Gay in the BSA?

Here’s something that’ll surprise you: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints already allows gay members of the church who do not engage in homosexual behavior to join and lead its chartered troops in the Boy Scouts of America. 

Does that bit about “do not engage in homosexual behavior” sound discriminatory? Think again. 

That bit is in line with church teachings on the law of chastity, which applies to both gay and straight members of the church. No fooling around outside of marriage. 

Think I’m lying?

Read it for yourself:

“If members feel same-gender attraction but do not engage in any homosexual behavior, leaders should support and encourage them in their resolve to live the law of chastity and to control unrighteous thoughts. These members may receive church callings. If they are worthy and qualified in every other way, they may also hold temple recommends and receive temple ordinances.”

Here’s the source: The church’s “Handbook 2: Administering the Church,” available publicly online.

Yes, there’s still that quibble about marriage (which the church does not support) and civil unions (which the church does support). Because of that quibble, many are going to gloss this policy change being pondered by the Boy Scouts of America and its impact on the church as problematic. Not so in officialdom. In practice, now, you’re going to deal with many, many bulletheads on both sides of the issue, as with every other divisive issue.

According to the Salt LakeTribune, the church isn’t offering an official statement until after the BSA announces any policy change, which could happen next week. But the signs are already on the wall as far as I’m concerned. Any policy change by the BSA will not impact official church participation in the BSA. Any problems are going to be on the local level – and will deserve correction from Salt Lake City.

Personally, I had no idea this church policy existed as written. I have no problem with gay scouts, or gay scout leaders, and object to those who think they’re somehow going to harm their fellow scouts or lead them down the path to total gayness. Unfortunately, I know enough about other addictions and prelidictions that scare me a hell of a lot more than the thought of my son having a gay scout leader.

Also, sometime in the past, I may have written a blog post along the lines of supporting the BSA’s anti-gay stance on the grounds that the national organization insists the phrase “morally straight” be included in the Scout Oath. Since then, I’ve been bugged by something: The BSA also insists on Scouts being physically strong – and I’m lacking in that department (anyone who knows me knows I have the same overall shape as a Krispy Kreme doughnut). There are many Scouts and Scout leaders who fit – tightly, with many sucking in of guts – in that same boat. The BSA has made strides to emphasize physical fitness, including banning some Scouts and leaders from some activities if they do not meet physical fitness requirements. Seeing as current LDS Church policy doesn’t forbid fatties as well as gays from serving and holding temple recommends, I don’t see why I should support such a stance either.

It’ll be interesting to see what the BSA announces, if anything, next week, and what the subsequent response will be from the LDS Church. I am, however, extremely optimistic for both bits of news.

Mormon Kitsch

 

Since the beginning of the new year, through various avenues on Facebook, I’ve been exposed to what I suppose I can call Mormon culture on the Internet. 

 

Haven’t seen any of it yet? 

 

Truthfully, you’re not missing much. 

 

I think part of it is that it’s really Utah Mormon culture, not necessarily Mormon culture in a more general sense. Utah Mormon culture is distinct in that there are a spate of minor and major Mormon celebrities, businesses, businesspeople, institutions and such that, at least in my neck of the woods (and I’m not that far off the beaten Mormon path, mind you) are at best maybe somewhat kinda familiar but at worst are damn obscure. 

 

Take Jessie Funk. Until I became friends with the Middle-Aged Mormon Man and started listening to The Cultural Hall, I’d never heard of Jessie Funk. At all. 

 

Thanks to Mormon culture on Facebook, this is what I know about her:  

1. Her website has some funky font-related metadata that somehow is showing up right away, first paragraph.
2. She once wore a shirt without sleeves in a photoshoot, and everyone either got uber pharisaical or uber progressive about whether or not it was appropriate for this “role model” to appear in such an outfit.
3. She also likes to “hang out with young humans!” a motto that is going to go as far as Mitt Romney did in convincing people that Mormons are not, indeed, intelligent robots. 

That’s it. I don’t think I’ve ever listened to a Jessie Funk song. Maybe I have when the born-again Mormon stuff plays on the local radio station Sunday mornings, but I couldn’t pick her out of a police lineup. I know I’ve never attended one of her motivational seminars. And I’m thrilled as punch to think that her “favorite role in life is that of adored wife and mother to three.” Reminds me that my role as chairman of the MegaHuge Corporation is second only to my calling as a home teacher. 

 

Note to you rabid Jessie Funk fans out there: Please note I have said nothing derogatory about Jessie Funk, her music, her personality, her looks, her lifestyle, nor that sleeveless dress thing. Okay, maybe I’ve said a little. But I have not said I hate her music or everything she stands for. So don’t go completely ape in the comments. 

 

I know, as Mormons, that we’re supposed to be in the world, but not of the world. Guess I’m sayin’ I’m pretty happy for the most part to stay out of the Mormon Culture world as well. 

 

Then there’s the Cultural Hall, a podcast series with a Facebook presence. I’ve listened to two of them. First was on some Mormon mommy-blogger whose name I don’t even remember because the podcast really didn’t have a point at all. I actually got to argue this a bit with one of the podcast’s creators because, snotty soul that I am, I posted the equivalent of Homer Simpson’s Bor-ING! on the post for the podcast. We exchanged a few suggestions, laughed, cried, and became fast friends. Or something like that. 

 

Then I listened to one featuring Glen Rawson, who also appears by name on our local pop-Mormon culture radio show in the Sunday am. Him, I recognize, because of the over-the-top, maudlin delivery where every little snippet of church history is filled with drama or at least the illusion of that little guy flying around the big top. He was actually much better in the podcast than in his radio series, since he dropped about 99% of the drama. Still, I don’t see going back to the Cultural Hall any time soon. Again, not because it isn’t good or worthwhile or anything, but simply because it’s not my cuppa. 

 

I’ve had better luck with Mormon cinema, though I confess it’s been years since I’ve seen any new films I enjoyed “The Best Two Years” for its honest portrayal of missionary life and appreciate “The RM” for its humor in looking at post-mission culture and poking fun at Mormon popular culture. And I love it when the MoTab gets all funky. Like this: 

 

Now I don't mind if other people like this stuff. That's fine. Just not for me.

Proposition 8 Goes Down -- Conundrum Completed

That the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that California’s four-year-old ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional is not surprising. Since the measure was passed into law in 2008, I haven’t heard a single legal argument for it – and vague promises that the measure will protect “traditional” marriage don’t count as legal arguments.

Let us revisit the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, which reads thusly:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This is typically referred to as the equal protection clause which, among other things, was used to combat laws in territorial and early statehood Idaho that prohibited Mormons from voting, holding public office, or serving on juries.

Equal protection, in my book, means equal protection. Prohibiting gay marriage is depriving people of their liberty and denying the equal protection of the law.

Says the court:

Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted.

Yes, this puts me at odds with Mormon hierarchy. Does that mean I am not a faithful member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

I certainly hope not.

I have never felt my marriage threatened by gay marriage. There are plenty of other things that threaten my marriage (selfishness, petty jealousy, etc.) but certainly not the fact that a man and a man or a woman and a woman want to get married. Overwhelmingly, the threats I see to my marriage are internal, not external – though there are certainly external threats that we can legitimately combat on Constitutional grounds, ranging from pornography to whatever else have you. I’m busy enough working out my own shortcomings to worry about imaging up constitutionally-sound reasons to prohibit gay marriage.

We’re working with our soon to be 12-year-old son to memorize the Articles of Faith. Whenever the Proposition 8 discussion pops up, I almost always turn to Articles of Faith 11, which states:

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

This, in my mind, means that if people want to worship pond scum, they may. So why not gay marriage?

Yes, I know there is doctrine on that as well. I suppose I am at odds with that doctrine.

And from a doctrinal and spiritual sense, that homosexual feelings are sinful I can understand. I just cannot wrap my head around the legal trappings of a measure that would curtail liberty – free agency.

And yet.

In reading something completely disconnected from Proposition 8, I see someone else arguing for something that’s morally right, though legally defensible:

If Mitt Romney is right, and corporations are people, perhaps Marvel/Disney has the capacity to feel shame. In any event, a public flogging has already begun. Cartoonist and educator Stephen Bissette’s blog post calling for a boycott of The Avengers kicked up a lot of dust in the blogosphere. Tom Spurgeon, writing for his well-respected industry website Comic Reporter also framed the issue in moral terms, as did the cartoonist Seth: “The corporate lie about Kirby's role in the creation of all those characters is abhorrent. It's a bold faced lie. Everyone knows it's a lie. No one is fooled. Everyone lying for the company should be ashamed. Stan Lee should be ashamed. What the Marvel corporation is doing might be legal but it certainly isn't right.”

And then there’s this: The powers that be had absolutely every right to do a remake/parody/update of “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” for a Superbowl ad, though there are many willing to spout about the moral implications of doing so (This update violates the spirit of the original movie which is a classic that shouldn’t be tampered with, is the argument I heard most often.)

So, it’s a conundrum, this thing called life.