfortable in other ways, such as being more willing to even discuss the issue rather than ignore it or shut it down.

That is why "coming out" is (in my opinion) the most effective way to win sympathy for us as individuals and as a group, as well as the most effective way to win votes for gay marriage. In behavioral psychology terms, this is because their contingencies have changed. They no longer feel innocent for voting against gay marriage because now they know people on a personal level who will be directly affected by their votes. The process of "coming out" by one person sets the occasion for the listeners (a.k.a. friends and family) to emit a different behavior (vote for gay marriage), which will be followed by consequences (which may vary due to many factors).

This is supported (I believe) by further passages from the text:

"A common observation is that cultural practices in humans often remain unchanged over many generations, even when these customs make no sense. A practice may persist for many years because the members of the group who engage in it fail to contact a change in the metacontingencies. At the individual level, a person [obeys]... the taboo because the social contingencies arranged by the group [for disobeying the taboo] avert contact with the positive reinforcement contingency. Cultural practices also may persist when the metacontingencies are stable and the current practices are sufficient to meet the contingencies" (337-8).

In other words, if circumstances don't change, then people and society will never change. People stick to tradition (opposing gay marriage) because not doing so will produce negative consequences (administered by their families, friends, churches, etc...).

Calls for change challenge individuals to really consider what they need and what society needs. So it is not just our job to challenge on an individual level but on a societal level as well. We need to make the consequences for supporting gay marriage positive for the individual and for society. Only then will people be willing to accept us and realize that we have rights as divine creatures. After all, people will only do something if there is some benefit (short- or long-term) to themselves; if there is nothing of personal benefit for supporting gay marriage, then people will not support it. Support can be defined in any way the individual perceives; it can be intrinsically motivated ("I feel good when I value my fellow citizens with equality") or it can be extrinsically motivated ("It will encourage American acceptance abroad"). The point is that we must stress the positive consequences for individuals and societies who support gay marriage. Only then will we win our rightful cause.