Shifting attitudes

There is an article in the Wall Street Journal that others might be interested in

The GOP Should Kiss Gay-Bashing Goodbye

On September 2nd, the Log Cabin Republicans voted to officially endorsed John McCain calling him a very inclusive Republican. While John McCain is against gay marriage, he also opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment - significant since the Log Cabin Republicans declined endorsing George W. Bush in 2004 because of that issue. Oh, and by the way, for all of you Obama fans, his views regarding gay marriage are essentially the same as McCains (opposes same-sex marriage, but also opposes a constitutional ban) making it, essentially, a non-issue in the upcoming election.

I don't have anything against Obama; my biggest concern is his lack of experience. And, truth be told, I'm not particularly excited about McCain either ... is it November yet?!?!?!?

New found popularity

Yesterday (Sunday) I set a new record for the number of hits to my blog. Today (Monday) is already breaking that record. After all these years - I've finally become one of the cool kids!

So, where is all of this new traffic coming from?

www.bycommonconsent.com
openmormon.com
www.thefoyer.org
forum.newordermormon.org
www.postmormon.org

I must confess that I feel a bit naive as, before today, with the exception of bycommonconsent.com, I was unaware of the existence of these other sites.

It seems my post about the letter read by my bishop warning us of "Dale Callahan" is prompting all of this new found popularity. If you google "dale callahan mormon" or "dale callahan lds" then my blog is near the top of the results list linking to my post titled And they shall be ignored. (in other news, someone recently found my blog by googling "lds chili fest" - go figure)

In, possibly, related news, I also discovered that my blog (as well as other queerosphere blogs) is linked from the Mormon Blogosphere portal under the heading "Liberal/Fringe Elements".

Lest anyone start thinking that I'm becoming a fringe church hating liberal fag, I feel inclined to clarify my position.

I am an active member of the LDS church, I serve in the bishopric of my ward. I have a testimony of the Book of Mormon as a second testament of Jesus Christ. I support Thomas S. Monson as a prophet, seer, and revelator. I support my local church leaders.

I do not, however, believe in infallibility of our church leaders - a case in point, is the decision of the church to abandon it's normal position of political neutrality and encouraging the saints in California to donate of their time and means to help pass prop 8. Another prophet gave us the 11th article of faith - I feel we should live by that creed. I've explained my support for gay marriage here and here.

Oh, and I happen to be gay - does this make me a fringe church loving conservative fag?

And, for all of you new visitors - welcome to the Mormon queerosphere, a blogging community of gay Mormon's. Some of us are active members of the church. Others have left the church behind, but still have some affinity for their Mormon roots. Most are single, but a significant minority are married (both heterosexually and homosexually). A goodly number of us have children of our own. Most of us prefer to think of ourselves as 'gay', but a few prefer the more politically correct 'same sex attracted' or 'same gender attracted'. Most of us are male, but we do have some females in our ranks. We're all over the board in political and social issues. All in all, we're just like you - well, except for that gay thing.

If you feel so inclined, check out the blogs by other members of our little family (links in the right hand nav bar). If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to email me, a link to my email is in my blog profile. You're certainly more than welcome to join in our discussions, which range from the mundane to the interesting. We only ask that you play nice.

And, as you may expect, the topic of gay marriage is of great interest here in the queerosphere. But, so are other topics.

I'm homo for Romo

In other news, I'm starting to see "I'm Homo for Romo" T-shirts around these parts. I had to do a bit of googleing to see what this was all about. It seems Tony Romo is one of the Dallas Cowboys and, according to some, is destined to be the next great Dallas Cowboys quarterback. So, I suppose saying you're "homo for Romo" is a term of endearment of sorts. Although, I know of one high school student who was instructed by his teachers to cover it up because it has the word "homo" on it.

o o o

I'm not really quite sure what to think about this. Should I be offended? Or should I buy one and wear it proudly? Nah, then people might start talking to me about football and my eyes would glaze over - and it would become apparent that it's only the first half that's relevant.

Another visit with the shrink

I had another visit with my therapist a couple of days ago. I've talked about my photography a bit during our sessions; so, he had asked me to bring in some examples - pictures I was especially proud of. I have two photo albums I keep in our living room with 8x10's of my favorite pictures which I brought with me to my session. Mind you, these are photo's that I share with family and friends.

After going through the pictures ...

Shrink: Well, a few of these could, arguably, be considered homoerotic
Shrink: Is it mere coincidence that most of your pictures are of men?
Me: Um, probably not
Shrink: I didn't think so
Shrink: Why is that?
Me: I prefer taking pictures of men
Shrink: That's understandable

So, apparently it's official - I'm gay! And, I guess I'm not doing a very good job at hiding it.

And they shall be ignored

I've been thinking about the things that happened on Sunday. On one hand, I feel good about being able to open my home to help a family which has been uprooted from their home. But, something else happened Sunday that is really starting to bug me.

In PEC meeting, before church, our bishop read a letter he received from church headquarters. It was warning us of letters and/or emails we might receive from a Dale Callahan. It seems he has started a letter writing campaign to LDS leaders, members, and missionaries in California urging them to vote 'No' on proposition 8. It went on to explain that they do not know if he is a former member of the church or if it's an assumed name he is working under. It pointed out that he does not represent the church and then ended saying any coorespondence we receive from Dale Callahan should be ignored.

I don't have a problem with the church pointing out that this Dale Callahan does not represent the church and that the views he is expressing are contrary to those expressed by the church. These are simple statements of fact. But, to tell us to ignore him seems petty. We are counseled to study the issues and vote with our conscious. But, are we only supposed to study things that come from the church and people who agree with the church. Are we supposed to simply ignore anybody that expresses any opposing points of view?

Needless to say, after our bishop read this letter a discussion ensued. My bishop wanted to clarify "so, if you vote no that means you are FOR gay marriage - in other words, you are against the family proclamation." Other brethren in the room were saying that this is truely a sign of the last days. One brother said that this person was obviously a former member of the church because no active member would ever express views like this.

As the discussion continued - I sat there in stunned silence. I truly did not know what to say or how to react. I felt very uncomfortable to say the least. I felt like an outsider. I was no longer sitting in a council of brethren united in purpose - I was the enemy. Me, and others like me, are the modern day Korihors - seeking to bring down the church. If only they knew what evil was lurking in their midst.

Today I am feeling melancholy - I feel so conflicted. As I pointed out in my last blog post, Mormon's are good people. Most members of the church will bend over backwards to help someone in need - apparently only so long as you keep homos away from them. Evidently we are of no consequence. If we express views supporting gay marriage then we are to be simply ignored. Studying political issues does not include listening to anything we have to say.

I feel like we're tolerated only so long as we keep our secrets to ourselves so that the general membership of the church can go on in blissful ignorance because, obviously, we don't have any of -those- people in the church. Hmmm, that sounds eerily similar to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, president of Iran when he said "We don't have any gays in Iran."

Refugees

Today we had about 8 families visit our ward - Louisiana refugees fleeing Hurricane Gustav. Our bishop encouraged us to open our homes; and, the response was so overwhelming that they held a sort of lottery to see who was able to invite a family over for Sunday dinner. I was one of the lucky winners :) It was a young couple with a 6 month old baby. It seems their company brought their families to the Dallas/Fort Worth area and is putting them up in area hotels. The husbands will continue working, albeit remotely.

It was just my son and I since my wife is in California with my daughter - who gave birth to my newest granddaughter on Wednesday (mother and daughter are doing fine). We scrapped our dinner plans and I found some pork chops in the freezer which I thawed and threw on the grill. In talking with them, turns out, the husband is friends with one of my sons former mission companions - OK, every sing with me now "it's a small world after all ..."

Anyway, it was fun. Our local newspaper said that they are expecting as many as 45,000 refugees from Louisiana in just the Dallas/Fort Worth area. We're far enough North that Gustav will have little effect on us - other than bringing in a lot of warm humid air up from the gulf and chance of rain on Wednesday.

Matthew Mitcham, final post

Just in case you missed it (like I did), here are Matthew Mitcham's dives from the final round of the 10m platform and the medal ceremony. Be sure to watch it to the end to see him jump up in the stands to hug his mother and his boyfriend.

Matthew Mitcham Médaille d'or

“I want to thank absolutely everyone who helped; my partner Lachlan and my mom [Vivienne] here to support me and watch me get gold, because it was so important to have those two people here with me,” Mitcham said in a post-dive interview. “I didn’t think I had a chance to get the gold and to actually get that was mind-blowing. I was crying thinking I had silver and to get gold, I was a blubbering mess.”

There has been a fair amount of editorials in the gay news outlets criticizing NBC for not mentioning his sexual orientation. Personally, I'm glad they didn't bring it up. He is Australian, a gold medal winning 10m platform diver, and he happens to be gay. For me, the big deal is the fact that it wasn't a big deal.

Our man Matthew Mitcham

Our man Matthew Mitcham won the gold medal for the 10m platform diving in the Beijing 2008 Olympics.

The 20-year-old Sydney diver produced the highest scoring dive in the history of the Olympics with his sixth and final effort to become Australia's first male Olympic gold medallist in diving since Dick Eve in 1924.

Matthew Mitcham is the first Australian to go to the Olympic Games openly gay at the time of his competition; and, he is the only openly gay man competing at the Beijing 2008 Olympics.

3rd visit with the new shrink

Someone asked me: Since I've had 3 visits with this new shrink, does that mean he's a keeper? My response was that I'm keeping my options open. I'm just going to take this one week at a time. As long as I feel I'm getting something out of the sessions then I'll keep going to him. If the sessions start going south and I start to feel like I'm not getting anything out of them then I'll evaluate if I'm ready to stop going to a shrink or if I need to find a new shrink.

One of my therapist assignments was to purchase the book "The Feeling Good Handbook" by David D. Burns. (not to be confused by another book by the same author titled simply "Feeling Good") I ordered it on Amazon and it arrived yesterday. I've only thumbed through it a bit. It's a workbook where I actually have to write stuff in it. I have reservations about this.

• First of all, I don't write in books. I don't know why, it's just one of my quirks. I get upset when I pickup a book and find writing in it. I don't even mark, highlight, or otherwise notate in my scriptures - because that's writing in a book. I tried once, and now I get upset every time I come across one of the passages I marked up.

• Second, this is a dang big book - a 732 page workbook. I thought about writing my thoughts on a separate sheet of paper; but, there are lots of parts where you just write a few words. Keeping my thoughts separately while maintaining their correlation with the associated section in the book seems like more trouble than it be worth.
  

• Third, if I'm going to be completely honest then the book is going to have to be private! Just like I said when I wrote down my life history - there are things I'm not ready to tell my wife and don't know if I'll ever be ready. If I'm going to be completely honest with myself and write down my true innermost thoughts and feelings, I'm not comfortable with the idea that a family member could pick up the book and read it along with my notations. I need to figure out a way to keep it private. I almost wish they had published it in the form of a personal diary with a lock. Maybe I should purchase a little hasp and lock to glue onto the book. It's not totally secure, but it's sends a strong signal to others that it's private - in case I accidentally leave it lying about. Hmmm, gonna have to think about this a bit more.

We talked about things I used to enjoy doing. I mentioned model railroading is a hobby I used to enjoy. I'd like to enjoy it again, but I just can't get motivated. I also told of a time when I was trying my hand at music composition and had even started setting up a home recording studio. And, my biggest passion right now is photography. For our next visit, he wants me to bring in some of my favorite pictures that I've taken as that will tell him something about me.

I also talked about how I like to meet with other gay people, such as my excursions with the gay christian network. He said that makes perfect sense to him - to want to connect with people who are aware of and accept that part of me. He even went on to say how important it is to connect with people in a face to face setting rather than over the internet (I had previously talk about my blog and our little queerosphere). But, then I explained that my wife doesn't like it when I meet with other gay guys, it makes her uncomfortable. He said that is perfectly understandable - but we'll each have to make compromises and hers may be allowing me to to do certain things even if it makes her uncomfortable.

He started to talk about things I can do to connect better with my wife. But, then I said that will be very difficult to do since she is leaving tomorrow for 3 weeks (going out to California to be with our daughter when she has her baby). So, he said we'll just table that for now. He did mention the possibility of bringing her with me to therapy; but, I just don't know if she'll agree to that.

Gay culture

I don't read "Out" magazine, nor do I visit their web site. But, the following article was linked on another forum that I read which I found very interesting

Has Manhunt Destroyed Gay Culture? A cost-benefit analysis of our quest to get laid

The author explains how online services, like Manhunt (and presumably others, like gay.com, craigs list, etc.), used primarily for hookups, have reduced gay culture to a meat market. Sex has become the handshake for gay men. This wasn't written by some right winged conspirator seeking to demonize gay culture. This is a guy who actively participates in this culture. He writes

I am not scolding. I have done practically every stupid thing a guy can do on Manhunt. I don’t like to think about the number of books I could have read, languages I could have learned, and friends I could have stayed in better touch with if I had not wasted so much time cruising online these past 12 years.

Which brings up a question: Why do we feel this need to meet other gay guys? I know it's certainly true for me. But why? I'm not looking for sex. So, what am I looking for? Why do I crave the interaction I have here on the queerosphere?

A number of years ago I spent 3 months in France on a temporary assignment for work. I don't speak French, which wasn't a problem at work as everyone was able to speak English well enough for us to communicate. However, out in the community on evenings and weekends it was a very different experience. I was in Orlean, which is not one of the big tourist areas; so, there were a lot of people I encountered who did not speak English. While eating in a restaurant, I would often just point to an item on the menu and hope that I didn't just order lambs brains or something. It seemed that whenever I ran into another American we would became instant friends as we would talk and share places we've been and experiences we've had. Thinking back, I realize that if I had run into these same people here in the US, we probably wouldn't have even noticed each other or given each other the time of day. But, in France, we were strangers in a strange land. We didn't speak the language, the culture was foreign to us. So, we latched onto someone, anyone, with whom we could relate - someone with whom we had a shared language and culture.

Is it the same with being gay? Growing up in a heterosexual world, are we all strangers in a strange land? Do we just feel this need to connect with something familiar? To talk with others who have shared feelings and experiences? Do we just want to feel like we are not alone in the world?

There is hope. I see signs that gay men are wanting more out of their relationships. Groups that cater to gay men and women without focusing on the sexual aspects are growing in numbers. For example, the Gay Christian Network recently surpassed 10,000 members worldwide. The problem, as I see it, is that these pockets are still isolated. Most gay men probably don't even know they exist and see services like Manhunt as the only way to meet guys.

So, if we have this innate need to meet and interact with others like us, how do we satisfy it without putting our integrity and values at risk? How can we be "in the gay world but not of the gay world?"

First impressions

Yesterday's news release by the LDS church titled The Divine Institution of Marriage is an interesting and unexpected turn of events. I'll have to read it more closely and ponder it a while before I decide if I will blog more about it. But, there is one thing that jumped out while I read it.

This latest news release includes the following statement:

"The focus of the Church’s involvement is specifically same-sex marriage and its consequences. The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference."

This seems to suggest that the LDS church is willing to 'accept' civil unions for same sex couples. However, the General Handbook of Instructions (2006 edition), which is the authoritative source for formal church policy states

"Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. The Church accordingly opposes same-gender marriages and any efforts to legalize such marriages. Church members are encouraged "to appeal to legislators, judges, and other government officials to preserve the purposes and sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, and to reject all efforts to give legal authorization or other official approval or support to marriages between persons of the same gender." [emphasis added]
"Church Handbook of Instructions", book 1 p.187

Which suggests to me that the LDS church opposes any and all efforts to grant legal rights to same sex couples. So, is this a change of policy? Will we be receiving a letter from the First Presidency with this new policy superseding the 2006 edition of the general handbook of instructions? Until then, does this latest news release supersede the general handbook of instructions?

Same Sex Marriage vs Civil Unions vs Domestic Partnerships - A rose by any other name would smell so sweet. Has it all come down to terminology and nomenclature? How silly is that?

I don't buy the argument that calling it 'marriage' will impose "restrictions on religious freedom." How does the terminology or nomenclature have any effect the examples included in the news release?

• Tax exemptions and benefits be withdrawn from any religious organization that does not embrace same-sex unions
• Forcing religious organizations to allow marriage celebrations or receptions in religious facilities that are otherwise open to the public
• Asserting pressure on religious schools and universities to provide married housing for same-sex couples
• Student religious organizations are being told by some universities that they may lose their campus recognition and benefits if they exclude same-sex couples from club membership

I agree that these are serious possible ramifications which need to be addressed; however, do these issues become moot if we use terms like "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" and only become issues if we call it "marriage"? I'm sorry, I just don't buy that argument.

And, in the LDS church, don't we already have certain religion motivated restrictions on heterosexual marriage - which is allowed under the law? For example, my family are not members of the church, neither are my wifes. When we were married in the Oakland temple, there were no family members in attendance - and there are no legal recourses available to force the church to allow non-members to attend a temple wedding ceremony. Why would allowing two men or two women to marry suddenly change the first amendment to the US constitution? This just seems like a red herring to me.

Grieving

Had my second visit with the new shrink yesterday. I handed him my timeline and my "day in the life" scenario assignment. I also handed him a few of the poems I've written and told him that I thought it might give him some insight as to what's going on in my head. He read through the timeline asking me questions as he charted my family history on a separate piece of paper (if I had known he wanted a family history, I would have brought a pedigree chart and a family group sheet). He looked briefly at the "day in the life" and poems and commented that he wanted to take time to read them more carefully and that we would talk about them during our next session.

During the course of the session, he mentioned one thing that I found interesting. He observed that I've come to terms with my sexuality and have made a conscious decision to not go down that path, but to stay true to my marriage vows - he called it a paradox. Then he continued commenting that I've said goodbye to that life and am now going through a sort of grieving process.

Just wondering what other queerospherians think. Am I grieving for a life that's not meant to be? Can you grieve for the loss of something you never had?

No wonder I'm so screwed up - good thing I'm seeing a shrink.

I have a question

The July 1974 issue of the Ensign has the following question: Why does the Church oppose homosexuality? Why is it wrong? (4th question down)

The answer, in part, says

Homosexuals and lesbians seldom are happy people. Theirs is a relationship that is unnatural, one not bound by fidelity, trust, or loyalty, and one totally lacking in the meaningful family relationships that marriage offers. Homosexuality often espouses emotional problems because of the constant insecurity inherent in a relationship neither sanctioned by nor protected by the law.

Because there is no legal bond, homosexuality too often encourages, or at least permits, promiscuity.

So, my question is: shouldn't we be encouraging same sex marriage rather than fighting against it?

I'm just not grasping this circular logic - homosexuality is bad because same sex unions are not legally recognized; however, we must do everything we can to keep same sex unions from being legally recognized - because that would make homosexuality good? And we know it's bad, so we have to keep it bad by preventing same sex unions from being legally recognized.

I am really bothered by some of what I am reading in blogs about the situation in California. Stake Presidents meeting with people one on one soliciting donations for ProtectMarriage.com and also stating that the stake will be getting back lists of the donors and how much they paid. Perhaps that information is in the public record; but, for church leaders to actively solicit - and track - donations to a political organization is an invasion of privacy and a violation of trust - as far as I am concerned. I sure am glad I'm not living in California right now.

I'm getting very close to adding my letter supporting same sex marriage on signingforsomething.org.

Melancholy

I've been working on my timeline. It's getting quite detailed - I'm up to 8 pages. I'm including both positive and negative events in my life. However, writing about some of my past negative experiences has had an effect on my leaving me feeling melancholy. It's forced me to think of things I've kept buried and would rather not think about.

I was talking to my wife about my timeline. She mentioned what a great way it is to capture a personal history. The thing is, there is stuff in my timeline I'm not sure I want my posterity to know. There is stuff my wife doesn't even know - and I'm not ready to tell her, and don't know if I'll ever be ready. No unconfessed sins or anything big like that - just stuff that has happened to me that I prefer not to think about; things I've done that I'm not particularly proud of.

Should my posterity know about the real me - warts and all? Or should they only know about my public persona - the fake me that I project to everyone? The facade I've built up over the years. Should I carry my secrets with me to the grave? I just don't know.

Olympics

To date, Outsports is only aware of five publicly gay Olympians heading to Beijing (out of 10,708 athletes)

• Matthew Micham (Australia, diving)
• Judith Arndt (Germany, cycling)
• Imke Duplitzer (Germany, fencing)
• Gro Hammerseng and Katja Nyberg (Norway, handball and a lesbian couple)

So, if you don't have anyone else to cheer on ...