Are You Guys Brothers?

      A nice Mormon lady wrote to me this week because she struggled with my position on the defeat of marriage rights for gay men and women in California, Florida, and Arizona, and because the tone of my last entry “Good Grief” seemed quite different to her than the one she heard from me when I spoke on gay and transgender issues at her company. She wrote, in part:

Dear Brian –

     I’m very sorry for the struggles you’re currently going through — financial, Proposition 8, betrayal by Catholics and blacks. I’ve never met you, but have viewed both your presentations at work as well as read most of your blogs, etc — I’m trying to learn and really understand/appreciate the issues — and change some of my own less than accepting thoughts/actions along the way.  I have great respect for you and wish you all the joy that life offers — I truly believe that you and Ray should be officially acknowledged as partners and afforded the rights of married people when it comes to hospitals, wills, etc. — but I find it hard to reconcile those feelings with my religious beliefs — where marriage is defined as a union between a man and a women (just as a reference, I’m a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints … will get back to that in a minute)

     After reading your blog, I do have to ask a rather pointed question (or two) — do you really think that blacks and Catholics are trying to make your life miserable or that all religious fundamentalists vote against increasing gay rights because they are “frightened”?  Or are these primarily good people who believe in a certain definition of marriage (which differs from your definition) and have placed their votes according to their beliefs?  In the same way that members of the gay community contribute their time, energy and finances to support their views, members of various religious communities do the same thing and are cast as mean-spirited or frightened? Somehow that doesn’t seem quite right to me — it seems to be a bit intolerant and not consistent with the message you taught at work and the kind, gentle, thoughtful person as I perceive you.

     Because of my religious beliefs, I hope that the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman is maintained. But I also hope that you are able to define a comparable concept for unions between gays and lesbians that afford you comparable rights — without asking either side to compromise their beliefs.  There must be a way for both groups to walk together side-by-side, respecting the rights and privileges and beliefs of one another.

     Please don’t be offended by my questions and remarks — they are not meant to cause you grief at all. Whether you did it intentionally or not, your words caused me to question.  Hopefully you can help me understand.

With warmest regards

     I replied:

     Thank you for the thoughtfulness with which you sent your message. You’re a good soul and your music is welcoming.

     I agree with you that the overwhelming majority of people who have voted against the right of gay people to marry are good people. But good people do bad things for what they consider to be the right reasons. Our human history is filled with such stories. They think what they’re doing is right because they are misinformed. And as you recall from my presentation, I believe that ignorance, or lack of accurate information, is the parent of fear. That’s why I said that the opponents of Ray and me being considered married are fearful. If they understood what they were doing and the impact of their vote on others, they wouldn’t have voted the way they did. I believe that.

     Marriage is not a religious institution. If it were, the state wouldn’t have the right to marry people. It’s the other way around. The state grants the right to marry to pastors, ministers, and rabbis. It allows them to act on its behalf. Just because the Catholic Church thinks of marriage as a sacrament doesn’t mean they invented marriage. Its mention in the 10 Commandments doesn’t suggest that it was instituted by God.  The union of two people as soul mates, companions, mutual defenders, and sometimes procreators dates to the beginning of time. When the first human beings went off two by two and created homes of their own, they didn’t call it a “marriage” but they had the support of the rest of the village. When religion was created out of people’s beliefs in something bigger than themselves, the religious groups celebrated these unions with rituals of affirmation.

     Marriage exists in China, Russia and in other countries where religion is regulated or banned. People still go to City Hall, sign legal documents, have their union recognized and recorded by the state, and then, if they so choose, have another ceremony in their church. Most don’t. Are they not “married?”

     Churches in the U.S. don’t have the legal right to define for the rest of the country what is legally right or wrong. If they did, the Southern Baptist Church would have prevailed in their unflinching support of slavery. The framers of our Constitution made clear that we are a nation of civil rules and not a theocracy. So, if Mormons and Catholics and black Baptist preachers say they refuse to marry gay people in their churches, I say they have the right to do so, but they don’t have the right to define marriage for the rest of us.

     Asking me to compromise on my right to have the state provide me with the same 1,007 rights the state grants to heterosexual married couples by accepting that what I have with Ray is separate but equal is like asking me to accept that the water that comes from the “Black Only” water fountain is just as good as the water that comes from the more revered “White Only” water fountain. Why would I when I pay for the water the flows through the “White Only” water fountain?

     Now, if everyone agrees to call the union between two individuals, regardless of gender, a “Civil Union,” and to restrict the term “Marriage” to church weddings, I’m comfortable with that if everything is changed to reflect it. Marriage licenses would become civil union licenses, the marriage announcements in newspapers would become civil union announcements. Just as the state doesn’t regulate baptism or give it any legal standing or benefits, nor would it marriage. Only churches would marry, and then all of us could find a church that would or wouldn’t marry us. When Ray and I were married in Canada, it was a Unitarian minister, designated by the state as its representative, who did so. He also blessed us as a minister of a Church.

     Regarding blacks and Catholics, every study will show you that the black community is the most intolerant of any one racial or ethnic group in the United States toward gay people. I have straight black friends who have been more courageous in their support of gay rights than many gay people I know, just as I have straight Catholic friends who have done the same, but the religious leadership of both groups are openly hostile to gay people. Black ministers are now acknowledging (when forced) that their homophobia stopped them from addressing the AIDS epidemic that is now decimating their community. Gay black Baptists, like gay Mormons, live in fear of being discovered and socially ostracized. The overwhelming majority of gay Catholics and gay Mormons have left their churches. That does not mean that they are not spiritual. On the contrary. We are among the most spiritual people I know. But how would you describe the motivation of the people who have forced these people to leave the faith of their families? They are making my life miserable, but I nevertheless say it is out of ignorance, and therefore fear. If it is not ignorance and fear that motivated the votes on gay marriage, the other options are less flattering.

     Please know that I understand why you sense a difference in the tone in my talks in your workplace and in the blogs I have written since the election. I prefer the gentle, peaceful side of me to that which feels anger. That’s why I repeatedly said in my blogs that I need to wash out the black bile that is clogging my veins. Anger is destructive, but occasionally, as Jesus demonstrated with the money changers, individuals who used religion to suit their own purposes and not that of God, it needs to be expressed.

     It’s always my hope that those gay people who have left the Mormon, Catholic, and other Churches, will find in my writing the affirmation they need to keep their eyes on the horizon. Several people have written to say “thank you” for expressing my view in the blog you cited. I feel that if they see me express anger but then try to reframe the situation to reflect higher values, they will not get lost in their resentment.

     Thank you again for taking the time to share with me your thoughts. I want always to be the kind, gentle, thoughtful person you experienced. That is where on the horizon my eyes are focused. Sometimes though the rough waves of life distract you with the need to hold on for dear life.

With warmest regards

     And she responded:

Dear Brian –

     Thank you for your response — now I’m thoroughly confused — which from your standpoint is probably a good thing. Instead of considering the issue from only one side (from my religious perspective), I’m now thinking about it from your side as well.  If it came to a vote in my home state tomorrow, I’m not sure how I would vote.  You have a very convincing argument — why not afford all people the opportunity to marry and allow the various institutions (churches, etc.) choose whether or not to support that within their institutions based on their religious viewpoints or other organizational guidelines — it makes sense. I too thank you for expressing your view — it makes me think and ask questions that I wouldn’t otherwise consider.

Best wishes