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?

Mixed Message from the "Kingdom"

We've all heard the news about the Church supporting Salt Lake City's non-discrimination ordinance that would add "sexual orientation" protections to the list of protected statuses in the city's areas of employment and housing...

I don't know about you, but when I hear of news about the Church and its political support of anything, my ears perk up and I frantically search the internet to see if the media have picked it up yet.

I first heard word of the Church's actions from the "8: The Mormon Proposition" group on Facebook; a message was sent out to members of the group telling of how "well-placed people inside the Mormon Church" contacted others who were involved with Reed Cowan's documentary to let them know that the Church planned a statement and that they needed to "Watch what we [the Church] are about to do. You will be pleased."

At that point the media hadn't picked up the story yet, and I began to ponder about whether or not I believed the message sent to me by the "8: The Mormon Proposition" group. Honestly, the thought came into my mind that whoever sent the message was trying to rile people up with a sensationalized message - this person proved me wrong!

How do I feel about it? Honestly, I am confused and don't really know, but I will explain my feelings as best I can.

I am upset that the Church got involved, for several reasons. My primary reason for disagreement is because I don't like it when any Church gets involved in politics - period! Even when the Church and I agree on an issue (such as this ordinance), I don't think it is appropriate or ethical for any religion to get involved in politics. It shouldn't happen unless there is an issue that directly or specifically addresses religion.

I don't like the Church being involved in this specific issue because once it is involved a precedent is set. It is said about Utah politics that, "When the Church says 'jump,' those on Capitol Hill say, 'How high?'" So the legislature will, begrudgingly, refrain from challenging this ordinance. The precedent that is set is that the gay community now becomes dependent on the Church for any legislation that affects our community. One could argue that that's the way it already is, but the Church sends enough mixed messages that this ordinance could very well end up being challenged and revoked, which leads me to...

The way the Church handled its press release was, to me, not good enough. If we look back at Prop. 8 and the way the Church announced its support of that measure, it came in the form of a letter written and signed by the First Presidency that was read in every California ward's sacrament meeting. Compared to that, some "Joe Blo" from PR reading a statement written by the PR department carries little to no weight. He wasn't even an official spokesperson! (Those would be Kim Farrah and Scott Trotter). Admittedly, Prop. 8 and this ordinance bear little resemblance in "weight" themselves, but after the fiasco that was Prop. 8, a letter from the First Presidency read in Salt Lake City's wards should've been the least the Church could do.

The way in which the Church announced its support is the reason why people and groups still disagree with the Church on this ordinance. The Sutherland Institute, which is based on LDS principles, issued a statement disagreeing with the Church. The Utah Eagle Forum, which thinks it's based on LDS principles, also disagrees with the Church's stance on the ordinance. The reason why it's "okay" for them to disagree with the Church, but it wasn't "okay" for people who disagreed with the Church on Prop. 8, was because of the reason stated above: this time the statement didn't come from the First Presidency or the Prophet, it came from "Joe Blo" in PR. (The fact that certain people and groups still choose to disagree with the Church is not evidentiary of their "apostasy" - it is evidentiary of their being homophobic.)

And this is not a mistake. The Church does not issue anything - anything - publicly until it has been reviewed, revised, and "okayed" by the highest leaders of the Church. And since Prop. 8 - hell, since the beginning of friggin' time - the Church has been extremely careful with its PR. No one can convince me that everything about this announcement was not thoroughly thought out, or revised, or considered. I guarantee you that even this PR guy's tie was thought out in detail.

In short, the Church knows that an announcement doesn't carry as much weight when it is not delivered in a Church setting by its highest leaders...

Besides, the fact that the Church came in at the last minute to "save the day" when the city knew the ordinance would already pass is beyond disingenuous. I've heard comments from several people, including some MoHo's, with the general consensus being that, "We must thank the Church for doing this for us." To them I say, "I am not going to thank the Church for this; I am going to thank Salt Lake City and Mayor Ralph Becker for this."

Furthermore, the fact that Reed Cowan's documentary is coming out in the next few months has not gone over the Church's head. And that's what I believe this is all about - the Church having some backup, some "ammo" in its arsenal, to address coming criticism once "8: The Mormon Proposition" is released.

I would say the one reason why I am so confused about the Church's actions is because its statement read that this ordinance provides "common-sense rights that should be available to everyone" when just weeks ago Elder Oaks referred to gay rights as "alleged."

Oaks also said, "Those who seek to change the foundation of marriage should not be allowed to pretend that those who defend the ancient order are trampling on civil rights."

Well, are they "common-sense rights" or "alleged civil rights?" This is one of those Mysteries of the "Kingdom." Can you blame me for being confused?!

One of the reasons the Church supports the ordinance is because it allows for religious freedom and exemption from the ordinance...

Oh, that's nice - especially when the Church owns half of the property in Salt Lake City. The exemption not only protects strictly religious property - such as churches, or temple grounds - but it applies to everything the Church owns. That means that the multi-billion dollar ($1.5 - $8 billion is estimated) City Creek Center being built by the Church, with not only its mall stores (and the stores' employees) but its high-end apartments and condominums, will be exempt from the ordinance. You won't find any dirty gays working for Macy's or Hot Dog On a Stick! Now, I'm not saying that this is inappropriate. In fact, as long as the Church does not accept any federal or state tax monies it is completely appropriate. But I am offended when the Church acts like it is doing us a favor. Please, I'm not a "petulant tween!"

If it's religious exemptions the Church wants, then why did it oppose gay marriage in Maine, which, in its legal form, allowed for religious exemptions? Call me confused... again.

In general, there have been two types of responses from members: those who disagree (like the Sutherland Institute and the Utah Eagle Forum) and those who agree with the Church. Some who agree with the Church are engaging in revisionist history, saying that the Church's position nor doctrine has changed. Huh?! Wha?! The Church itself called the announcement, "an historic statement." If nothing has changed, why is it so historic?

It confuses me when people say, "God is the same yesterday, today, and forever." To them I say: "God may be unchanging, but the Church sure isn't." The mere fact that the Church has made this leap compared to twenty years ago (when people were excommunicated just for having gay feelings) is evidence. If it is okay to support a public policy position such as this today, now, then why wasn't it okay twenty years ago? Why is it okay for a person to have gay feelings today and not be excommunicated when twenty years ago it was different?

Having made all my complaints, and despite all my misgivings and hesitancy to send the Church a "thank you" card, I ultimately feel that if the Church's support helped in any way to save someone's life, then it is worth it.

I just wish I understood more what the Church really feels. I'm getting sick of the mixed messages.

Call me confused. And cautiously optimistic.

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?

Tender Mercies

My life has been abundant in tender mercies lately, and I feel like I need to write them down so that I'll never forget them. In fact, I did start to forget some of the details when a friend started chatting with me on Facebook asking me about my status update (it had read, "Drew Stelter feels so blessed and happy right now that he just wants to hug everyone!"). I'm glad he did, because it forced me to talk about my experiences and keep them in my memory so that I could write a post about them. Now, isn't that a tender mercy in and of itself?! ;)

It all started on the third of April, when Iowa legalized gay marriage. I could not believe it! I just could not understand; wasn't the nation supposed to follow in California's footsteps? How could this happen so soon after we had lost the Proposition 8 battle? It was purely amazing, and it lifted my heart.

Then, on the seventh of April, my Adolescent Psychology course was discussing Human Sexuality. We discussed Restrictice, Semi-Restrictive, and Permissive Societies, changes over time, and gender attitudes towards sex. As I was sitting in class, I desperately wanted to ask the question, "Do all of these statistics and trends we're discussing apply equally to heterosexuals and homosexuals?" but I didn't. However, the last half hour of class was spent discussing "Sexual Minority Youth." My professor was so respectful and protective of the classroom environment at this time, and I felt safe to express my opinions (although people in my course do not know that I'm gay. How would they know?). I shot my professor a quick but thoughtful email expressing my gratitude for her actions that day.

After returning from my courses, I quickly browsed the internet before heading home (to accompany my best friend and his family to the MTC; he is serving a mission in the Phillippines). To my surprise, the headlines stated that Vermont had just legalized gay marriage. When I first saw the headline, I started to tear up. I exerted some behavioral control (although my mind was going absolutely wild) and read the news stories about it on several sites. Again, how could this happen so soon after Proposition 8? What does this mean for the rest of the country? This time it was a unanimous decision by the legislature - that had never happened before! I smiled as I realized that the argument of "judicial activism" just had a HUGE hole blown through it, even though Iowa had legalized gay marriage through the courts. And so soon after Iowa?! I couldn't believe that the headline I was reading was real.

Suffice it to say that I spent more time on the internet than I would have liked, although it was a special occasion, wouldn't you think? ;)

My mix CD playing through the car stereo as I exited Sardine Canyon, I started to think about what day my one-month "coming out" anniversary would fall on, wanting to do something to celebrate this important day. I tried to think it through in my head but I couldn't figure it out. So I pulled my cell phone from my pocket and looked at it's calendar: my one-month "coming out" anniversary would fall on Easter! I started to tear up at this realization. Immediately, I took it as a validation that my "coming out" was indeed directed by my Heavenly Father and that this was His way of winking at me. Then He reminded me of His love for me: the moment I realized that Easter was the date of my one-month anniversary, the song that was playing through my stereo ended and a new song started: "He Loves Me" by Hilary Weeks. If the realization was a wink, then this was a big, fat bear hug! I lost it at this moment; it wasn't until I reached at least Ogden that the flow of my tears trickled off. What's more is that I had been praying for a while to have a good cry - and I was glad that my cry consisted of happy, not sad, tears. (I will blog about my Easter experience in a later post, as the "fallout" is still happening.)

That night, I decided to read my Patriarchal Blessing (PB). This was important to me because I had meant to read it the last time I was at home and I had forgotten to do it. So I was making a conscious effort. I'm sure you all have had similar experiences where you read your PB for the first time in months (maybe even years) and something in it has attained new meaning since the last time you had read it. This is what happened to me. I will share a brief part of my PB (paraphrasing), as it is important to the rest of the story. It stated that I "will have a special family here in mortality." That statement got me to thinking, "Will my temporal family here on Earth be different from my eternal family after the Judgment? Who will be in this special family with me? What will it look like?" Whatever the answer was, I decided that the word special just had to mean unconventional... What else could it mean?

The next day, I accompanied my best friend and his family to the Provo MTC. His family had a surprise waiting for them when they walked through the door: his mom's sister-in-law and her son (my best friend's cousin), whom they had not seen in twelve years, were in the forum of the MTC; his cousin was entering the MTC the same exact day he was! Anyway, my best friend's mom was introducing everybody, obviously, as nobody looked the same as they had twelve years earlier. When she got to me, she introduced me as, "...Drew, Jason's best friend. But we consider him family; he is my son, too!" Then she turned to me and said, "Isn't that true Drew? Your mom can share!" Later, after we left the MTC, I was able to have a private conversation with her because Jason's brother had taken a ride with his grandmother. She told me that she didn't mind that I'm not serving a mission (as I am "out" to Jason and he told her not to bug me about going). She also talked about how grateful she was for my friendship with Jason, how grateful she was that I treated Jason's little brother well. She also reaffirmed to me that she thought of me as family. Indeed, when we arrived at Jason's grandmother's house, they all treated me like family.

As we left Jason's grandmother's house, we drove past this absolutely huge mansion. It had a sidewalk paved in its front and back yards so a golf-cart could be driven on a smoot surface! It was incredible, and it rivals (maybe even dwarves) the houses on Walker Lane. His grandmother told me that Bruce Bastian used to live there, but that since he became divorced his wife now resides there. (Before this had all happened, I attended Scott's party for the first time in March. To my surprise, he lives literally ten houses down from the house I grew up in as a child! What a small world!) I had a smirk on my face as I drove past that house, grateful that the man who used to live there had donated $1,000,000 to defeat Proposition 8. What a small world it is!

When we had arrived at Jason's home and were all settled inside, his grandmother gave me a stern look. "Now, Drew, just because Jason is on his mission doesn't mean that you can't talk to me anymore! I want you to call me the next time you are in Salt Lake and come visit me." I replied that I didn't have her number and she said, "Well, pull out your phone and I will give it to you!" Then, Jason's mom walked in and Jason's grandmother commented, "Drew knows what he's got to do, now." His mom asked, "What is that?" And Jason's grandmother looked at me and said, "He'll tell you." So I told her.

This whole experience got me to thinking about whether or not Jason's family could be my special family. I though, "How could they not be? I read my PB last night and the mention of my family is one of two things that popped out to me. And then I hear these comments today? Yeah, something's here." But I also got to thinking that, "...maybe my MoHo family could be my family. These are the people who really understand me, who really know what I'm going through, who don't tell me that I'm going to Hell." Right now, I do not know which of these is my special family, but it doesn't really matter. After all, if my family is supposed to be unconventional, then why can't I have two? ;)

The next day was also a great day in my Adolescent Psychology course. The University's GLBT Student Services office provides GLBT Panels for professors that request them, and my awesome professor requested one, so the entire hour-and-a-half period was spent listening to two gay men, one lesbian, and two bisexual women talk about their stories and experiences in this world - and all but one had been brought up LDS. I so desperately wanted to get up there and join them (after all, it was very informal - they would've let me) but I figured that there was a time and a place for these types of things, and that it was my time to listen. It was all very educational, and I learned a lot about myself through their experiences. The one thing that stuck out to me was something they called, "Queer Bounce." Apparently, Queer Bounce occurs after someone "comes out," and is described by his or her fulfilling the stereotypes that he or she sees in society. It is basically a rebellion stage where an individual totally loses the values and morals he had because he has felt repressed/oppressed from expression his true self. It is called a "bounce" because the individual eventually returns to the same values and morals he once had, although he has since integrated the characteristics of his "new" self. I have noticed some of that appearing in myself, and I so pray that I maintain my dignity and respect. I do not want to be that type of person. But at the same time, I understand that it is a relatively natural and universal occurrence and should be expected in some capacity and form. Sigh.

I am so thankful for these tender mercies in my life. They were great reminders to me of His unconditional love, and that he works through all people and all things to bring about his plan. I just read Scott's newest post and am grateful that the Lord has been helping him as well - in fact, He helps each and every one of us. We just have to look - He is there.

Chris Buttars Can Kiss My Ass! (and More Opinions)

NOTE: In the past I have refrained from criticizing the Church and specific individuals because I had always thought that those actions are unbecoming of an ethical human being. However, due to recent events discussed below, I cannot remain silent anymore; I have an obligation to speak out. I need to release these feelings.

I've been patient. I've given my fellow Utahns and its legislative leaders the benefit of the doubt. I was naive.

Even after the Church specifically named certain rights that it believes gays and gay couples should receive; after Equality Utah and a few legislators drafted bills based on the specific rights mentioned by the Church - they did nothing. And by they, I mean the legislators AND the Church.

Recently, the Church has been fairly involved in legislation regarding immigration issues and liquor laws; why would the Church not issue another statement backing the Common Ground Initiative? Don't tell me it's because the Church is "neutral;" it clearly is not. (This is discussed later).

If the Church had issued another statement endorsing the Common Ground Initiative, then the legislators on Capitol Hill would have been clamoring over each other to sponsor the bills, inevitably making some contrived public statement that he/she has always supported the rights in the Common Ground Initiative.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for Senator Chris Buttars: You are a sorry excuse for a man and a disgrace to all Mormons and Utahns. I have morals you son-of-a-bitch. Who do you think you are? As far as I am concerned, you can suck it.

I hope you get cancer.

Furthermore, your claims that Reed Cowan "assured [you] that he would treat both sides of the issue fairly and that [you] would be treated fairly... and told [you] that the interview would be made public in about a year and [you] would be allowed to see his work and approve [your] part before he released it" are blatant lies.

You signed a release form. You never asked for your statements to be taken off-the-record. To "take [Reed] at his word" is incomprehensible given the fact that you have a penchant for being scrutinized in the media because you make inflammatory statements. Dumbass.

The sad fact is, you were re-elected after you made racist comments on the Senate floor. Your constituents agree with what you have to say.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Utahns, especially Mormons, can't have it both ways. Mormons claim that it is unfair to blame them for the passage of Proposition 8, given that they make up only 2% of the California electorate. But they donated at least 40% of the money used to promote its passage. I dare say that without all the financial resources Mormons provided to Pro-Proposition 8 organizations, the Proposition wouldn't have passed.

Mormons are willing to take all the credit for its passage; case in point: a recent comment in Elders' Quorum by a Californian visiting a relative in my ward claimed that very fact: without the Mormons, Proposition 8 wouldn't have passed. However, when people started protesting the Church; when people specifically targeted Utah for boycotts; when churches were vandalized - Mormons were (and still are) quick to cry afoul, asking, "What did I ever do to you?" You can't have your cake and eat it too!

There is a genuine disconnect in the communication between Mormons and the "other side." Mormons perceive that the "other side" objects to them voting their consciences; voting based on their moral, even religious, beliefs. NEWSFLASH: That is not what the "other side" objects to. It objects to the fact that Church leaders issued conflicting statements: one regarding alleged political neutrality and another specifically asking Mormons to donate of their time and means to the passage of Proposition 8.

But then another genuine disconnect is encountered: Mormons say that Proposition 8 was not a political issue but, rather, a moral issue. With the "other side" claiming otherwise, this specific disconnect is the root of the problem: neither side will budge on on the "moral/political" nature of this issue - and until one does (which will never happen), healing on both sides will never take place.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another irony: one of the arguments used back in 2004 in promoting the passage of Amendment 3 (which defined marriage as between one man and one woman) was that, essentially, nothing could be legally equated to marriage; there was one definition and one definition only. However, the argument used against the passage of the five bills in the Common Ground Initiative was that of a "slippery slope" to the point that gay marriage will slowly and eventually be established in the State of Utah...

My question is this: if that is the argument, then why the hell was the passage of Amendment 3 so important? Amendment 3 was supposedly untouchable - after all, it is now a part of the Utah Constitution. The fact is, because Amendment 3 is now a part of the Utah Constitution, the "slippery slope" argument holds no weight; if a proposed state bill conflicts with the Utah Constitution, then that bill is, by definition, unconstitutional, and that bill will never pass. Do you, Gayle Ruzicka, and you, Chris Buttars, and all you other legislators have so little faith in your state's Constitution that you would be threatened by a bill that would make hiring/firing an employee on the basis of sexual orientation (gay or straight) illegal? Really?! Really?!

Furthermore, the five bills in the Common Ground Initiative never discussed gay marriage or civil unions. The bills outlined medical, legal, and property rights as well as discrimination protections and were offered on an a la carte basis. Failure of their passage contradicts Mormons' claims that they don't hate gays and are just opposed to a redefinition of marriage. (And I can legitimately say "Mormons" and not "legislators" because a full 80% of Utah's legislators are LDS).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The fact is this: Proposition 8 passed. Fine. Later, the Church issued a statement naming specifically six types of gay rights that it supports. You did not pass one of them.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If the Church was right about Proposition 8 then it was right about the Common Ground Initiative.

And, once again, just for kicks: Chris Buttars - you can Kiss My Ass!