First of all, if you look on the side-bar of my blog page, you'll see that Carry On Warrior by Glennon Doyle Melton is one of my favorites, and you'll find her blog www.momastery.com on the list of blogs I've been following like a serious wannabe stalker-woman.
She has a group of crazy-cool followers called Monkees who have been changing the world one act of kindness at a time. One of them wrote a "guest blog" on Glennon's page a while ago that really touched my heart. Here it is: http://momastery.com/blog/2013/04/23/momastory-series-meet-jaime-and-laura/ Her name is Jaime. Jaime is very awesome. (I know, it's not High School. Whatever.)
Then Awesome Jaime took time out of her busy day to read my blog and respond. Seriously. And she was nice.
Now, I am not cool. I drive a twelve-passenger van, for crying out loud. THIS ladies and gentlemen, is as close as I am going to get. So, let's all just stop and enjoy my little moment. Thanks.
Here's what Jaime said:
I'm a Monkee and found your post on the Momastery page. I am a lesbian and a mother. I have a special place in my heart for LDS folks as y'all were my crew in high school as I didn't drink, do drugs or sleep with boys. I know your heart is in the right place. And...I think your stance has more of an impact on me than my being gay has on you/society. I ask you, as a fellow Monkee, to read this post I wrote on this topic:
http://simonlev.blogspot.com/2010/05/letter-to-my-local-homophobe.html. I actually got a response that was quite unexpected and moving: http://simonlev.blogspot.com/2010/07/speechless.html
I went back and re-read your piece and I have a genuine question (hard to convey tone over the internet- I really am asking gently). I have a question about this part: "No matter what anyone claims, society is harmed by these ethical changes. Families are damaged. The sacred union of marriage is being weakened as it is watered down to a meaningless redefinition of "anything goes."" I honestly don't understand how my having a strong and loving relationship with my wife and raising a happy, healthy child is bad for society. I totally get that you don't like it and it goes against your personal religious beliefs, but I can't see the evidence that anything negative is happening to other people as a result. My family doesn't look like yours, which may be uncomfortable, but I don't understand how it damages other families. I hope that you can tell that I am not trying to be inflammatory. I would love to hear your thoughts.Hugs
Jaime
As I thought about this little corner I had painted myself into, I suddenly remembered an experience in Massachusetts about 12 years ago. I'd just found out that I was 5 weeks pregnant with a very desired and planned-for baby. As I sat nearly naked, nauseated, and stuck to the crinkly paper of my OB/Gyn's exam table grinning like a maniac, I suddenly felt confused as my doctor started to give me the "Zero Population Smackdown". This was my 4th baby. (Oh, if she could see me now.)
The doctor had a right to her beliefs. She had some very legitimate arguments on her side. She was--I'm sure--very skilled, and I felt confident that she would do everything in her power to care for me. But in my opinion she was out of line, and had poor timing. I chose to find a new doctor.
There are a lot of issues out there: government-run health care, abortion, socialism, etc. We all have opinions; some of those are based on religion, others just on personal preferences or passions. I feel that it is important for us to each have the opportunity to express those views. We learn from each other. We all bring something valuable to the table.
I might fight against Obamacare, but I'll also fight to the death for your right to fight for it. And if you're up to your eyeballs in medical bills, chances are I'll be sending you money in the mail anonymously, babysitting your kids, holding bake sales, or bringing you dinner while you work things out. Serving the one just like you, the guy down the block, and across the country. The person should always trump the issue. In policy vs. people, I believe in Love Thy Neighbor and I know that I'm not alone.
So, I won't answer your questions about how gay marriage damages society. You've heard arguments before; and frankly I suckle on my foot too much as it is to try to express myself that way. But the main reason I can't go there with you is because I love you.
What would be my objective? To get you to break up with Laura, change your life? Seriously? No way. We have to agree to disagree, and love each other anyway. I'm sure it's not the only issue where this is true. If we agreed on everything, what's the use of there being two of us?
Jaime, I KNOW that if you were my neighbor, that no matter how strongly you felt about zero population, you would NEVER put my name on the mailing list for Planned Parenthood. (At least until you knew me well enough to know that receiving mail from them on a regular basis would totally give me the giggles.)
And you should know that there is no bumper sticker on my car. My blog was not written at anyone.
But sometimes it feels like I don't get to have a voice anymore. It's not OK for me to say that I would like to be able to stop and have a moment of silence in a classroom when an ambulance goes by. I can't mention that people are maybe more important than endangered tse tse flies. Why is it uncomfortable for scientists to point out that evolution is proven within the species, but that theories are just that? When I called my representative and expressed my wishes with thousands of others--the majority, he ignored us and did what would benefit himself, not our country.
I would just like to have an opinion, and be able to respectfully express it, be able to cast my vote, and have my vote count. That is why I wrote; for some of us who are having a hard time feeling heard. We don't want to fight, we don't want to hurt anyone; we just want to have our own point of view, and be able to share it without being attacked.
It's painful that my quiet friend is just waiting to lose his job because of his beliefs. I hate that scientific progress is damned up because accepted theories cannot be challenged. It sometimes seems that we must all be open-minded, but only in the prescribed way.
A combative missionary of another faith once stood on my doorstep and told me that X element of my religion was VERY offensive to him. I didn't know what to do with that. I'd tried to welcome him and find common ground. I wanted to have an open discussion. He wasn't willing to talk about it--he was sure he already had a firm grasp of all of its controversial nuances--I think that he wouldn't accept anything less than a full change of heart and renunciation on my part. Um. I apologized for his discomfort and offence, and then politely (and then not-so-politely when he wouldn't let it go) ended the conversation and went inside. His objective was not clear, and Christ was most certainly not gathering with us in that setting of conflict. That was not communication. I don't want that to happen here.
I apologize that I hurt you with my recent blog post. That was not my objective. I also did not post to try to "convert" anyone. I just, for whatever reason, felt a need to show up and say my words.
Thank you for courageously sharing yours. You and your courageous family have blessed countless lives, and I am one of them.
Here are the conversations that followed in my comments box:
Hi
Jerianna, I'm a Monkee and found your post on the Momastery page. I am a
lesbian and a mother. I have a special place in my heart for LDS folks as y'all
were my crew in high school as I didn't drink, do drugs or sleep with boys. I
know your heart is in the right place. And...I think your stance has more of an
impact on me than my being gay has on you/society. I ask you, as a fellow
Monkee, to read this post I wrote on this topic:
http://simonlev.blogspot.com/2010/05/letter-to-my-local-homophobe.html. I actually
got a response that was quite unexpected and moving:
http://simonlev.blogspot.com/2010/07/speechless.html -Jaime, a fellow Monkee on Rainbows
and Modifications: The Hill I'm Willing to Limp Across
Jerianne,
I went back and re-read your piece and I have a genuine question (hard to
convey tone over the internet- I really am asking gently). I have a question about
this part: "No matter what anyone claims, society is harmed by these
ethical changes. Families are damaged. The sacred union of marriage is being
weakened as it is watered down to a meaningless redefinition of "anything
goes."" I honestly don't understand how my having a strong and loving
relationship with my wife and raising a happy, healthy child is bad for
society. I totally get that you don't like it and it goes against your personal
religious beliefs, but I can't see the evidence that anything negative is
happening to other people as a result. My family doesn't look like yours, which
may be uncomfortable, but I don't understand how it damages other families. I
hope that you can tell that I am not trying to be inflammatory. I would love to
hear your thoughts. Hugs Jaime
Dear Sweet Jaime, I just read your post, and the response,
and I had actually read the guest blog you had written on Glennon's blog. I've
been trying to find it and re-read it. I'll keep looking. I watched cutie-pie
Simon sing "Bringing Home a Baby Bumble Bee" on YouTube. I'm in love
with your family. Thanks for reading my post, and for your loving response. I
want to use the right words, and need some time. I'll respond here, and also on
your blog. It may take a while, as my life spins out of control sometimes. Just
wanted you to know I saw, and you made me think. Thanks.
Thanks for taking the time to write a post
after our exchange. I know you are a busy woman!
I have a few thoughts and more questions (and the original question I still hope you’ll answer). First, you didn’t hurt me with your post. I didn’t take anything you said personally and I don’t think you’re trying to convert me. Frankly, it’s not possible to convert gay people into straight people, but that’s a whole other conversation!
You said,“So, I won't answer your questions about how gay marriage damages society. You've heard arguments before; and frankly I suckle on my foot too much as it is to try to express myself that way. But the main reason I can't go there with you is because I love you. “
I’m disappointed that you chose not to address this because this is the piece I want more information about. I really, truly don’t know how we damage society. I don’t understand how adults loving and supporting each other has an impact on straight families. I’m not trying to be snarky. I really don’t understand. I was hoping to get a true, honest answer from someone I have some thread of connection to (via Momastery) since it’s hard to talk about this with COMPLETE strangers.
You also said, “The person should always trump the issue. In policy vs. people, I believe in Love Thy Neighbor …” I agree.
I 150% support your right to have HUGE feelings about whether or not I’m going to hell or an immoral person or just confused. Feelings are great.
But making laws and policies that impact my ability to protect my family based on those feelings is where we start to run into trouble. I think it’s great that you’re blogging about how you feel and I am definitely not saying you shouldn’t have a voice. But I am saying I want people to stop setting policy that impacts my life when no one can show me how my being married to a woman has any impact on their life.
That’s why I asked for an answer to that question. Lives are being ruined because of these policies. People are dying alone in hospitals, their children and partners banned from seeing them. Children are unable to be covered under health insurance policies because the law won’t recognize their relationship to their non-biological parent. Huge chunks of money are going to the government instead of a bereaved partner because of inheritance laws.
All of these are real, tangible harms to other human beings as a result of anti-gay policies. My true, honest question is “What is the cost to you?”. I hope that you are able to hear my keen interest in the answer and can tell that I am not trying to pick a fight. I am trying to understand the other side of something that has a monumental impact on my life and the lives of so many others like me.
With open ears,
JaimeOK, but here's where I get really clumsy. And it's not about Heaven or Hell or anyone's salvation. Our Savior is more kind than we are, in my opinion. The only one I need to worry about is me.
And I honestly feel uncomfortable taking it to a personal level, but I guess that's what these conversations come down to. Words on a page are so hard to convey with gentleness.
It's about rights. I agree that no one should die alone, with their children and partners banned from seeing them. How terrible! How painful! Where is the common sense and decency?
But the cost to me is in small personal ways that move into large society-changing ways. Boy Scouts is supposed to be about making my sons into men are dependable, hard-working, prepared, knowledgeable, etc. men. (Right now they are heathens--just go with me here-a mom can dream) They are supposed to be learning to be morally straight. Straight meaning strong, not the opposite of gay. Lately, Boy Scouts has been about Gay Rights. The only time a boy should be thinking about his penis in boy scouts should be when he's whipping it out to pee on the camp fire.
But on the other side of things, why did that need to be a big deal? Like I said, it was not supposed to be about sex in the first place, so why was there a debate about gay scouts being in there? So the bottom line is that they are welcome in scouting, but scout camp is not the place for sexual conversations, for any kind of porn, etc. But I feel that homosexuals pushing for rights brought something into Boy Scouts that didn't need to be there.
I've had a couple of people who I am very close to, whose families have been destroyed by daddies who decided to "come out". But in all fairness, I've had people I'm very close to who've had their families destroyed by mommies and daddies who've decided to leave with their other-gender lovers. That's why I put immorality with it.
Again, though. Homosexuality added to the immorality that was already destroying families around me.
I'm concerned that when the vote went through for MA residents to have same-sex marriage, all was well, but when it didn't for CA, it was overturned. I feel that we are losing our rights piece by piece in this country. This is dangerous, regardless of why they are being lost.
I worry that one day, our LDS temples will be shut down in the name of "Fairness". How is it fair for me to lose my rights so that someone else can gain more?
This is a new experiment. Other countries that have legalized gay marriage have had a decrease in marriage altogether. It just means less, and no one bothers.
I'm not talking about excluding someone from a hospital bedside--at least I don't mean to be.
Arrgghhh..I have to go to the orthodontist. I'll have to talk later.
I have a few thoughts and more questions (and the original question I still hope you’ll answer). First, you didn’t hurt me with your post. I didn’t take anything you said personally and I don’t think you’re trying to convert me. Frankly, it’s not possible to convert gay people into straight people, but that’s a whole other conversation!
You said,“So, I won't answer your questions about how gay marriage damages society. You've heard arguments before; and frankly I suckle on my foot too much as it is to try to express myself that way. But the main reason I can't go there with you is because I love you. “
I’m disappointed that you chose not to address this because this is the piece I want more information about. I really, truly don’t know how we damage society. I don’t understand how adults loving and supporting each other has an impact on straight families. I’m not trying to be snarky. I really don’t understand. I was hoping to get a true, honest answer from someone I have some thread of connection to (via Momastery) since it’s hard to talk about this with COMPLETE strangers.
You also said, “The person should always trump the issue. In policy vs. people, I believe in Love Thy Neighbor …” I agree.
I 150% support your right to have HUGE feelings about whether or not I’m going to hell or an immoral person or just confused. Feelings are great.
But making laws and policies that impact my ability to protect my family based on those feelings is where we start to run into trouble. I think it’s great that you’re blogging about how you feel and I am definitely not saying you shouldn’t have a voice. But I am saying I want people to stop setting policy that impacts my life when no one can show me how my being married to a woman has any impact on their life.
That’s why I asked for an answer to that question. Lives are being ruined because of these policies. People are dying alone in hospitals, their children and partners banned from seeing them. Children are unable to be covered under health insurance policies because the law won’t recognize their relationship to their non-biological parent. Huge chunks of money are going to the government instead of a bereaved partner because of inheritance laws.
All of these are real, tangible harms to other human beings as a result of anti-gay policies. My true, honest question is “What is the cost to you?”. I hope that you are able to hear my keen interest in the answer and can tell that I am not trying to pick a fight. I am trying to understand the other side of something that has a monumental impact on my life and the lives of so many others like me.
With open ears,
JaimeOK, but here's where I get really clumsy. And it's not about Heaven or Hell or anyone's salvation. Our Savior is more kind than we are, in my opinion. The only one I need to worry about is me.
And I honestly feel uncomfortable taking it to a personal level, but I guess that's what these conversations come down to. Words on a page are so hard to convey with gentleness.
It's about rights. I agree that no one should die alone, with their children and partners banned from seeing them. How terrible! How painful! Where is the common sense and decency?
But the cost to me is in small personal ways that move into large society-changing ways. Boy Scouts is supposed to be about making my sons into men are dependable, hard-working, prepared, knowledgeable, etc. men. (Right now they are heathens--just go with me here-a mom can dream) They are supposed to be learning to be morally straight. Straight meaning strong, not the opposite of gay. Lately, Boy Scouts has been about Gay Rights. The only time a boy should be thinking about his penis in boy scouts should be when he's whipping it out to pee on the camp fire.
But on the other side of things, why did that need to be a big deal? Like I said, it was not supposed to be about sex in the first place, so why was there a debate about gay scouts being in there? So the bottom line is that they are welcome in scouting, but scout camp is not the place for sexual conversations, for any kind of porn, etc. But I feel that homosexuals pushing for rights brought something into Boy Scouts that didn't need to be there.
I've had a couple of people who I am very close to, whose families have been destroyed by daddies who decided to "come out". But in all fairness, I've had people I'm very close to who've had their families destroyed by mommies and daddies who've decided to leave with their other-gender lovers. That's why I put immorality with it.
Again, though. Homosexuality added to the immorality that was already destroying families around me.
I'm concerned that when the vote went through for MA residents to have same-sex marriage, all was well, but when it didn't for CA, it was overturned. I feel that we are losing our rights piece by piece in this country. This is dangerous, regardless of why they are being lost.
I worry that one day, our LDS temples will be shut down in the name of "Fairness". How is it fair for me to lose my rights so that someone else can gain more?
This is a new experiment. Other countries that have legalized gay marriage have had a decrease in marriage altogether. It just means less, and no one bothers.
I'm not talking about excluding someone from a hospital bedside--at least I don't mean to be.
Arrgghhh..I have to go to the orthodontist. I'll have to talk later.
Jeri
I
appreciate you getting to the personal level, because the way this stuff plays
out, the political is personal to me. It has a direct impact on my life.
You said, “I've had a couple of people who I am very close to, whose families have been destroyed by daddies who decided to "come out". “ I’m so sorry for your friends and the heartache their families have gone through because of this.
I have to point out though, that it was homophobia that hurt these families, not homosexuality. I can almost guarantee you that these people knew that they were gay before they married, but because of the intense societal/religious pressure to be heterosexual, married people of the opposite gender. When they finally couldn’t live a lie anymore, they ended up breaking up families. If they had not felt the need to hide and marry opposite sex partners in the first place because of homophobia, no families would have needed to reconfigure.
As for the Boy Scouts, the debate was about actively discriminating against a group of people, not about sex. Opponents made it about sex. When you say, “it was not supposed to be about sex in the first place, so why was there a debate about gay scouts being in there? So the bottom line is that they are welcome in scouting, but scout camp is not the place for sexual conversations.” Are you saying straight scouts should never talk about crushes or girls they think are cute? Sexual orientation, especially for kids, is less about what is happening between their legs and more about what is happening between their ears. If the scouts said, “no Mormons” or “no African Americans” or “no Jews”, I think there would have been the same outrage. Requiring gay scouts to stay in the closet is like telling Mormon scouts that they can’t wear a CTR ring or a Catholic scout wear a cross or requiring black scouts to wear makeup to cover their skin. It’s requiring them to hide a difference that has no impact on other people but it something essential about themselves.
To me, not allowing gay scout leaders is homophobia in the most traditional sense. My take is that people are afraid that out gay men are inherently predators on children. There is no more reason to assume this than to assume that you shouldn’t be trusted with little boys.
You say, “How is it fair for me to lose my rights so that someone else can gain more?”. I’d love to hear you articulate clearly what rights you are losing by me having an equal legal standing with you. This is the argument that, again, I don’t understand.
I support your right to have 15 kids if you can support them all. I support your right to have your religion and your traditional family structure. My being married to Laura or Simon being in scouts if he ends up gay doesn’t take any of that away from you. This is the piece I don't understand. I want us to both get to have good lives.
You said, “I've had a couple of people who I am very close to, whose families have been destroyed by daddies who decided to "come out". “ I’m so sorry for your friends and the heartache their families have gone through because of this.
I have to point out though, that it was homophobia that hurt these families, not homosexuality. I can almost guarantee you that these people knew that they were gay before they married, but because of the intense societal/religious pressure to be heterosexual, married people of the opposite gender. When they finally couldn’t live a lie anymore, they ended up breaking up families. If they had not felt the need to hide and marry opposite sex partners in the first place because of homophobia, no families would have needed to reconfigure.
As for the Boy Scouts, the debate was about actively discriminating against a group of people, not about sex. Opponents made it about sex. When you say, “it was not supposed to be about sex in the first place, so why was there a debate about gay scouts being in there? So the bottom line is that they are welcome in scouting, but scout camp is not the place for sexual conversations.” Are you saying straight scouts should never talk about crushes or girls they think are cute? Sexual orientation, especially for kids, is less about what is happening between their legs and more about what is happening between their ears. If the scouts said, “no Mormons” or “no African Americans” or “no Jews”, I think there would have been the same outrage. Requiring gay scouts to stay in the closet is like telling Mormon scouts that they can’t wear a CTR ring or a Catholic scout wear a cross or requiring black scouts to wear makeup to cover their skin. It’s requiring them to hide a difference that has no impact on other people but it something essential about themselves.
To me, not allowing gay scout leaders is homophobia in the most traditional sense. My take is that people are afraid that out gay men are inherently predators on children. There is no more reason to assume this than to assume that you shouldn’t be trusted with little boys.
You say, “How is it fair for me to lose my rights so that someone else can gain more?”. I’d love to hear you articulate clearly what rights you are losing by me having an equal legal standing with you. This is the argument that, again, I don’t understand.
I support your right to have 15 kids if you can support them all. I support your right to have your religion and your traditional family structure. My being married to Laura or Simon being in scouts if he ends up gay doesn’t take any of that away from you. This is the piece I don't understand. I want us to both get to have good lives.
Hi Jeri,
I re-read your comment and had one more thought. When you said, "I'm concerned that when the vote went through for MA residents to have same-sex marriage, all was well, but when it didn't for CA, it was overturned. I feel that we are losing our rights piece by piece in this country. This is dangerous, regardless of why they are being lost." This was the same argument made by white people as slavery was being abolished state by state. I don't see how this is much different.
In that case, slave owners actually lost something tangible (their supposed "property") and it is now universally accepted (well, almost) as the right thing to do. In this case, no one is losing anything tangible. The law doesn't say gay people can get married but straight people can't. You still have the right to get married and your kids, if they grow up to be straight, will still have the right to marry.
A decrease in marriage rates may make you unhappy but it doesn't actually take anything away from you. Prohibiting gay marriage from being federally recognized means gay people suffer in tangible ways, as was evidenced in my earlier post. I had to spend money to adopt my own child because the federal government didn't recognize my relationship to Simon until recently. That's a cost a straight couple that got pregnant with artificial insemination would not have to incur. It's a literal cost to gay people.
Thanks for engaging in this conversation. I'm learning a lot.
I re-read your comment and had one more thought. When you said, "I'm concerned that when the vote went through for MA residents to have same-sex marriage, all was well, but when it didn't for CA, it was overturned. I feel that we are losing our rights piece by piece in this country. This is dangerous, regardless of why they are being lost." This was the same argument made by white people as slavery was being abolished state by state. I don't see how this is much different.
In that case, slave owners actually lost something tangible (their supposed "property") and it is now universally accepted (well, almost) as the right thing to do. In this case, no one is losing anything tangible. The law doesn't say gay people can get married but straight people can't. You still have the right to get married and your kids, if they grow up to be straight, will still have the right to marry.
A decrease in marriage rates may make you unhappy but it doesn't actually take anything away from you. Prohibiting gay marriage from being federally recognized means gay people suffer in tangible ways, as was evidenced in my earlier post. I had to spend money to adopt my own child because the federal government didn't recognize my relationship to Simon until recently. That's a cost a straight couple that got pregnant with artificial insemination would not have to incur. It's a literal cost to gay people.
Thanks for engaging in this conversation. I'm learning a lot.
Dear
Jaime, I just re-read my last comment, and I have to say that I'm proud of you
for being able to figure out what I was trying to say. Was I writing with
cotton in my mouth? I'm sitting here with kids buzzing around me and I wish we
could just go to lunch and chat. (If only that I would then get to eat and talk
uninterrupted.) Thanks for sticking with me and trying to understand. My day is
getting crazier and crazier and then we're going to Park City
I know I tabled the discussion, but I don't
like the idea that I'm going to the family reunion and that I'll be sitting
around talking, maybe about this. I obviously wanted to start a
discussion, but now that you and I are talking one-on-one, I don't want it to
be you talking to my family. I want these to be my words. ( I don't have
time to edit, though, so please try to get the main idea.)
So here goes, again. For a minute, anyway. And I might as well face the fact that I'd rather blog than pack or do dishes.
Also, I wish you could see me nod my head as I read your comments. I agree with most of what you said. I think the problem with these issues is that the Powers That Be forget to use common sense and humanity. Why are policies and procedures seemingly being set by the most extremist ends of the spectrum? I think that it's because they are the loudest and most violent. That was part of the reason I wrote the blog entry. I think it's important for the average Joe to know what she/he believes and quietly stand for it. Instead, I think we shrink into the background, afraid to offend or get involved, and leave it to the freakazoids who are bombing the abortion clinics or power-hungry politicians who are padding their pockets. But if rational people were having real discussions without fear of retribution or violence, we'd get some good sense solutions and maybe some understandings. I personally am seeing this issue from a different point of view and thinking about it in ways I never had before, just because you were willing to patiently, kindly, bravely share and listen.
Here are a couple of ideas:
When we have an election and the results are tabulated, no matter how emotionally charged the issue is, one judge should not have the power to overturn the results of the election. That is too much power for one person in our nation to have. Luckily, there are safeguards in place that stop that from happening. (But in the meantime, when someone like that tries, it causes a lot of problems.)
Thoughtful pause.
I think the reason that we see this issue so differently, besides the obvious that we both have so much hanging on its different outcomes, goes clear back to our foundations.
Maybe I just have a good grasp on the obvious.
Slight pause again to clean up the FULL bowl of soggy cereal that didn't quite make it to the sink. Sigh. I don't think I'm as Christian as I claim to be sometimes.
Anyway, I searched to the bottom of my soul last night. How does it hurt me?
It's hard to express my answer, especially in words. It's just a lot easier to say, "This is what I believe, and I just want it to be OK to believe it." But I feel like I owe you more than that, because you're right, the whole life you've built hangs on it. And so even though I still feel strongly about my view, I'm confused about what to do with it.
Here's the best I can do at an explanation. I've always known that there is a God. I just know, and I can't deny. I know that He loves us, we're His children. I trust him. I know this as well as I know anything.
Faith is that little leap of trust, and I have spent my whole life fine-tuning, trying to do God's will, trying to learn the truth, sorting through what is me being arrogant or stupid or misled, and trying to be open. I don't want to blindly follow. But I don't have to blindly follow about God's love, because I KNOW. And knowing about His love makes me see that He wants us to love each other. As a parent, I am the most sad when my children are cruel or unkind to each other. The way they make me happiest is by serving each other.
When we moved from the UT fishbowl to MA, I separated out some things that were Mormon culture from the things that were gospel truths. (Every religion gets a little quirky when they get too concentrated.)
Anyway, I've been trying to focus on the things that are important, to really study doctrine and the life of Christ. I've tried to throw away the stupid culture stuff.
I've really prayed about the idea of a prophet. I think it's one of the basic foundations of our religion. It's one of the most important parts for me, that not only will God lead me personally, but that he has someone who has His authority to lead His church. I sustain our prophet, and I follow him. I listen to his words, I pray about what he says. I know that he is just a man, but I believe that he is like the prophets of old, and that he is God's spokesman for His church.
In 1995, the prophet and apostles chiseled out a proclamation to the world about families. Here's a link.
Proclamation on the Family
It very succinctly says exactly what I believe about family, marriage and society. I've read through it too many times to count.
I think it hurts society when we experiment with what it means to be a family. I believe that children need a mother and a father, firmly committed. I believe that each play an important role.
I know that most children in our nation do not have that option right now, and I believe that is the underlying reason for most of the nation's problems.
I'm not writing this at anyone.
Because when I say that I believe that children deserve a traditional two-parent home with a mother and a father, I mean it. And I say it with sorrow. Because I know it's not happening.
And I know that even in traditional two-parent homes there is a lot of abuse and dysfunction going on.
And I know that for every non-traditional family there is a story. And I believe that everyone is basically doing the best they can. And I believe that people are good.
And I see you with your son, and NO ONE can deny that THAT KID IS LOVED! You are a family.
So. We're coming from different places. And I love you. And I hope by now you maybe still like me. My motives are pure (I hope, I think). I'm not perfect.
The same can of worms could be opened about immigration, or abortion, or a lot of things. There is the theory, the beliefs behind the issue, and then there are the people and their stories.
We're going to have to agree to disagree, and probably never fully see eye-to-eye. But we can have meaningful discussions, hopefully without attacking each other.
We can learn from each other, and help each other.
We have to be able to have the courage to share our opinions, though. When we leave the dialog to the fringe extremes, bad things happen. It has to be OK for everyone to have a voice.
So here goes, again. For a minute, anyway. And I might as well face the fact that I'd rather blog than pack or do dishes.
Also, I wish you could see me nod my head as I read your comments. I agree with most of what you said. I think the problem with these issues is that the Powers That Be forget to use common sense and humanity. Why are policies and procedures seemingly being set by the most extremist ends of the spectrum? I think that it's because they are the loudest and most violent. That was part of the reason I wrote the blog entry. I think it's important for the average Joe to know what she/he believes and quietly stand for it. Instead, I think we shrink into the background, afraid to offend or get involved, and leave it to the freakazoids who are bombing the abortion clinics or power-hungry politicians who are padding their pockets. But if rational people were having real discussions without fear of retribution or violence, we'd get some good sense solutions and maybe some understandings. I personally am seeing this issue from a different point of view and thinking about it in ways I never had before, just because you were willing to patiently, kindly, bravely share and listen.
Here are a couple of ideas:
When we have an election and the results are tabulated, no matter how emotionally charged the issue is, one judge should not have the power to overturn the results of the election. That is too much power for one person in our nation to have. Luckily, there are safeguards in place that stop that from happening. (But in the meantime, when someone like that tries, it causes a lot of problems.)
Thoughtful pause.
I think the reason that we see this issue so differently, besides the obvious that we both have so much hanging on its different outcomes, goes clear back to our foundations.
Maybe I just have a good grasp on the obvious.
Slight pause again to clean up the FULL bowl of soggy cereal that didn't quite make it to the sink. Sigh. I don't think I'm as Christian as I claim to be sometimes.
Anyway, I searched to the bottom of my soul last night. How does it hurt me?
It's hard to express my answer, especially in words. It's just a lot easier to say, "This is what I believe, and I just want it to be OK to believe it." But I feel like I owe you more than that, because you're right, the whole life you've built hangs on it. And so even though I still feel strongly about my view, I'm confused about what to do with it.
Here's the best I can do at an explanation. I've always known that there is a God. I just know, and I can't deny. I know that He loves us, we're His children. I trust him. I know this as well as I know anything.
Faith is that little leap of trust, and I have spent my whole life fine-tuning, trying to do God's will, trying to learn the truth, sorting through what is me being arrogant or stupid or misled, and trying to be open. I don't want to blindly follow. But I don't have to blindly follow about God's love, because I KNOW. And knowing about His love makes me see that He wants us to love each other. As a parent, I am the most sad when my children are cruel or unkind to each other. The way they make me happiest is by serving each other.
When we moved from the UT fishbowl to MA, I separated out some things that were Mormon culture from the things that were gospel truths. (Every religion gets a little quirky when they get too concentrated.)
Anyway, I've been trying to focus on the things that are important, to really study doctrine and the life of Christ. I've tried to throw away the stupid culture stuff.
I've really prayed about the idea of a prophet. I think it's one of the basic foundations of our religion. It's one of the most important parts for me, that not only will God lead me personally, but that he has someone who has His authority to lead His church. I sustain our prophet, and I follow him. I listen to his words, I pray about what he says. I know that he is just a man, but I believe that he is like the prophets of old, and that he is God's spokesman for His church.
In 1995, the prophet and apostles chiseled out a proclamation to the world about families. Here's a link.
Proclamation on the Family
It very succinctly says exactly what I believe about family, marriage and society. I've read through it too many times to count.
I think it hurts society when we experiment with what it means to be a family. I believe that children need a mother and a father, firmly committed. I believe that each play an important role.
I know that most children in our nation do not have that option right now, and I believe that is the underlying reason for most of the nation's problems.
I'm not writing this at anyone.
Because when I say that I believe that children deserve a traditional two-parent home with a mother and a father, I mean it. And I say it with sorrow. Because I know it's not happening.
And I know that even in traditional two-parent homes there is a lot of abuse and dysfunction going on.
And I know that for every non-traditional family there is a story. And I believe that everyone is basically doing the best they can. And I believe that people are good.
And I see you with your son, and NO ONE can deny that THAT KID IS LOVED! You are a family.
So. We're coming from different places. And I love you. And I hope by now you maybe still like me. My motives are pure (I hope, I think). I'm not perfect.
The same can of worms could be opened about immigration, or abortion, or a lot of things. There is the theory, the beliefs behind the issue, and then there are the people and their stories.
We're going to have to agree to disagree, and probably never fully see eye-to-eye. But we can have meaningful discussions, hopefully without attacking each other.
We can learn from each other, and help each other.
We have to be able to have the courage to share our opinions, though. When we leave the dialog to the fringe extremes, bad things happen. It has to be OK for everyone to have a voice.
I
want to thank both of you for the thoughtful dialogue you are sharing. You are
both to be commended for the manner in which you express yourselves without
dragging emotions into it. I have gained insights from both of you and
appreciate what you are doing. Thank you. on More
for Jaime
Hi Jeri,
First I want to thank you so much for being willing to have this conversation. What we are doing right here is kind of a big deal.
I really appreciate you articulating the feeling and structure behind your beliefs. The part that stood out most about President Hinkleys words were thi, "we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets. " This is the part where I feel like we, people in your camp and people in my camp, get into trouble.
Here's what it looks like to me:
Your "camp" truly believes that allowing gay people to marry (or have an abortion, or whatever the issue is) will bring on the destruction of ALL of society because they believe it is a violation of God's will. So, motivated by those religious beliefs, move to make public policy that will prevent that from happening. It makes logical sense given the terror y'all must feel at the idea of an apocalypse.
From a secular perspective, making public policy based on religious beliefs violates one of the basic tenants of this country- the separation of church and state. I will 100% support your right to believe what you believe and be able to practice your religion (as long as it doesn't hurt anyone- eg I'm fine with polygamy in the splinter sects if the marriages are between adults, but forcing young girls to marry is not okay with me). I support your right to protest and disagree with how I'm living my life and even to tell me you think I'm living in sin and will be responsible for the downfall of society.
But making laws that directly impact my life, based on those specific religious beliefs is the problem for me. I understand the motivation, but because don't live under a theocracy, it's unacceptable to me to make laws based on those beliefs.
I go back to slavery as an example. Christians found all sorts of verses in the Bible that backed up their belief that it was morally right to hold other human beings in bondage. They threw those out by the handful when the morality and legality of slavery was being debated. Courts ultimately overturned the popular vote because people were actively being hurt by the laws that kept people enslaved and the courts decided that the rights of the people being hurt were more important than the wishes of the slaveholders. People talked about the end of the traditional structure of slavery bringing an end to society and that ending it was a violation of God's will, but it looks like we're all still here.
I really understand the fear you feel. I understand wanting to pin so many of the struggles this society is facing on a particular family structure, but I don't think it's that simple.
To me, the disintegration we're seeing has much more to do with the effects of capitalism and racism and the poverty than if a child is raised with one parent who has a vagina and one parent with a penis.
First I want to thank you so much for being willing to have this conversation. What we are doing right here is kind of a big deal.
I really appreciate you articulating the feeling and structure behind your beliefs. The part that stood out most about President Hinkleys words were thi, "we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets. " This is the part where I feel like we, people in your camp and people in my camp, get into trouble.
Here's what it looks like to me:
Your "camp" truly believes that allowing gay people to marry (or have an abortion, or whatever the issue is) will bring on the destruction of ALL of society because they believe it is a violation of God's will. So, motivated by those religious beliefs, move to make public policy that will prevent that from happening. It makes logical sense given the terror y'all must feel at the idea of an apocalypse.
From a secular perspective, making public policy based on religious beliefs violates one of the basic tenants of this country- the separation of church and state. I will 100% support your right to believe what you believe and be able to practice your religion (as long as it doesn't hurt anyone- eg I'm fine with polygamy in the splinter sects if the marriages are between adults, but forcing young girls to marry is not okay with me). I support your right to protest and disagree with how I'm living my life and even to tell me you think I'm living in sin and will be responsible for the downfall of society.
But making laws that directly impact my life, based on those specific religious beliefs is the problem for me. I understand the motivation, but because don't live under a theocracy, it's unacceptable to me to make laws based on those beliefs.
I go back to slavery as an example. Christians found all sorts of verses in the Bible that backed up their belief that it was morally right to hold other human beings in bondage. They threw those out by the handful when the morality and legality of slavery was being debated. Courts ultimately overturned the popular vote because people were actively being hurt by the laws that kept people enslaved and the courts decided that the rights of the people being hurt were more important than the wishes of the slaveholders. People talked about the end of the traditional structure of slavery bringing an end to society and that ending it was a violation of God's will, but it looks like we're all still here.
I really understand the fear you feel. I understand wanting to pin so many of the struggles this society is facing on a particular family structure, but I don't think it's that simple.
To me, the disintegration we're seeing has much more to do with the effects of capitalism and racism and the poverty than if a child is raised with one parent who has a vagina and one parent with a penis.
Oh, hi Joan! Thanks.
Jaime, your apocalypse paragraph totally cracked me up. I like your style. Yep, we spend a lot of time quakin'. ;).
Seriously, again, though. A lot of head-nodding as I read your words. I agree that we can't have one religion making rules for everyone else. It causes a lot of problems. (Governor Boggs' Extermination order comes to mind.)
And it totally burns me up when I read history and see the scriptures used to support slavery. You can use scripture to support just about any idea, which is why bible bashing is not an approved sport at our house. There is never a spirit of love involved. You'll never hear ol' Billy-Bob say, "Well, you convinced me. Thanks!"
I keep thinking of something you said a while ago in a comment. You said something about not caring how many children I have as long as I can support them. (8 is enough, by the way. Double knots on those tubes, baby.)
When Handsome and I chose our "alternative lifestyle" we knew that it wasn't really going with the flow of society.
We both made a lot of sacrifices before we even had children so that we could have this life. (I have a problem with being self-righteous, and so try to put this in a quiet voice) we both have double back-up careers if anything goes wrong. We're out of debt, and will have our house paid off within a few months. We have savings and food storage. We're very careful with our resources, accepting help when it's needed and offered, and paying it forward. We are playing within the rules.
The slavery issue was different, in my opinion, because it wasn't their choice. We had an obligation, because we put them in that situation. That was pure-D evil on the part of slaveholders, and slaves had no freedom to choose.
You chose an alternative lifestyle, too. All of us knew, when we chose, what the rules were.
So when you chose; I am asking very gently and quietly, please help me to understand; why did you then demand that society change the rules?
I don't think it's fear I feel. Dismay. Disappointment. Sadness. Confusion. Yeah, lots of confusion.
Like when a family has entered the country illegally, and used the welfare system and public education and worked really hard to make a life for themselves and their family. How can we send them back?
How can I blame them for coming? But can we continue to let families cross the border and what about the economy, and what about my child who is not getting the education she needs because half the kids in her class don't speak the language? And we are struggling because half of our income is taken for taxes?
No black and white. Only gray.
Please keep talking.
Jaime, your apocalypse paragraph totally cracked me up. I like your style. Yep, we spend a lot of time quakin'. ;).
Seriously, again, though. A lot of head-nodding as I read your words. I agree that we can't have one religion making rules for everyone else. It causes a lot of problems. (Governor Boggs' Extermination order comes to mind.)
And it totally burns me up when I read history and see the scriptures used to support slavery. You can use scripture to support just about any idea, which is why bible bashing is not an approved sport at our house. There is never a spirit of love involved. You'll never hear ol' Billy-Bob say, "Well, you convinced me. Thanks!"
I keep thinking of something you said a while ago in a comment. You said something about not caring how many children I have as long as I can support them. (8 is enough, by the way. Double knots on those tubes, baby.)
When Handsome and I chose our "alternative lifestyle" we knew that it wasn't really going with the flow of society.
We both made a lot of sacrifices before we even had children so that we could have this life. (I have a problem with being self-righteous, and so try to put this in a quiet voice) we both have double back-up careers if anything goes wrong. We're out of debt, and will have our house paid off within a few months. We have savings and food storage. We're very careful with our resources, accepting help when it's needed and offered, and paying it forward. We are playing within the rules.
The slavery issue was different, in my opinion, because it wasn't their choice. We had an obligation, because we put them in that situation. That was pure-D evil on the part of slaveholders, and slaves had no freedom to choose.
You chose an alternative lifestyle, too. All of us knew, when we chose, what the rules were.
So when you chose; I am asking very gently and quietly, please help me to understand; why did you then demand that society change the rules?
I don't think it's fear I feel. Dismay. Disappointment. Sadness. Confusion. Yeah, lots of confusion.
Like when a family has entered the country illegally, and used the welfare system and public education and worked really hard to make a life for themselves and their family. How can we send them back?
How can I blame them for coming? But can we continue to let families cross the border and what about the economy, and what about my child who is not getting the education she needs because half the kids in her class don't speak the language? And we are struggling because half of our income is taken for taxes?
No black and white. Only gray.
Please keep talking.
Hi Jeri,
Thanks again for your willingness to engage in this conversation. This has been life changing for me and for many of my friends and loved ones who have been reading our exchanges.
I think you and I agree on many things, including this:"If we spend our lives worrying about offending each other, quietly sitting on our hands, then we are leaving these issues to the crazy fringe extremists who are not afraid, but who are pushy and violent. It's important for each of us to show up and take our place, to make a spot for each other, to listen considerately, to be willing to make and then correct our mistakes, to forgive ourselves and our neighbors."
I love that we have been able to do this.
After our exchange, though, I'm still left feeling like it's not enough for us to agree to disagree when it comes to making laws.
I have an actual, specific request to make of you, in the spirit of love.
My request is that you not support, through financial contributions, advocacy or voting, laws and policies that prevent LGBT people from having the same rights you have. This means marriage, adoption, hospital visitation, workplace protections from harassment, etc.
My other request is that if you are ever in the Bay Area that you have to call me so we can go out to lunch and tell funny stories about our spouses and kids.
What do you say?
p.s. I had a Book of Mormon on my shelf for years!
p.p.s. The cookies sound delicious :-)
Thanks again for your willingness to engage in this conversation. This has been life changing for me and for many of my friends and loved ones who have been reading our exchanges.
I think you and I agree on many things, including this:"If we spend our lives worrying about offending each other, quietly sitting on our hands, then we are leaving these issues to the crazy fringe extremists who are not afraid, but who are pushy and violent. It's important for each of us to show up and take our place, to make a spot for each other, to listen considerately, to be willing to make and then correct our mistakes, to forgive ourselves and our neighbors."
I love that we have been able to do this.
After our exchange, though, I'm still left feeling like it's not enough for us to agree to disagree when it comes to making laws.
I have an actual, specific request to make of you, in the spirit of love.
My request is that you not support, through financial contributions, advocacy or voting, laws and policies that prevent LGBT people from having the same rights you have. This means marriage, adoption, hospital visitation, workplace protections from harassment, etc.
My other request is that if you are ever in the Bay Area that you have to call me so we can go out to lunch and tell funny stories about our spouses and kids.
What do you say?
p.s. I had a Book of Mormon on my shelf for years!
p.p.s. The cookies sound delicious :-)
Hi Jeri,
Thanks again for your willingness to engage in this conversation. This has been life changing for me and for many of my friends and loved ones who have been reading our exchanges.
I think you and I agree on many things, including this:"If we spend our lives worrying about offending each other, quietly sitting on our hands, then we are leaving these issues to the crazy fringe extremists who are not afraid, but who are pushy and violent. It's important for each of us to show up and take our place, to make a spot for each other, to listen considerately, to be willing to make and then correct our mistakes, to forgive ourselves and our neighbors."
I love that we have been able to do this.
After our exchange, though, I'm still left feeling like it's not enough for us to agree to disagree when it comes to making laws.
I have an actual, specific request to make of you, in the spirit of love.
My request is that you not support, through financial contributions, advocacy or voting, laws and policies that prevent LGBT people from having the same rights you have. This means marriage, adoption, hospital visitation, workplace protections from harassment, etc.
My other request is that if you are ever in the Bay Area that you have to call me so we can go out to lunch and tell funny stories about our spouses and kids.
What do you say?
p.s. I had a Book of Mormon on my shelf for years!
p.p.s. The cookies sound delicious :-)
Thanks again for your willingness to engage in this conversation. This has been life changing for me and for many of my friends and loved ones who have been reading our exchanges.
I think you and I agree on many things, including this:"If we spend our lives worrying about offending each other, quietly sitting on our hands, then we are leaving these issues to the crazy fringe extremists who are not afraid, but who are pushy and violent. It's important for each of us to show up and take our place, to make a spot for each other, to listen considerately, to be willing to make and then correct our mistakes, to forgive ourselves and our neighbors."
I love that we have been able to do this.
After our exchange, though, I'm still left feeling like it's not enough for us to agree to disagree when it comes to making laws.
I have an actual, specific request to make of you, in the spirit of love.
My request is that you not support, through financial contributions, advocacy or voting, laws and policies that prevent LGBT people from having the same rights you have. This means marriage, adoption, hospital visitation, workplace protections from harassment, etc.
My other request is that if you are ever in the Bay Area that you have to call me so we can go out to lunch and tell funny stories about our spouses and kids.
What do you say?
p.s. I had a Book of Mormon on my shelf for years!
p.p.s. The cookies sound delicious :-)
Hi Jeri,
Thanks again for your willingness to engage in this conversation. This has been life changing for me and for many of my friends and loved ones who have been reading our exchanges.
I think you and I agree on many things, including this:"If we spend our lives worrying about offending each other, quietly sitting on our hands, then we are leaving these issues to the crazy fringe extremists who are not afraid, but who are pushy and violent. It's important for each of us to show up and take our place, to make a spot for each other, to listen considerately, to be willing to make and then correct our mistakes, to forgive ourselves and our neighbors."
I love that we have been able to do this.
After our exchange, though, I'm still left feeling like it's not enough for us to agree to disagree when it comes to making laws.
I have an actual, specific request to make of you, in the spirit of love.
My request is that you not support, through financial contributions, advocacy or voting, laws and policies that prevent LGBT people from having the same rights you have. This means marriage, adoption, hospital visitation, workplace protections from harassment, etc.
My other request is that if you are ever in the Bay Area that you have to call me so we can go out to lunch and tell funny stories about our spouses and kids.
What do you say?
p.s. I had a Book of Mormon on my shelf for years!
p.p.s. The cookies sound delicious :-)
Thanks again for your willingness to engage in this conversation. This has been life changing for me and for many of my friends and loved ones who have been reading our exchanges.
I think you and I agree on many things, including this:"If we spend our lives worrying about offending each other, quietly sitting on our hands, then we are leaving these issues to the crazy fringe extremists who are not afraid, but who are pushy and violent. It's important for each of us to show up and take our place, to make a spot for each other, to listen considerately, to be willing to make and then correct our mistakes, to forgive ourselves and our neighbors."
I love that we have been able to do this.
After our exchange, though, I'm still left feeling like it's not enough for us to agree to disagree when it comes to making laws.
I have an actual, specific request to make of you, in the spirit of love.
My request is that you not support, through financial contributions, advocacy or voting, laws and policies that prevent LGBT people from having the same rights you have. This means marriage, adoption, hospital visitation, workplace protections from harassment, etc.
My other request is that if you are ever in the Bay Area that you have to call me so we can go out to lunch and tell funny stories about our spouses and kids.
What do you say?
p.s. I had a Book of Mormon on my shelf for years!
p.p.s. The cookies sound delicious :-)
I agree to your request made in the spirit of
love, sort of. First of all, I would love to go to lunch! The invitation goes
both ways, let me know if you're ever in my neck of the woods, Utah county--or even Salt Lake
I will not vote against specifically hospital visitation and workplace protections from harassment--I hate that these are often tied together with the others--but I stand firm against legislation that allows for same-sex marriage and adoption. I'm sorry, I just can't bend that far.
I will not vote against specifically hospital visitation and workplace protections from harassment--I hate that these are often tied together with the others--but I stand firm against legislation that allows for same-sex marriage and adoption. I'm sorry, I just can't bend that far.
Hey, read the book! You never know.
Jeri,
I know the point of this dialogue wasn't to change each others minds, but I am surprised to find myself feeling hurt and sitting here with an ache in my chest.
It hurts my heart to know that despite our honest and heartfelt dialogue and your proclamations of love for me and my family that you still think I am wrong/bad enough that you would prevent me from raising a child in a loving home and protecting my family from financial hardship. In my mind, allowing me to marry and adopt children personally cost you as little as anti-harassment discrimination and hospital visitation.
What is the difference? Is it that allowing people to be harassed or separated from their loved ones in a crisis sounds meaner? I personally think it's just as cruel to prevent people from financially protecting their family (health insurance, inheritance rights, etc) or deny a child up for adoption a perfectly good home.
Still struggling to understand...
Jaime
I know the point of this dialogue wasn't to change each others minds, but I am surprised to find myself feeling hurt and sitting here with an ache in my chest.
It hurts my heart to know that despite our honest and heartfelt dialogue and your proclamations of love for me and my family that you still think I am wrong/bad enough that you would prevent me from raising a child in a loving home and protecting my family from financial hardship. In my mind, allowing me to marry and adopt children personally cost you as little as anti-harassment discrimination and hospital visitation.
What is the difference? Is it that allowing people to be harassed or separated from their loved ones in a crisis sounds meaner? I personally think it's just as cruel to prevent people from financially protecting their family (health insurance, inheritance rights, etc) or deny a child up for adoption a perfectly good home.
Still struggling to understand...
Jaime
I read the Book of Mormon. Not for me, but I'm
glad it works for you!
Dearest Jaime,
I'm so sorry. That's what I was ultimately afraid of when we started the whole conversation, that I would hurt you.
It's the last thing I wanted, really, truly.
I just don't know how to say the right words. To somehow convey that you are a person of worth and somehow still disagree with your lifestyle choice on the basis of my religious beliefs.
This is where the sadness and confusion and everything else comes in. I just don't know how to do it.
I have to leave it there, and admit that it's bigger than I am. It's not my church, though that's the foundation, it's really truly what I personally believe.
I can't bend that far. But I can see it the other way, now. I have more compassion. That has to count for something, have SOME value. I feel like I'm a better person because of you.
Just like it's almost impossible to me that someone could read the Book of Mormon and not feel its power, not KNOW that it's true, that must be how you feel about this issue.
We just have to agree that there are different points of view, that we can be friends and believe passionately differently and that it's OK.
I don't think you're bad; I don't agree with your choices. There's a big difference.
Love,
Jeri
I'm so sorry. That's what I was ultimately afraid of when we started the whole conversation, that I would hurt you.
It's the last thing I wanted, really, truly.
I just don't know how to say the right words. To somehow convey that you are a person of worth and somehow still disagree with your lifestyle choice on the basis of my religious beliefs.
This is where the sadness and confusion and everything else comes in. I just don't know how to do it.
I have to leave it there, and admit that it's bigger than I am. It's not my church, though that's the foundation, it's really truly what I personally believe.
I can't bend that far. But I can see it the other way, now. I have more compassion. That has to count for something, have SOME value. I feel like I'm a better person because of you.
Just like it's almost impossible to me that someone could read the Book of Mormon and not feel its power, not KNOW that it's true, that must be how you feel about this issue.
We just have to agree that there are different points of view, that we can be friends and believe passionately differently and that it's OK.
I don't think you're bad; I don't agree with your choices. There's a big difference.
Love,
Jeri
Hi Jeri,
I am clear and appreciate that it wasn't your intention to hurt me. The part that hurts me isn't that you don't agree with my "lifestyle" (it's not a lifestyle to me, it's just my life). That part is actually really okay with me. As I've said before, I'm all about feelings and beliefs and having different opinions from each other. It's what makes the world and interesting place.
The part that hurts is that you are willing to use your power and privilege as a voting straight person to do harm to gay people instead of just letting us live our lives in a way that you don't like. It's not the feeling part that hurts. It's the action part. The actions of straight people voting for laws that marginalize gay people can and have hurt us in tangible ways. Just as Governor Boggs could have just not agreed with the Mormon lifestyle but chose to take action on those feelings and actively move to harm Mormons. What I don't understand is why loving, Christian, warm-hearted people feel the need to take action on those feelings to the detriment of others.
I'm so glad that you are able to have more compassion and understanding. It's is REALLY important. I have more for you and other people who are anti-gay rights. I understand a little more about why gay people and gay rights feel so scary. I am glad I have this opportunity to get to have these conversations with you.
I am clear and appreciate that it wasn't your intention to hurt me. The part that hurts me isn't that you don't agree with my "lifestyle" (it's not a lifestyle to me, it's just my life). That part is actually really okay with me. As I've said before, I'm all about feelings and beliefs and having different opinions from each other. It's what makes the world and interesting place.
The part that hurts is that you are willing to use your power and privilege as a voting straight person to do harm to gay people instead of just letting us live our lives in a way that you don't like. It's not the feeling part that hurts. It's the action part. The actions of straight people voting for laws that marginalize gay people can and have hurt us in tangible ways. Just as Governor Boggs could have just not agreed with the Mormon lifestyle but chose to take action on those feelings and actively move to harm Mormons. What I don't understand is why loving, Christian, warm-hearted people feel the need to take action on those feelings to the detriment of others.
I'm so glad that you are able to have more compassion and understanding. It's is REALLY important. I have more for you and other people who are anti-gay rights. I understand a little more about why gay people and gay rights feel so scary. I am glad I have this opportunity to get to have these conversations with you.
Jeri, Since you've now invoked my name and
expressed love for me here as well, I feel the need to chime in. I do not do
this in the spirit of ganging up but really in having my own reaction.
You have said that you have love for Jaime, Simon, and I, BUT that you are not willing to cease support of people and policies that hurt our family. This is in contradiction to me. You would have us at your table and let our kids play together while you and Jaime share recipes. AND, you would still offer support to candidates and resolutions/laws that would deny us the same rights as you.
Where is the love and the respect in that?
It is one thing to let us agree to disagree but what you are talking about is letting us agree to disagree BUT you get to have rights that we do not based on your disagreement.
I think that would be akin to me, as a hospital chaplain, sitting and praying with your family in a time of need and then going to the board of directors of said hospital and supporting policy that says we're not going to treat "your kind".
Again, where is the love and respect in that?
I have been so honored and in joy that you and Jaime have been able to have this conversation in the spirit that I believe God wants. Jaime made a request that you continue to honor that spirit. We can agree to disagree, we can create space where every one of us has a voice. AND, that includes a sharing of space, access, and security. Please reconsider her request. It comes from me too. In this way we can truly believe that you would break bread with us and watch our Littles play together. You don't have to support or even like our life (which is pretty spectacular). But you also don't have to actively try and deny us the right to have it.
Thank you Jeri. I do hope we get to share a table some day. Laura (Jaime’s wife)
You have said that you have love for Jaime, Simon, and I, BUT that you are not willing to cease support of people and policies that hurt our family. This is in contradiction to me. You would have us at your table and let our kids play together while you and Jaime share recipes. AND, you would still offer support to candidates and resolutions/laws that would deny us the same rights as you.
Where is the love and the respect in that?
It is one thing to let us agree to disagree but what you are talking about is letting us agree to disagree BUT you get to have rights that we do not based on your disagreement.
I think that would be akin to me, as a hospital chaplain, sitting and praying with your family in a time of need and then going to the board of directors of said hospital and supporting policy that says we're not going to treat "your kind".
Again, where is the love and respect in that?
I have been so honored and in joy that you and Jaime have been able to have this conversation in the spirit that I believe God wants. Jaime made a request that you continue to honor that spirit. We can agree to disagree, we can create space where every one of us has a voice. AND, that includes a sharing of space, access, and security. Please reconsider her request. It comes from me too. In this way we can truly believe that you would break bread with us and watch our Littles play together. You don't have to support or even like our life (which is pretty spectacular). But you also don't have to actively try and deny us the right to have it.
Thank you Jeri. I do hope we get to share a table some day. Laura (Jaime’s wife)
Hi Jeri,
I've been thinking about this exchange a lot since yesterday. I don't know if you will respond to my last comment, but I have more to say.
I can't just cheerily say, "oh, let's agree to disagree" and skip merrily off to lunch with you. Imagine if I were part of a large movement that thought Mormons were a bunch of misguided weirdos with a weakness/addiction that led to discrimination against gay, lesbian and bisexual people. Imagine if that group ACTIVELY working to block you and your brethren from marrying and adopting children because we thought you were detrimental to society. Would you truly be able to just say "We just have to agree that there are different points of view, that we can be friends and believe passionately differently and that it's OK".
I can't agree to that because this isn't just about "different points of view". You are actively working to dehumanize lesbian, gay and bisexual people by supporting laws that prohibit us from marrying and adopting. (Dehumanization occurs when an individual or group establishes in their belief system that the individual or group intended for discrimination is inferior). I don't know about you, but I'm not okay with being treated as less than human by ANYONE whether they claim to love me or not. It wasn't okay when Mormons were dehumanized and persecuted and it's not okay when it's done to gay, lesbian and bisexual folks either. Anti-Mormons thought they were doing Gods work too.
I can still be in conversation with you and be kind to you and listen to what you have to say, but I will never trust that you see me as fully human and we can never truly be friends. As long as you continue participating in the subjugation of lesbian, gay and bisexual people by supporting these types of law, you will be hurting us. That is the price you will pay for committing to supporting those kinds of laws. You are committing to hurting others. I know it doesn't look like that from your perspective, but that is actually what it is.
I've been thinking about this exchange a lot since yesterday. I don't know if you will respond to my last comment, but I have more to say.
I can't just cheerily say, "oh, let's agree to disagree" and skip merrily off to lunch with you. Imagine if I were part of a large movement that thought Mormons were a bunch of misguided weirdos with a weakness/addiction that led to discrimination against gay, lesbian and bisexual people. Imagine if that group ACTIVELY working to block you and your brethren from marrying and adopting children because we thought you were detrimental to society. Would you truly be able to just say "We just have to agree that there are different points of view, that we can be friends and believe passionately differently and that it's OK".
I can't agree to that because this isn't just about "different points of view". You are actively working to dehumanize lesbian, gay and bisexual people by supporting laws that prohibit us from marrying and adopting. (Dehumanization occurs when an individual or group establishes in their belief system that the individual or group intended for discrimination is inferior). I don't know about you, but I'm not okay with being treated as less than human by ANYONE whether they claim to love me or not. It wasn't okay when Mormons were dehumanized and persecuted and it's not okay when it's done to gay, lesbian and bisexual folks either. Anti-Mormons thought they were doing Gods work too.
I can still be in conversation with you and be kind to you and listen to what you have to say, but I will never trust that you see me as fully human and we can never truly be friends. As long as you continue participating in the subjugation of lesbian, gay and bisexual people by supporting these types of law, you will be hurting us. That is the price you will pay for committing to supporting those kinds of laws. You are committing to hurting others. I know it doesn't look like that from your perspective, but that is actually what it is.
I have been following this tale from the
beginning. I know my sweet friend Jeri is probably beside herself at this
point...it has gone from a truly heartfelt discussion to a war. The words are
pretty, the tone less so. I know Jeri, in live action person, and the things
she has said are very true to who she is. She is a woman who loves the Lord,
would have you over for dinner and sit and visit with you. She wouldn't shove
her religion at you, she would excuse her house and laugh as the children
played.
There is nothing wrong with her conviction. Nothing wrong with her continuing to do as she sees fit. As the Lord as told her.
There is nothing wrong with you guys, J and L, continuing on in your life. You are still going to vote how you want, and we are still going to vote how we want. Everyone does things according to conviction. You can not fault someone for having different convictions.
There are many dishonest people in this world, and you say you can't trust the one person who tells you the truth? There are those that will lie and say they will support you, then run and do the extreme opposite. At least in this case, there is no falseness.
I have watched this conversation, knowing that I wouldn't have been as sweet as Jeri. I am not mormon, not even close. But I have been her friend for a very long time and she is worthy of more than your last paragraph to her.
Under a different umbrella, I would love to chat about some of the things that were said.
Everyone of us has a right. We are not targeting you if we choose not to vote for homosexual marriage or whatever is on the table. We are following up on our convictions. We are not targeting someone if we vote abortion down. We are following our convictions. You follow yours, Jeri will follow hers and I will follow mine.
For the record, I am a bible believing, lover of the Lord SAHM of daughters. Erin Leasure
There is nothing wrong with her conviction. Nothing wrong with her continuing to do as she sees fit. As the Lord as told her.
There is nothing wrong with you guys, J and L, continuing on in your life. You are still going to vote how you want, and we are still going to vote how we want. Everyone does things according to conviction. You can not fault someone for having different convictions.
There are many dishonest people in this world, and you say you can't trust the one person who tells you the truth? There are those that will lie and say they will support you, then run and do the extreme opposite. At least in this case, there is no falseness.
I have watched this conversation, knowing that I wouldn't have been as sweet as Jeri. I am not mormon, not even close. But I have been her friend for a very long time and she is worthy of more than your last paragraph to her.
Under a different umbrella, I would love to chat about some of the things that were said.
Everyone of us has a right. We are not targeting you if we choose not to vote for homosexual marriage or whatever is on the table. We are following up on our convictions. We are not targeting someone if we vote abortion down. We are following our convictions. You follow yours, Jeri will follow hers and I will follow mine.
For the record, I am a bible believing, lover of the Lord SAHM of daughters. Erin Leasure
Anonymous,
I imagine that Jeri will have hurt feelings, as I do, but that doesn't mean we can't still be connected. I don't think it's a war at all. I think we just bumped up against an impasse. I have really appreciated her honesty and willingness to have this conversation. It know it's taken courage and time and energy for her, as it has for me. I could pretend like I'm fine with her supporting anti-gay legislation, but I'm not. I could pretend like I'm not hurt, but what's the point if we're trying to have an honest conversation about these things that mean so much to us?
The challenge as I see it is that for straight folks, this is an issue that is about beliefs and theories and political positions. It's not about something that directly impacts their lives. For gay people like me, this is about our actual lives. I can't just agree to disagree if someone is voting in a way that directly impacts my life and it's impossible for it not to feel personal. That's where Jeri lost me a bit. There's no way not to take her support of anti-gay laws as a personal affront, even if she doesn't mean to hurt me directly. It does.
It doesn't mean I think she's a bad person, but it does mean I hold her accountable for her decision to continue to support anti-gay legislation.
I'd be happy to talk more with you about some of the things I said. My email is jaimejenett@gmail.com.
I imagine that Jeri will have hurt feelings, as I do, but that doesn't mean we can't still be connected. I don't think it's a war at all. I think we just bumped up against an impasse. I have really appreciated her honesty and willingness to have this conversation. It know it's taken courage and time and energy for her, as it has for me. I could pretend like I'm fine with her supporting anti-gay legislation, but I'm not. I could pretend like I'm not hurt, but what's the point if we're trying to have an honest conversation about these things that mean so much to us?
The challenge as I see it is that for straight folks, this is an issue that is about beliefs and theories and political positions. It's not about something that directly impacts their lives. For gay people like me, this is about our actual lives. I can't just agree to disagree if someone is voting in a way that directly impacts my life and it's impossible for it not to feel personal. That's where Jeri lost me a bit. There's no way not to take her support of anti-gay laws as a personal affront, even if she doesn't mean to hurt me directly. It does.
It doesn't mean I think she's a bad person, but it does mean I hold her accountable for her decision to continue to support anti-gay legislation.
I'd be happy to talk more with you about some of the things I said. My email is jaimejenett@gmail.com.
Laura said...
Why do one
persons convictions get to dictate the rights of another? That's the question.
I would love to have Jeri live her life, have me live mine and you, Anonymous,
live yours. You said "There is nothing wrong with her conviction. Nothing
wrong with her continuing to do as she sees fit". Except that it's not
that simple since by her contributing and voting for candidates and legislation
that deeply affects my family. By doing that she and others are saying that I'm
not allowed to do as I see fit.
How is that fair? I am not supporting any legislation that affects your family directly. Keep talking about homosexuality as you see fit. Keep your views on my family. You have every right to them and we can talk about them over dinner coffee whatever. My problem is, again, when some other persons convictions try to hold sway over me and my family. How does that show respect and love?
What is the last part of Jaime's post that bothers you? That she truthfully expresses how another person's actions affect her and our family?
How is that fair? I am not supporting any legislation that affects your family directly. Keep talking about homosexuality as you see fit. Keep your views on my family. You have every right to them and we can talk about them over dinner coffee whatever. My problem is, again, when some other persons convictions try to hold sway over me and my family. How does that show respect and love?
What is the last part of Jaime's post that bothers you? That she truthfully expresses how another person's actions affect her and our family?
Dear
All,
I am not hurt, but I think that this discussion has gone as far as it can go on this web site.
Thanks, anonymous. Love you!
Love you, too, Jaime and Laura. My offer to get together still stands. (There's this awesome little place called Zupas--mmm...)
I am not hurt, but I think that this discussion has gone as far as it can go on this web site.
Thanks, anonymous. Love you!
Love you, too, Jaime and Laura. My offer to get together still stands. (There's this awesome little place called Zupas--mmm...)
Jeri,
I'm game if we're ever inUtah
I'm game if we're ever in
7 comments:
Hi Jeri,
Thanks for taking the time to write a post after our exchange. I know you are a busy woman!
I have a few thoughts and more questions (and the original question I still hope you’ll answer). First, you didn’t hurt me with your post. I didn’t take anything you said personally and I don’t think you’re trying to convert me. Frankly, it’s not possible to convert gay people into straight people, but that’s a whole other conversation!
You said,“So, I won't answer your questions about how gay marriage damages society. You've heard arguments before; and frankly I suckle on my foot too much as it is to try to express myself that way. But the main reason I can't go there with you is because I love you. “
I’m disappointed that you chose not to address this because this is the piece I want more information about. I really, truly don’t know how we damage society. I don’t understand how adults loving and supporting each other has an impact on straight families. I’m not trying to be snarky. I really don’t understand. I was hoping to get a true, honest answer from someone I have some thread of connection to (via Momastery) since it’s hard to talk about this with COMPLETE strangers.
You also said, “The person should always trump the issue. In policy vs. people, I believe in Love Thy Neighbor …” I agree.
I 150% support your right to have HUGE feelings about whether or not I’m going to hell or an immoral person or just confused. Feelings are great.
But making laws and policies that impact my ability to protect my family based on those feelings is where we start to run into trouble. I think it’s great that you’re blogging about how you feel and I am definitely not saying you shouldn’t have a voice. But I am saying I want people to stop setting policy that impacts my life when no one can show me how my being married to a woman has any impact on their life.
That’s why I asked for an answer to that question. Lives are being ruined because of these policies. People are dying alone in hospitals, their children and partners banned from seeing them. Children are unable to be covered under health insurance policies because the law won’t recognize their relationship to their non-biological parent. Huge chunks of money are going to the government instead of a bereaved partner because of inheritance laws.
All of these are real, tangible harms to other human beings as a result of anti-gay policies. My true, honest question is “What is the cost to you?”. I hope that you are able to hear my keen interest in the answer and can tell that I am not trying to pick a fight. I am trying to understand the other side of something that has a monumental impact on my life and the lives of so many others like me.
With open ears,
Jaime
OK, but here's where I get really clumsy. And it's not about Heaven or Hell or anyone's salvation. Our Savior is more kind than we are, in my opinion. The only one I need to worry about is me.
And I honestly feel uncomfortable taking it to a personal level, but I guess that's what these conversations come down to. Words on a page are so hard to convey with gentleness.
It's about rights. I agree that no one should die alone, with their children and partners banned from seeing them. How terrible! How painful! Where is the common sense and decency?
But the cost to me is in small personal ways that move into large society-changing ways. Boy Scouts is supposed to be about making my sons into men are dependable, hard-working, prepared, knowledgeable, etc. men. (Right now they are heathens--just go with me here-a mom can dream) They are supposed to be learning to be morally straight. Straight meaning strong, not the opposite of gay. Lately, Boy Scouts has been about Gay Rights. The only time a boy should be thinking about his penis in boy scouts should be when he's whipping it out to pee on the camp fire.
But on the other side of things, why did that need to be a big deal? Like I said, it was not supposed to be about sex in the first place, so why was there a debate about gay scouts being in there? So the bottom line is that they are welcome in scouting, but scout camp is not the place for sexual conversations, for any kind of porn, etc. But I feel that homosexuals pushing for rights brought something into Boy Scouts that didn't need to be there.
I've had a couple of people who I am very close to, whose families have been destroyed by daddies who decided to "come out". But in all fairness, I've had people I'm very close to who've had their families destroyed by mommies and daddies who've decided to leave with their other-gender lovers. That's why I put immorality with it.
Again, though. Homosexuality added to the immorality that was already destroying families around me.
I'm concerned that when the vote went through for MA residents to have same-sex marriage, all was well, but when it didn't for CA, it was overturned. I feel that we are losing our rights piece by piece in this country. This is dangerous, regardless of why they are being lost.
I worry that one day, our LDS temples will be shut down in the name of "Fairness". How is it fair for me to lose my rights so that someone else can gain more?
This is a new experiment. Other countries that have legalized gay marriage have had a decrease in marriage altogether. It just means less, and no one bothers.
I'm not talking about excluding someone from a hospital bedside--at least I don't mean to be.
Arrgghhh..I have to go to the orthodontist. I'll have to talk later.
Jeri,
I appreciate you getting to the personal level, because the way this stuff plays out, the political is personal to me. It has a direct impact on my life.
You said, “I've had a couple of people who I am very close to, whose families have been destroyed by daddies who decided to "come out". “ I’m so sorry for your friends and the heartache their families have gone through because of this.
I have to point out though, that it was homophobia that hurt these families, not homosexuality. I can almost guarantee you that these people knew that they were gay before they married, but because of the intense societal/religious pressure to be heterosexual, married people of the opposite gender. When they finally couldn’t live a lie anymore, they ended up breaking up families. If they had not felt the need to hide and marry opposite sex partners in the first place because of homophobia, no families would have needed to reconfigure.
As for the Boy Scouts, the debate was about actively discriminating against a group of people, not about sex. Opponents made it about sex. When you say, “it was not supposed to be about sex in the first place, so why was there a debate about gay scouts being in there? So the bottom line is that they are welcome in scouting, but scout camp is not the place for sexual conversations.” Are you saying straight scouts should never talk about crushes or girls they think are cute? Sexual orientation, especially for kids, is less about what is happening between their legs and more about what is happening between their ears. If the scouts said, “no Mormons” or “no African Americans” or “no Jews”, I think there would have been the same outrage. Requiring gay scouts to stay in the closet is like telling Mormon scouts that they can’t wear a CTR ring or a Catholic scout wear a cross or requiring black scouts to wear makeup to cover their skin. It’s requiring them to hide a difference that has no impact on other people but it something essential about themselves.
To me, not allowing gay scout leaders is homophobia in the most traditional sense. My take is that people are afraid that out gay men are inherently predators on children. There is no more reason to assume this than to assume that you shouldn’t be trusted with little boys.
You say, “How is it fair for me to lose my rights so that someone else can gain more?”. I’d love to hear you articulate clearly what rights you are losing by me having an equal legal standing with you. This is the argument that, again, I don’t understand.
I support your right to have 15 kids if you can support them all. I support your right to have your religion and your traditional family structure. My being married to Laura or Simon being in scouts if he ends up gay doesn’t take any of that away from you. This is the piece I don't understand. I want us to both get to have good lives.
Hi Jeri,
I re-read your comment and had one more thought. When you said, "I'm concerned that when the vote went through for MA residents to have same-sex marriage, all was well, but when it didn't for CA, it was overturned. I feel that we are losing our rights piece by piece in this country. This is dangerous, regardless of why they are being lost." This was the same argument made by white people as slavery was being abolished state by state. I don't see how this is much different.
In that case, slave owners actually lost something tangible (their supposed "property") and it is now universally accepted (well, almost) as the right thing to do. In this case, no one is losing anything tangible. The law doesn't say gay people can get married but straight people can't. You still have the right to get married and your kids, if they grow up to be straight, will still have the right to marry.
A decrease in marriage rates may make you unhappy but it doesn't actually take anything away from you. Prohibiting gay marriage from being federally recognized means gay people suffer in tangible ways, as was evidenced in my earlier post. I had to spend money to adopt my own child because the federal government didn't recognize my relationship to Simon until recently. That's a cost a straight couple that got pregnant with artificial insemination would not have to incur. It's a literal cost to gay people.
Thanks for engaging in this conversation. I'm learning a lot.
Dear Jaime,
I just re-read my last comment, and I have to say that I'm proud of you for being able to figure out what I was trying to say. Was I writing with cotton in my mouth? I'm sitting here with kids buzzing around me and I wish we could just go to lunch and chat. (If only that I would then get to eat and talk uninterrupted.) Thanks for sticking with me and trying to understand. My day is getting crazier and crazier and then we're going to Park City for a family reunion, and I really want to give this the time and thought it deserves. Can we table it until next week?
Love you!
Jeri
Totally. Thanks for hanging in too. I think this is the kind of stuff life is about- trying to truly figure out how to connect and understand each other. Have a great vacation!
Jaime
Sorry, Jaime. I couldn't leave it alone. Here's more.
Post a Comment