Living your life in duplicity no matter the intention usually ends up in an implosion of some sort and often accompanied by some pain.

Love Life, the New Media Entertainment 2006 film, about the ill fated marriage between a closeted gay man and a lesbian woman is such a story of duplicity.  It was written and directed by Damon Dietz.

The feel of the film is like a woven set of images across a canvas of moving poetry. The characters draw you into their lives and their own inner struggles. There is a marvelous use of camera angles that creates a real intimacy in this story. The audience is swept into an emotional bond with along with the Joe and Mary Hahn…watching their marriage dissolve and their true selves emerge.

Within the passion depicted in the movie there is simultaneous aching for freedom to be true and free. It speaks to the universal soul.

There is a wonderful narrative at the end of the film. It moved me. 

Apparently created by London-based company, Amro Worldwide, who specializes in gay travel, the target of this ad campaign was gay oversees tourists. Other US destinations including New Orleans, Atlanta, and the gayest of all, Boston, were signed to release similar ads.

Unfortunately, after the SC's Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism -who would be paying for the campaign with tax dollars- discovered that an agency advertising manager signed off on the deal without permission, the state canceled the deal and stated that it will take diciplinary action against their employees who had originally approve the campaign.

I guess SC didn't find it as funny as I did.

"Gay Bar" - Peaches

Avenged Sevenfold - A Little Piece Of Heaven [2007]

White Gold - Tame the White Tiger [2008]

The one act dramedy musical play that chronicles the coming out story of Mormon returned missionary, ex-temple married, father, former male escort, former drug user, and excommunicated LDS Church member Steven Fales will now grace the stage in London. 

Critically acclaimed, the play was awarded the  Overall Excellence Award at the 2004 New York International Fringe Festival. It received the 2008 Oscar Wilde Award Nomination for Outstanding New Writing in the Theatre at the Dublin International Gay Theatre Festival and a New York Outer Critics Circle Award Nomination for Outstanding Solo Performance.

Fales is quoted on  http://www.affirmation.org/:

Fales says ‘I wrote the play so that my children would some day be able to understand their gay father” and he adds “I kept thinking that if I were to die, there wasn’t anyone I could fully trust to tell my kids who their ‘wicked’ gay dad really was and how much I loved them.”
(Fales’ former mother-in-law is celebrated Mormon poet Carol Lynn Pearson whose autobiography Good-bye, I Love You (Random House 1986), poignantly recounts her relationship with her gay ex-husband who died of AIDS in her home. Steven Fales married their oldest daughter, Emily and together they have two children whom they raise in Salt Lake City, Utah.)

He also wrote a book with the same title that was a recent finalist for a Lambda Literary Award.

I saw his play here in San Francisco last year and found it to be a very enjoyable, touching experience. Fales is able to deliver his coming out story with a very human truthfulness with all his foibles laid bare but with a sincerity at its core.  His love for his children comes through, as he struggles as a man who comes to terms with his sexual identity in the middle of a marriage,  in a conservative religious environment. It is a convulsive, messy coming out process for him.  Thank goodness, he survived it to write and perform this play.

Confessions of a Mormon Boy is a MUST SEE for anyone who is interested about how someone overcomes the impossible....and who lives to sing and laugh about it.

Information on the London Performance Run

CONFESSIONS OF A MORMON BOY
Written and performed by Steven Fales
28 July to 30 August
Wednesday to Saturday at 9.30pm Sunday & Monday at 7.30pm (90 minutes)
Post-show discussions on Mondays 4, 11, 18 and 25 August.
Tickets £15 concessions £12 Ticket Sales 0870 033 2733
New End Theatre, 27 New End, Hampstead London NW3 1JD
www.newendtheatre.co.uk
5 minutes from Hampstead tube     fully air-conditioned

http://www.mormonboy.com/

The following is his Bio from the Feast of Fools web site:

Sal-E works ferociously as a cosmetologist at Milio’s Hair Salon in Chicago, Illinois. Born and raised in Chicago’s northwest-side he quickly developed a reputation for creating original costumes that are inspired by found objects and result in a wide variety of looks. From a psychedelic baroque monarch to a heroic comic book figure Sal-E is one of the most requested nightclub personalities and is seen everywhere on extreme make-up photo galleries.

His message is one of dressing the part and living the life of self-empowerment, color and simply having fun. One could mistake his abilities to transform himself on a daily basis as mutant shape-shifiing, but it’s all in the skill of his hands and make-up box.

A regular contributor to the Feast of Fools, he’s well known across the internet as a folkloric figure of the Club World and of the urban nightlife experience.

My personal opinion is that Sal-E is so beyond a drag performer or even a traditional entertainer.  I believe he is a living work of art. His make up and the intricacies of his costumes speaks to a creative mind that is so far and above the the crowd that it is awe inspiring.  He takesodds and ends; and transforms them into clothing and a living canvas of art of his fac and body.

I hope that someone who has the means gives this talented man a larger stage to share his art with the world. He is a talent to be reckoned with, and if you are ever in Chicago and he is performing - catch his act.   Also, tune in to the Feast of Fools (http://www.feastoffools.net/) and search their archives for the shows he is in because you will find out that he is one nice and funny guy!

There were the usual staples of the San Francisco Parade, the Rainbow flags, the shirtless muscled men, the drag queens and the dykes on bikes,  but this time there was something more.  

You could see it in the Parade in the myriads of wedding gowns and groom's tuxedos.  In the numbers of same sex parents and their children marching together. In the numbers of straight parents and their gay sons and daughters holding hands proudly. In the numbers of gay young teenagers cheering in group after group. It was in the music and on the floats.

It was also on the faces of the parade spectators,  a mixture of gays and straights from all races and creeds. We were shouting it together. We were calling for equality.  The revolution has gathered a new energy.

The same sex marriage legalization in California was simply the rallying cry.   The movement has been ignited and it is rolling forth America!   Happy Pride!

 To see many more pictures;  Click on :  http://www.bubbleshare.com/album/413281

Even with the haze of the smoke of the wild fires ravaging California overhead and the fog common to the Bay area, the spirit of Pride 2008 was alive today.  I was at the Civic Center early before the crowds gathered and enjoyed going by the booths.

I also listened to some live performances on the stage including the San Francisco Opera.  What was particularly stood out was the lines in the Marriage Equality booth.  There is an energy and buzz about to defeat efforts to put by conservative religious right groups to put a ban on same sex marriage on the California State Constitution.

I have never seen a Pride celebration so politically electrified like this one in a long time. The young people are especially vocal.

Enjoy the photos.....   I will be posting more.    Happy Pride!

Sure to ignite this year's  Pride Parade in San Francisco are the double balls of fire known as Cyndi Lauper and Charo will be the Grand Marshalls.   Both women have been advocates of the gay rights movement and entertainment icons.

Lauper,  who joined her openly gay sister Elen, in PFLAG awareness campaigns has worked tirelessly for equality for the LGBT community. In 2007 , the well known True Colors Tour was launched which raises awareness about discrimination. It is the grand finale of this year's Pride celebration.

Lauper just released a new CD called Bring ya to the Brink.

Charo has also released a CD callede Espani Cuchi.  She has a Show planned for the Herbst Theatre called The Return of Charo and Her Las Vegas Show on June 29th.

You shouldn't really be here, should you?
You should be at home with your wife - playing football with your 12 year old son and his mate "Jerry", who just happens to live with you. Please don't walk in, you'll only regret it later on.
Ok. What would Alan Sugar do? Have a drink. That's right. A casual drink and then we're going home. And don't get the wrong idea when I mean ‘drink'. Ok Martin, just sit down at the bar and don't look at anyone. You are just a normal man in a normal bar ordering a normal drink.
"What can I get you darrlin?"
Oh my god, that has to be the most ravishingly gorgeous bar man in the whole wide worl.....
No, No, No - pack it in Martin, just look him in the eye and slowly ask him for a simple pint, and nothing else. We don't want an action reply of the ‘Sexy Simon' incident do we?
Ok, you're sitting in a gay bar, sipping your pint. Surely you're just representing the modern metrosexual man? Hang on, what's that poking your leg? Great. Just great. You've only gone and attracted male attention, haven't you? doing the whole "I'm having a drink after work with my business suit on". These guys aren't fools, they know what you are really up to Martin.
"How did such a handsome man end up in here, you must be a new-cummer!"
Right, just act casual. Smart casual like someone on an M&S advert. Make yourself look available but never be available. Just please, oh please, don't say anything that would imply your homosexuality.
"I took the back passage."
You idiot. Please tell me that you did not just say those words to a gay person who is trying to pull you. Oh fuck it, lets have some fun. You know your wife's shagging Tony from across the road anyway, so really you are killing two birds with one stone. He must be gay too - he did lend me his DVD box-set of Last Of The Summer Wine. That was a good day. Right, back on track. I think the best thing to do is it to wait for a reply,
"Aww, well my place is just round the bend, so if you want to come in for coffee and some bourbons, then that would be awesome. I like the cream filling personally."
The door is in front of you Marty, walk through it and go home. Come on, Waking The Dead is on and you're gonna miss it. Yeah, there's always iPlayer but nothing beats watching it on the tv with some kettle chips. Oh come on, it's not like you're taking crack or anything; it's just a bit of harmless gay sex. And you like bourbons anyway. Just get up, follow the guy, and enjoy all that the bourbon has to offer. That's right Martin, this is your life from now on.

This may seem like a simple case of your average British man in a mid-life crisis, but Martin's story is just one of many. Thousands of you are going off your wives and jumping on the bandwagon and into another mans bed. Well I'm sorry that your wives are fat and that your children have diabetes, but please, for the sake of this country, zip up your trousers and donate £2 a month to the YNCA (You Naughty Cunts Awareness). Together, we can rebuild the normal non-gay man. Thank you.

Soupernova.

The official document was leaked to the public and can be found on the site Wikileaks. Please click on the link below to read the actual text.

http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Mormon-LDS_orders_for_29_June_2008_on_same-sex_constitution_ban

This has brought a certain amount of controversy even though there is no law against a religious body advising their congregation to vote for or against any government policy, there has been some controversy around any alleged official funding by the church in the past  for similar causes. 

More commonly known as the Mormon Church,  the current efforts have already been met by protest by some active church members such as BYU Professor, Jeffrey Nielsen.

Open Letter to California Mormons   Posted on www.affirmation.org

“We should never allow our constitutions, whether state of federal, to become weapons in a crusade to impose a particular religious value system upon a pluralistic democracy”by Jeffrey S. Nielsen
24 June 2008

"I am a member of the Mormon Church, a married heterosexual, and a supporter of marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples. I am asking you to pause and give sincere thought to the letter from our religious leaders you have heard read, or will soon hear read, over our church pulpits asking you to get involved and oppose marriage equality in California. Please think deeply about this, not only as a member of a particular church, but also as a citizen of a democracy.

To press for an amendment to a civil constitution that would legalize discrimination against an entire class of people is no small matter, but of the greatest significance. When the argument, no matter how well intentioned, is based solely upon a religious proclamation; then, I believe, it is a serious contradiction of the wisdom of our founding fathers. It also does tremendous damage to the great progress in civil rights we've made in our country respecting the equal dignity of each person and towards a more certain legal equality for all citizens.

You should also know, not all faithful Mormons agree with our religious leaders' encroachment into political matters. In fact, a growing number of active Mormons, who have gay friends and family members, are coming to the conclusion that our current leaders are as mistaken in promoting discrimination against gays and lesbians as was the Mormon hierarchy in the 60's when they opposed equal rights for people of color, and our Mormon leaders in the 70's when they opposed legal equality for women.

Of course, religious authorities of any denomination possess the right, and may claim the legitimacy, to set the theology and policy for their religious community. When they; however, attempt to interject religious doctrine into the public spaces of a diverse democracy without reasonable justification, then members, especially faithful members, of that religious organization have the civic responsibility to express public disapproval of such dangerous and undemocratic behavior.

No one is asking that you condone a behavior that might violate your religious faith, but we need to allow everyone the freedom to live their life as they see fit, so long as it does not physically harm another person. After all, religious values must be something an individual freely chooses, not something forced upon him or her by the state. We should never allow our constitutions, whether state of federal, to become weapons in a crusade to impose a particular religious value system upon a pluralistic democracy. Today it might be a particular religious value that we affirm, but tomorrow it might be a religious system, which would seek to legislate against our own sincere beliefs. So now is the time to take a stand and keep separate civil and religious authority.

I do not believe that people choose their sexual orientation any more than they choose their skin color or gender. So to discriminate and deny them equal protection and equal opportunity under civil law because of these natural traits; especially in this case, sexual orientation, is grossly unfair and should be rejected outright in a compassionate and just democracy. If anyone could give me a single reasonable argument against marriage equality in our civil society, which doesn't make fallacious appeals to tradition, misplaced appeals to religious authority, or make some ridiculous claim about nonhuman animals, then I would like to hear it. So far, no one has been able to present me with even a single justifiable reason.

You should know that like you, family and marriage are very important to me. As I have become acquainted with gay and lesbian couples, I have been touched by their goodness, sincerity, and commitment. I am persuaded that allowing marriage equality would, in fact, strengthen the institutions of family and marriage in our country. Perhaps it might even make all of us a little more considerate and responsible as both marriage partners and parents. I can only hope that the citizens of California, and my fellow Mormons, will possess the wisdom and moral decency to reject the unreasonable and unjust call to discriminate against our gay and lesbian coworkers, friends, neighbors, church members, and family"

 

The LGBT community is at crossroads in its long fight towards equal rights.  Let us unite and work together,  gay and straight,  to win in California.   To win in the White House.  To win in the Congress. 

The time of the religious, right, wing goliaths who have wielded their sword of bigotry coated with words self righteous piety is done.  We must make this country, the land of the Free again. The home of the Brave.  Of the People and For the People.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The film starts out with a bang.  I thought it was going to be another of those already, overdone gay stories- rehashed in films that are oversexed, poorly, written and unrealistic.

This film changes gears soon into the story and it charms the viewer into a yarn that is endearing , fresh and moving.  It is a true romantic comedy.

Credit goes to Writer/Director Rob Williams.  He is a talent. His writing is clever and his directing weaves the story at a good pace.  The comedy is perfectly place and has the right rhythm with the drama that unfolds.

The romantic story between the two central characters of Glenn ( played by Matthew Montgomery) and Adam ( Windham Beacham) is perfectly orchestrated as a love story of polar opposites.  The angst and attraction play at such a tug of war between these two lovers that it carries through the whole movie ending in a perfect crescendo that fades perfectly in the distance.

Beyond the artistry, the acting is good.  Eli (Artie O'Daly) steals some scenes with his comical acting abilities.

So I recommend renting it and enjoy spending time with these great characters.

On the heels of  cutting edge shows that portrayed gay life and gay sex life  such as Showtime's Queer as Folk or the L Word,  Dante's Cove does the same but takes it to a campy level. The nudity and sex becomes nothing more than a guilty pleasure or a backdrop to a soap opera genre reminiscent of shows like Dynasty or Knot's landing. 

Dante's Cove is like one of those trashy novels that one of my girlfriends at work likes to read at the beach during the summer.  You know the ones, with the picture of the big muscled shirtless man on the front cover holding the fair maiden ( not that I ever noticed those covers before in the Romance section of Barnes and Noble).

I have seen the previous seasons of the show.  I have just finished seeing the 3rd season all in one day. The campy element is taken to the next level on the 3rd season.  Dante's Cove Hotel and H2O Bar has been washed away by a Tsunami caused by Diana's interference with Tresum ( a drug produced from a Star Flower which causes visions but is also used as an illegal drug by island residents) and its power.  Everyone has moved to Grace's other home on the windward side of the island and there now there is a new bar.

Kevin is under the influence of Ambrosius because of the magic bracelet ( that's right...a magic bracelet).   Toby and Adam are now getting closer.  Grace is back.  She is now leading the fight against the Dark Shadows.  These are evil forces that have been unleashed when Michelle was brought back from the dead ( that's right....brought back from the dead).

Tracy Scoggins ( remember her from the late night soap "The Colbys) plays Grace and steals almost every scene. She plays the ever virginal witch who gets ditched a few centuries prior by Warlock Ambrosius ( Bro) because he likes men ( that's right...Bro was and is  queer).  He was fooling around with the butler.

 That was what started this whole mess the first season.  Well,  Grace finally meets a man who likes women.  Okay, the new dude also likes guys but he gives them up for her, I think. He is also a brother ( that is how we say it here in Oakland).

Diana ( Thea Gill - she was also on Queer as Folk)  goes Bette Davis CRA-ZEE in this movie and has a few Jack Nicholson " Out of your Mind", Linda Blair- like possessed campiest scene moments  ever!   I laughed so hard through them.  I think I want to coin a new phrase, You have just gone "Thea-zee" on me!

Toby ( Charlie David), who I think is a great actor and Kevin ( Gregory Michael) ,  took the greatest hits to their character development this season.  During season one, the series started as their love story as the central theme, and I actually cared about their characters.  By the end of season three, I  did not care how it ended. In fact the ending did not have the dramatic punch line that I think  was intended.   I also was disappointed that the character of Van was unceremoniously eliminated for the third season.  It did make a difference.

Adam ( Jon Fletcher) has had the most character development and I wished they had even gone deeper with his story. I am glad they tried to develop the story line with him and Toby.  I know Adam, with his shirt off, is kind of the running gag or character identifier, for him but I wish there was less objectifying and more substance. I think Jon Fletcher could have rose to the occasion. No pun intended.

Griff ( Jensen Atwood of Noah's Arc fame) is the best thing that happened to the Cove.  This man burns the Cove up!   He not only wins Grace over but the entire island.  

Also, appearing for the first time is Trevor (Reichen Lehmkuhl, ex-boyfriend of Lance Bass of NSYNC fame).  He is additional eye-candy and has some comical moments. He is mostly naked throughout the show.

Brit ( Michelle Wolff) is another character that has been developed more in the 3rd season. She brings on the HOT meter to overdrive as the premier Lesbian Lover.  OMG!  Some of the scenes would not only get rave reviews from my queer sisters but I know a lot of my straight male friends would tune in.  Also,  Brit is struggling between  her love for a sweet girlfriend and her recently resurrected ex ( who is also a possessed killer monster).  What a dilemma!

Michelle ( Jill Bennett)  This pretty woman can be scary.  When resurrected Michelle returns with her possesed self and we see her for who she really is,  man, she is scary! The special efffects with her very light blue contacts makes her freaky against the strobe lights!  She is beauty and the beast in one.  A very pretty, bad girl.

Ambrosius- Bro ( William Gregory Lee).  Our poor dysfunctional Warlock.  Held hostage by Grace for over a century because of his affair with a butler took an emotional toll on him. He bitterly took Kevin hostage from Toby because he loved Kevin and thought that was the only way to have him.  That is when the magic bracelet came into the picture. I guess it was better than a leather collar and leash.

The cycle of abuse - will it ever end?  He should have called Dr. Phil.  Bro's character got developed in Season 1 and 2.  There was hope.

Then in season 3, it goes into overdrive and he turns into a some sort of vampire ( not the blood sucking kind) but the Tresum kind. He draws power out of men when he starts to have sex with them ( that's right...I said when he starts to have sex with them).  He does it in the locker room, in the car, in a wierd sex club... I mean he goes crazy.  He simply loses control. Then I simply started laughing.  Who the hell wrote this stuff?

Then he and Kevin have this big power struggle drawing power in and out each other ( not during sex) and then somehow they find love....that was when I was about to throw up.  Is this for real? Oh yeah, this is not for real, this is only TV....poorly written TV.

So should you see this DVD?   If  just want to see some campy stuff like a trashy novel to read on a summer day at a beach for simple guilty pleasure, watch it.  Otherwise, do something else.

http://www.dantescove.com/

These stories are courageous, some are heartbreaking,  and some are even tragic.  All are very human and universal.  These stories speak to what is common to all of us straight and gay.  That is the right to be who we are and the right to love who we love.

One story is capsulized in the 2003 movie, Latter Days.  It is about the coming out story of a Mormon Missionary named Elder Aaron Davis.  It is moving film of a devoted young missionary coming to terms with his sexuality during his mission.  It chronicles his struggles wiith his faith and that difficult journey. 

It also shows how he tries to develop a place in the gay lifestyle which also has it challenges when he falls for party boy Christian Markelli.   The film is a good portrayal of gay struggle and fundamental church belief.

As a gay man, myself,  who has served a mission for the LDS church, my own experience was different. I did not come out during my mission ( I did a few years afterwards).  I actually enjoyed my missionary experience.  I also had great missioinary companions.

I did go through a church court later in my life when I did come out as a gay man. It was not as dark as it was portrayed in the film.  I was treated with respect and as much dignity as was possible. However, it was traumatic.  I was being judged for who I was and I was rejected by the faith I fought so hard to be a part of in my young life.  I actually was a convert to the Church. I grew up Catholic.

The LDS Church views homosexuality as a sin.   (This is the same stance taken by most Churches) It must be repented of in order to remain in good standing in the church and to enjoy the full blessings of God.   I am no longer active or affiliate myself with the LDS Church.

There is a wonderful Gay  Mormon Support Group called, Affirmation. Visit their website at: http://www.affirmation.org/

THE OFFICIAL MORMON VIEW

Same-Gender Attraction

 The continuing public debate over same-gender marriage has prompted many questions from the news media, the general public and Church members in relation to the position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the marriage issue specifically and on homosexuality in general.

The following interview was conducted with Elder Dallin H. Oaks, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Church, and Elder Lance B. Wickman, a member of the Seventy. These senior Church leaders responded to questions from two members of the Church’s Public Affairs staff. The transcript of the interview appears below in order to help clarify the Church’s stand on these important, complex and sensitive issues.

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: At the outset, can you explain why this whole issue of homosexuality and same-gender marriage is important to the Church?

ELDER OAKS: This is much bigger than just a question of whether or not society should be more tolerant of the homosexual lifestyle. Over past years we have seen unrelenting pressure from advocates of that lifestyle to accept as normal what is not normal, and to characterize those who disagree as narrow-minded, bigoted and unreasonable. Such advocates are quick to demand freedom of speech and thought for themselves, but equally quick to criticize those with a different view and, if possible, to silence them by applying labels like “homophobic.” In at least one country where homosexual activists have won major concessions, we have even seen a church pastor threatened with prison for preaching from the pulpit that homosexual behavior is sinful. Given these trends, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must take a stand on doctrine and principle. This is more than a social issue — ultimately it may be a test of our most basic religious freedoms to teach what we know our Father in Heaven wants us to teach.

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Let’s say my 17-year-old son comes to talk to me and, after a great deal of difficulty trying to get it out, tells me that he believes that he’s attracted to men — that he has no interest and never has had any interest in girls. He believes he’s probably gay. He says that he’s tried to suppress these feelings. He’s remained celibate, but he realizes that his feelings are going to be devastating to the family because we’ve always talked about his Church mission, about his temple marriage and all those kinds of things. He just feels he can’t live what he thinks is a lie any longer, and so he comes in this very upset and depressed manner. What do I tell him as a parent?

ELDER OAKS: You’re my son. You will always be my son, and I’ll always be there to help you.

The distinction between feelings or inclinations on the one hand, and behavior on the other hand, is very clear. It’s no sin to have inclinations that if yielded to would produce behavior that would be a transgression. The sin is in yielding to temptation. Temptation is not unique. Even the Savior was tempted.

The New Testament affirms that God has given us commandments that are difficult to keep. It is in 1 Corinthians chapter 10, verse 13: “There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.”

I think it’s important for you to understand that homosexuality, which you’ve spoken of, is not a noun that describes a condition. It’s an adjective that describes feelings or behavior. I encourage you, as you struggle with these challenges, not to think of yourself as a ‘something’ or ‘another,’ except that you’re a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and you’re my son, and that you’re struggling with challenges.

Everyone has some challenges they have to struggle with. You’ve described a particular kind of challenge that is very vexing. It is common in our society and it has also become politicized. But it’s only one of a host of challenges men and women have to struggle with, and I just encourage you to seek the help of the Savior to resist temptation and to refrain from behavior that would cause you to have to repent or to have your Church membership called into question.

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: If somebody has a very powerful heterosexual drive, there is the opportunity for marriage. If a young man thinks he’s gay, what we’re really saying to him is that there is simply no other way to go but to be celibate for the rest of his life if he doesn’t feel any attraction to women?

ELDER OAKS: That is exactly the same thing we say to the many members who don’t have the opportunity to marry. We expect celibacy of any person that is not married.

ELDER WICKMAN: We live in a society which is so saturated with sexuality that it perhaps is more troublesome now, because of that fact, for a person to look beyond their gender orientation to other aspects of who they are. I think I would say to your son or anyone that was so afflicted to strive to expand your horizons beyond simply gender orientation. Find fulfillment in the many other facets of your character and your personality and your nature that extend beyond that. There’s no denial that one’s gender orientation is certainly a core characteristic of any person, but it’s not the only one.

What’s more, merely having inclinations does not disqualify one for any aspect of Church participation or membership, except possibly marriage as has already been talked about. But even that, in the fullness of life as we understand it through the doctrines of the restored gospel, eventually can become possible.

In this life, such things as service in the Church, including missionary service, all of this is available to anyone who is true to covenants and commandments.

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: So you are saying that homosexual feelings are controllable?

ELDER OAKS: Yes, homosexual feelings are controllable. Perhaps there is an inclination or susceptibility to such feelings that is a reality for some and not a reality for others. But out of such susceptibilities come feelings, and feelings are controllable. If we cater to the feelings, they increase the power of the temptation. If we yield to the temptation, we have committed sinful behavior. That pattern is the same for a person that covets someone else’s property and has a strong temptation to steal. It’s the same for a person that develops a taste for alcohol. It’s the same for a person that is born with a ‘short fuse,’ as we would say of a susceptibility to anger. If they let that susceptibility remain uncontrolled, it becomes a feeling of anger, and a feeling of anger can yield to behavior that is sinful and illegal.

We’re not talking about a unique challenge here. We’re talking about a common condition of mortality. We don’t understand exactly the ‘why,’ or the extent to which there are inclinations or susceptibilities and so on. But what we do know is that feelings can be controlled and behavior can be controlled. The line of sin is between the feelings and the behavior. The line of prudence is between the susceptibility and the feelings. We need to lay hold on the feelings and try to control them to keep us from getting into a circumstance that leads to sinful behavior.

ELDER WICKMAN: One of the great sophistries of our age, I think, is that merely because one has an inclination to do something, that therefore acting in accordance with that inclination is inevitable. That’s contrary to our very nature as the Lord has revealed to us. We do have the power to control our behavior.

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: If we were to look back at someone who had a ‘short fuse,’ and we were to look at their parents who might have had a short fuse, some might identify a genetic influence in that.

ELDER OAKS: No, we do not accept the fact that conditions that prevent people from attaining their eternal destiny were born into them without any ability to control. That is contrary to the Plan of Salvation, and it is contrary to the justice and mercy of God. It’s contrary to the whole teaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which expresses the truth that by or through the power and mercy of Jesus Christ we will have the strength to do all things. That includes resisting temptation. That includes dealing with things that we’re born with, including disfigurements, or mental or physical incapacities. None of these stand in the way of our attaining our eternal destiny. The same may be said of a susceptibility or inclination to one behavior or another which if yielded to would prevent us from achieving our eternal destiny.

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: You’re saying the Church doesn’t necessarily have a position on ‘nurture or nature’

ELDER OAKS: That’s where our doctrine comes into play. The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction. Those are scientific questions — whether nature or nurture — those are things the Church doesn’t have a position on.

ELDER WICKMAN: Whether it is nature or nurture really begs the important question, and a preoccupation with nature or nurture can, it seems to me, lead someone astray from the principles that Elder Oaks has been describing here. Why somebody has a same-gender attraction… who can say? But what matters is the fact that we know we can control how we behave, and it is behavior which is important.

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Is therapy of any kind a legitimate course of action if we’re talking about controlling behavior? If a young man says, “Look, I really want these feelings to go away… I would do anything for these feelings to go away,” is it legitimate to look at clinical therapy of some sort that would address those issues?

ELDER WICKMAN: Well, it may be appropriate for that person to seek therapy. Certainly the Church doesn’t counsel against that kind of therapy. But from the standpoint of a parent counseling a person, or a Church leader counseling a person, or a person looking at his or her same-gender attraction from the standpoint of ‘What can I do about it here that’s in keeping with gospel teachings?’ the clinical side of it is not what matters most. What matters most is recognition that ‘I have my own will. I have my own agency. I have the power within myself to control what I do.’

Now, that’s not to say it’s not appropriate for somebody with that affliction to seek appropriate clinical help to examine whether in his or her case there’s something that can be done about it. This is an issue that those in psychiatry, in the psychology professions have debated. Case studies I believe have shown that in some cases there has been progress made in helping someone to change that orientation; in other cases not. From the Church’s standpoint, from our standpoint of concern for people, that’s not where we place our principal focus. It’s on these other matters.

ELDER OAKS: Amen to that. Let me just add one more thought. The Church rarely takes a position on which treatment techniques are appropriate, for medical doctors or for psychiatrists or psychologists and so on.

The second point is that there are abusive practices that have been used in connection with various mental attitudes or feelings. Over-medication in respect to depression is an example that comes to mind. The aversive therapies that have been used in connection with same-sex attraction have contained some serious abuses that have been recognized over time within the professions. While we have no position about what the medical doctors do (except in very, very rare cases — abortion would be such an example), we are conscious that there are abuses and we don’t accept responsibility for those abuses. Even though they are addressed at helping people we would like to see helped, we can’t endorse every kind of technique that’s been used.

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Is heterosexual marriage ever an option for those with homosexual feelings?

ELDER OAKS: We are sometimes asked about whether marriage is a remedy for these feelings that we have been talking about. President Hinckley, faced with the fact that apparently some had believed it to be a remedy, and perhaps that some Church leaders had even counseled marriage as the remedy for these feelings, made this statement: “Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices.” To me that means that we are not going to stand still to put at risk daughters of God who would enter into such marriages under false pretenses or under a cloud unknown to them. Persons who have this kind of challenge that they cannot control could not enter marriage in good faith.

On the other hand, persons who have cleansed themselves of any transgression and who have shown their ability to deal with these feelings or inclinations and put them in the background, and feel a great attraction for a daughter of God and therefore desire to enter marriage and have children and enjoy the blessings of eternity — that’s a situation when marriage would be appropriate.

President Hinckley said that marriage is not a therapeutic step to solve problems.

ELDER WICKMAN: One question that might be asked by somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is, “Is this something I’m stuck with forever? What bearing does this have on eternal life? If I can somehow make it through this life, when I appear on the other side, what will I be like?”

Gratefully, the answer is that same-gender attraction did not exist in the pre-earth life and neither will it exist in the next life. It is a circumstance that for whatever reason or reasons seems to apply right now in mortality, in this nano-second of our eternal existence.

The good news for somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is this: 1) It is that ‘I’m not stuck with it forever.’ It’s just now. Admittedly, for each one of us, it’s hard to look beyond the ‘now’ sometimes. But nonetheless, if you see mortality as now, it’s only during this season. 2) If I can keep myself worthy here, if I can be true to gospel commandments, if I can keep covenants that I have made, the blessings of exaltation and eternal life that Heavenly Father holds out to all of His children apply to me. Every blessing — including eternal marriage — is and will be mine in due course.

ELDER OAKS: Let me just add a thought to that. There is no fullness of joy in the next life without a family unit, including a husband, a wife, and posterity. Further, men are that they might have joy. In the eternal perspective, same-gender activity will only bring sorrow and grief and the loss of eternal opportunities.

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: A little earlier, Elder Oaks, you talked about the same standard of morality for heterosexuals and homosexuals. How would you address someone who said to you, ‘I understand it’s the same standard, but aren’t we asking a little more of someone who has same-gender attraction?’ Obviously there are heterosexual people who won’t get married, but would you accept that they at least have hope that ‘tomorrow I could meet the person of my dreams.’ There’s always the hope that that could happen at any point in their life. Someone with same-gender attraction wouldn’t necessarily have that same hope.

ELDER OAKS: There are differences, of course, but the contrast is not unique. There are people with physical disabilities that prevent them from having any hope — in some cases any actual hope and in other cases any practical hope — of marriage. The circumstance of being currently unable to marry, while tragic, is not unique.

It is sometimes said that God could not discriminate against individuals in this circumstance. But life is full of physical infirmities that some might see as discriminations — total paralysis or serious mental impairment being two that are relevant to marriage. If we believe in God and believe in His mercy and His justice, it won’t do to say that these are discriminations because God wouldn’t discriminate. We are in no condition to judge what discrimination is. We rest on our faith in God and our utmost assurance of His mercy and His love for all of His children.

ELDER WICKMAN: There’s really no question that there is an anguish associated with the inability to marry in this life. We feel for someone that has that anguish. I feel for somebody that has that anguish. But it’s not limited to someone who has same-gender attraction.

We live in a very self-absorbed age. I guess it’s naturally human to think about my own problems as somehow greater than someone else’s. I think when any one of us begins to think that way, it might be well be to look beyond ourselves. Who am I to say that I am more handicapped, or suffering more, than someone else?

I happen to have a handicapped daughter. She’s a beautiful girl. She’ll be 27 next week. Her name is Courtney. Courtney will never marry in this life, yet she looks wistfully upon those who do. She will stand at the window of my office which overlooks the Salt Lake Temple and look at the brides and their new husbands as they’re having their pictures taken. She’s at once captivated by it and saddened because Courtney understands that will not be her experience here. Courtney didn’t ask for the circumstances into which she was born in this life, any more than somebody with same-gender attraction did. So there are lots of kinds of anguish people can have, even associated with just this matter of marriage. What we look forward to, and the great promise of the gospel, is that whatever our inclinations are here, whatever our shortcomings are here, whatever the hindrances to our enjoying a fullness of joy here, we have the Lord’s assurance for every one of us that those in due course will be removed. We just need to remain faithful.

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Elder Wickman, when you referred earlier to missionary service, you held that out as a possibility for someone who felt same-gender attraction but didn’t act on it. President Hinckley has said that if people are faithful, they can essentially go forward as anyone else in the Church and have full fellowship. What does that really mean? Does it mean missionary service? Does it mean that someone can go to the temple, at least for those sacraments that don’t involve marriage? Does it really mean that someone with same-gender attraction so long as they’re faithful, has every opportunity to participate, to be called to service, to do all those kinds of things that anyone else can?

ELDER WICKMAN: I think the short answer to that is yes! I’d look to Elder Oaks to elaborate on that.

ELDER OAKS: President Hinckley has helped us on that subject with a clear statement that answers all questions of that nature. He said, “We love them (referring to people who have same-sex attractions) as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church.”

To me that means that a person with these inclinations, where they’re kept under control, or, if yielded to are appropriately repented of, is eligible to do anything in the Church that can be done by any member of the Church who is single. Occasionally, there’s an office, like the office of bishop, where a person must be married. But that’s rather the exception in the Church. Every teaching position, every missionary position can be held by single people. We welcome to that kind of service people who are struggling with any kind of temptation when the struggle is a good struggle and they are living so as to be appropriate teachers, or missionaries, or whatever the calling may be.

ELDER WICKMAN: Isn’t it really the significance of the Atonement in a person’s life? Doesn’t the Atonement really begin to mean something to a person when he or she is trying to face down the challenges of living, whether they be temptations or limitations? The willingness to turn to the Savior, the opportunity of going to sacrament service on a Sunday, and really participating in the ordinance of the sacrament… listening to the prayers, partaking of those sacred emblems. Those are opportunities that really help us to come within the ambit of the Savior’s Atonement. Viewed that way, then any opportunity to serve in the Church is a blessing. As has been mentioned, there is a relatively tiny handful of callings within the Church that require marriage.

ELDER OAKS: There is another point to add here, and this comes from a recent statement of the First Presidency, which is a wonderful description of our attitude in this matter: “We of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reach out with understanding and respect for individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender. We realize there may be great loneliness in their lives, but there must also be recognition of what is right before the Lord.”

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: What would you say to those members in society, members of the Church, who may look at same-gender attraction as different than other temptations, than any other struggle that people face? First of all, do you think it’s a fair assessment that some people have that feeling? What would you say to them?

ELDER OAKS: I think it is an accurate statement to say that some people consider feelings of same-gender attraction to be the defining fact of their existence. There are also people who consider the defining fact of their existence that they are from Texas or that they were in the United States Marines. Or they are red-headed, or they are the best basketball player that ever played for such-and-such a high school. People can adopt a characteristic as the defining example of their existence and often those characteristics are physical.

We have the agency to choose which characteristics will define us; those choices are not thrust upon us.

The ultimate defining fact for all of us is that we are children of Heavenly Parents, born on this earth for a purpose, and born with a divine destiny. Whenever any of those other notions, whatever they may be, gets in the way of that ultimate defining fact, then it is destructive and it leads us down the wrong path.

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Both of you have mentioned the issue of compassion and this feeling about needing to be compassionate. Let’s fast-forward the scenario that we used earlier, and assume it’s a couple of years later. My conversations with my son, all our efforts to love our son and keep him in the Church have failed to address what he sees as the central issue — that he can’t help his feelings. He’s now told us that he’s moving out of the home. He plans to live with a gay friend. He’s adamant about it. What should be the proper response of a Latter-day Saint parent in that situation?

ELDER OAKS: It seems to me that a Latter-day Saint parent has a responsibility in love and gentleness to affirm the teaching of the Lord through His prophets that the course of action he is about to embark upon is sinful. While affirming our continued love for him, and affirming that the family continues to have its arms open to him, I think it would be well to review with him something like the following, which is a statement of the First Presidency in 1991: “The Lord’s law of moral conduct is abstinence outside of lawful marriage and fidelity within marriage. Sexual relations are proper only between husband and wife, appropriately expressed within the bonds of marriage. Any other sexual conduct, including fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior is sinful. Those who persist in such practices or influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline.”

My first responsibility as a father is to make sure that he understands that, and then to say to him, “My son, if you choose to deliberately engage in this kind of behavior, you’re still my son. The Atonement of Jesus Christ is powerful enough to reach out and cleanse you if you are repentant and give up your sinful behavior, but I urge you not to embark on that path because repentance is not easy. You’re embarking on a course of action that will weaken you in your ability to repent. It will cloud your perceptions of what is important in life. Finally, it may drag you down so far that you can’t come back. Don’t go that way. But if you choose to go that way, we will always try to help you and get you back on the path of growth.

ELDER WICKMAN: One way to read the Book of Mormon is as a book of encounters between fathers and sons. Some of those encounters were very positive and reinforcing on the part of the father of a son. Some were occasions where a father had to tell his son or his sons that the path that they were following was incorrect before the Lord. With all, it needs to be done in the spirit of love and welcoming that, as Elder Oaks mentioned, ‘You’re always my son.’ There’s an old maxim which is really true for every parent and that is, ‘You haven’t failed until you quit trying.’ I think that means both in terms of taking appropriate opportunities to teach one’s children the right way, but at all times making sure they know that over all things you’ll love them.

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: At what point does showing that love cross the line into inadvertently endorsing behavior? If the son says, ‘Well, if you love me, can I bring my partner to our home to visit? Can we come for holidays?’ How do you balance that against, for example, concern for other children in the home?’

ELDER OAKS: That’s a decision that needs to be made individually by the person responsible, calling upon the Lord for inspiration. I can imagine that in most circumstances the parents would say, ‘Please don’t do that. Don’t put us into that position.’ Surely if there are children in the home who would be influenced by this example, the answer would likely be that. There would also be other factors that would make that the likely answer.

I can also imagine some circumstances in which it might be possible to say, ‘Yes, come, but don’t expect to stay overnight. Don’t expect to be a lengthy house guest. Don’t expect us to take you out and introduce you to our friends, or to deal with you in a public situation that would imply our approval of your “partnership.”

There are so many different circumstances, it’s impossible to give one answer that fits all.

ELDER WICKMAN: It’s hard to imagine a more difficult circumstance for a parent to face than that one. It is a case by case determination. The only thing that I would add to what Elder Oaks has just said is that I think it’s important as a parent to avoid a potential trap arising out of one’s anguish over this situation.

I refer to a shift from defending the Lord’s way to defending the errant child’s lifestyle, both with him and with others. It really is true the Lord’s way is to love the sinner while condemning the sin. That is to say we continue to open our homes and our hearts and our arms to our children, but that need not be with approval of their lifestyle. Neither does it mean we need to be constantly telling them that their lifestyle is inappropriate. An even bigger error is now to become defensive of the child, because that neither helps the child nor helps the parent. That course of action, which experience teaches, is almost certainly to lead both away from the Lord’s way.

ELDER OAKS: The First Presidency made a wonderful statement on this subject in a letter in 1991. Speaking of individuals and families that were struggling with this kind of problem, they said, “We encourage Church leaders and members to reach out with love and understanding to those struggling with these issues.” Surely if we are counseled as a body of Church membership to reach out with love and understanding to those ‘struggling with these issues,’ that obligation rests with particular intensity on parents who have children struggling with these issues… even children who are engaged in sinful behavior associated with these issues.

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Is rejection of a child to some degree the natural reaction of some parents whenever their children fall short of expectations? Is it sometimes easier to ‘close the window’ on an issue than deal with it?

ELDER OAKS: We surely encourage parents not to blame themselves and we encourage Church members not to blame parents in this circumstance. We should remember that none of us is perfect and none of us has children whose behavior is entirely in accord with exactly what we would have them do in all circumstances.

We feel great compassion for parents whose love and protective instincts for their challenged children have moved them to some positions that are adversary to the Church. I hope the Lord will be merciful to parents whose love for their children has caused them to get into such traps.

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Let’s fast-forward again. My son has now stopped coming to church altogether. There seems no prospect of him returning. Now he tells me he’s planning on going to Canada where same-gender marriage is allowed. He insists that he agrees that loving marriage relationships are important. He’s not promiscuous; he has one relationship. He and his partner intend to have that relationship for the rest of their lives. He cannot understand that a lifetime commitment can’t be accepted by the Church when society seems to be moving in that way. Again, if I am a Latter-day Saint father, what would I be expected to tell him?

ELDER WICKMAN: For openers, marriage is neither a matter of politics, nor is it a matter of social policy. Marriage is defined by the Lord Himself. It’s the one institution that is ceremoniously performed by priesthood authority in the temple [and] transcends this world. It is of such profound importance… such a core doctrine of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, of the very purpose of the creation of this earth. One hardly can get past the first page of Genesis without seeing that very clearly. It is not an institution to be tampered with by mankind, and certainly not to be tampered with by those who are doing so simply for their own purposes. There is no such thing in the Lord’s eyes as something called same-gender marriage. Homosexual behavior is and will always remain before the Lord an abominable sin. Calling it something else by virtue of some political definition does not change that reality.

ELDER OAKS: Another way to say that same thing is that the Parliament in Canada and the Congress in Washington do not have the authority to revoke the commandments of God, or to modify or amend them in any way.

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: On some gay web sites there are those who argue that homosexual behavior is not specifically prohibited in the Bible, particularly in the New Testament. Some argue that Jesus Christ’s compassion and love for humanity embraces this kind of relationship. What is the Church’s teaching about that?

ELDER WICKMAN: For one thing, those who assert that need to read their Bible more carefully. But beyond that, it is comparing apples and oranges to refer to the love that the Savior expressed for all mankind, for every person, for every man and woman and child, with the doctrine related to marriage.

In fact, the Savior did make a declaration about marriage, albeit in a somewhat different context. Jesus said that “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife and they twain shall be one flesh. What God has joined together let no man put asunder.”

We usually think of that expression in the context of two people, a man and a woman, being married and the inappropriateness of someone trying to separate them. I think it may have a broader meaning in a doctrinal sense. Marriage of a man and a woman is clear in Biblical teaching in the Old Testament as well as in the New [Testament] teaching. Anyone who seeks to put that notion asunder is likewise running counter to what Jesus Himself said. It’s important to keep in mind the difference between Jesus’ love and His definition of doctrine, and the definition of doctrine that has come from apostles and prophets of the Lord Jesus Christ, both anciently and in modern times.

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: What of those who might say, “Okay. Latter-day Saints are entitled to believe whatever they like. If you don’t believe in same-gender marriages, then it’s fine for you. But why try to regulate the behavior of other people who have nothing to do with your faith, especially when some nations in Europe have legally sanctioned that kind of marriage? Why not just say, ‘We don’t agree with it doctrinally for our own people’ and leave it at that. Why fight to get a Constitutional amendment [in the United States], for example?

ELDER WICKMAN: We’re not trying to regulate people, but this notion that ‘what happens in your house doesn’t affect what happens in my house’ on the subject of the institution of marriage may be the ultimate sophistry of those advocating same-gender marriage.

Some people promote the idea that there can be two marriages, co-existing side by side, one heterosexual and one homosexual, without any adverse consequences. The hard reality is that, as an institution, marriage like all other institutions can only have one definition without changing the very character of the institution. Hence there can be no coexistence of two marriages. Either there is marriage as it is now defined and as defined by the Lord, or there is what could thus be described as genderless marriage. The latter is abhorrent to God, who, as we’ve been discussing, Himself described what marriage is — between a man and a woman.

A redefinition of that institution, therefore, redefines it for everyone — not just those who are seeking to have a so-called same gender marriage. It also ignores the definition that the Lord Himself has given.

ELDER OAKS: There’s another point that can be made on this. Let’s not forget that for thousands of years the institution of marriage has been between a man and a woman. Until quite recently, in a limited number of countries, there has been no such thing as a marriage between persons of the same gender. Suddenly we are faced with the claim that thousands of years of human experience should be set aside because we should not discriminate in relation to the institution of marriage. When that claim is made, the burden of proving that this step will not undo the wisdom and stability of millennia of experience lies on those who would make the change. Yet the question is asked and the matter is put forward as if those who believe in marriage between a man and a woman have the burden of proving that it should not be extended to some other set of conditions.

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: There are those who would say that that might have applied better in the 1950s or earlier than in the 21st century. If you look at several nations in Europe, for example, traditional marriage is so rapidly on the decline that it is no longer the norm. If marriage is evolving, ought we to resist those kind of social changes?

ELDER OAKS: That argument impresses me as something akin to the fact that if we agree that the patient is sick and getting sicker, we should therefore approve a coup de grace. The coup de grace which ends the patient’s life altogether is quite equivalent to the drastic modification in the institution of marriage that would be brought on by same-gender marriage.

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: You talked about the harm that could come on society by redefining marriage. What would you say to those people who declare: “I know gay people who are in long-term committed relationships. They’re great people. They love each other. What harm is it going to do my marriage as a heterosexual to allow them that same ‘rite?’

ELDER WICKMAN: Let me say again what I said a moment ago. I believe that that argument is true sophistry, because marriage is a unified institution. Marriage means a committed, legally sanctioned relationship between a man and a woman. That’s what it means. That’s what it means in the revelations. That’s what it means in the secular law. You cannot have that marriage coexisting institutionally with something else called same-gender marriage. It simply is a definitional impossibility. At such point as you now, as an institution, begin to recognize a legally-sanctioned relationship, a committed relationship between two people of the same gender, you have now redefined the institution to being one of genderless marriage.

As we’ve mentioned in answer to other questions, [genderless marriage] is contrary to God’s law, to revealed Word. Scripture, ancient and modern, could not be clearer on the definition that the Lord and His agents have given to marriage down through the dispensations.

But it has a profound effect in a very secular way on everybody else. What happens in somebody’s house down the street does in very deed have an effect on what happens in my house and how it’s treated. To suggest that in the face of these millennia of history and the revelations of God and the whole human pattern they have the right to redefine the whole institution for everyone is presumptuous in the extreme and terribly wrong-headed.

ELDER OAKS: Another point to be made about this is made in a question. If a couple who are cohabiting, happy, and committed to one another want to have their relationship called a marriage, why do they want that? Considering what they say they have, why do they want to add to it the legal status of marriage that has been honored and experienced for thousands of years? What is it that is desired by those who advocate same-gender marriage? If that could be articulated on some basis other than discrimination, which is not a very good argument, it would be easier to answer the question that you have asked, and I think it would reveal the soundness of what we’ve already heard.

There are certain indicia of marriage — certain legal and social consequences and certain legitimacy — which if given to some relationship other than marriage between a man and a woman tend to degrade if not destroy the institution that’s been honored over so many thousands of years.

In addition, if people want to legalize a particular relationship, we need to be careful if that kind of relationship has been disapproved for millennia. Suddenly there’s a call to legalize it so they can feel better about themselves. That argument proves a little too much. Suppose a person is making a living in some illegal behavior, but feels uneasy about it. (He may be a professional thief or he may be selling a service that is illegal, or whatever it may be.) Do we go out and legalize his behavior because he’s being discriminated against in his occupational choices or because he doesn’t feel well about what he’s doing and he wants a ‘feel good’ example, or he wants his behavior legitimized in the eyes of society or his family? I think the answer is that we do not legalize behavior for those reasons unless they are very persuasive reasons brought forward to make a change in the current situation.

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Would you extend the same argument against same-gender marriage to civil unions or some kind of benefits short of marriage?

ELDER WICKMAN: One way to think of marriage is as a bundle of rights associated with what it means for two people to be married. What the First Presidency has done is express its support of marriage and for that bundle of rights belonging to a man and a woman. The First Presidency hasn’t expressed itself concerning any specific right. It really doesn’t matter what you call it. If you have some legally sanctioned relationship with the bundle of legal rights traditionally belonging to marriage and governing authority has slapped a label on it, whether it is civil union or domestic partnership or whatever label it’s given, it is nonetheless tantamount to marriage. That is something to which our doctrine simply requires us to speak out and say, “That is not right. That’s not appropriate.”

As far as something less than that — as far as relationships that give to some pairs in our society some right but not all of those associated with marriage — as to that, as far as I know, the First Presidency hasn’t expressed itself. There are numbers of different types of partnerships or pairings that may exist in society that aren’t same-gender sexual relationships that provide for some right that we have no objection to. All that said… there may be on occasion some specific rights that we would be concerned about being granted to those in a same-gender relationship. Adoption is one that comes to mind, simply because that is a right which has been historically, doctrinally associated so closely with marriage and family. I cite the example of adoption simply because it has to do with the bearing and the rearing of children. Our teachings, even as expressed most recently in a very complete doctrinal sense in the Family Proclamation by living apostles and prophets, is that children deserve to be reared in a home with a father and a mother.

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: On the issue of a Constitutional amendment prohibiting same-gender marriage, there are some Latter-day Saints who are opposed to same-gender marriage, but who are not in favor of addressing this through a Constitutional amendment. Why did the Church feel that it had to step in that direction?

ELDER OAKS: Law has at least two roles: one is to define and regulate the limits of acceptable behavior. The other is to teach principles for individuals to make individual choices. The law declares unacceptable some things that are simply not enforceable, and there’s no prosecutor who tries to enforce them. We refer to that as the teaching function of the law. The time has come in our society when I see great wisdom and purpose in a United States Constitutional amendment declaring that marriage is between a man and a woman. There is nothing in that proposed amendment that requires a criminal prosecution or that directs the attorneys general to go out and round people up, but it declares a principle and it also creates a defensive barrier against those who would alter that traditional definition of marriage.

There are people who oppose a federal Constitutional amendment because they think that the law of family should be made by the states. I can see a legitimate argument there. I think it’s mistaken, however, because the federal government, through the decisions of life-tenured federal judges, has already taken over that area. This Constitutional amendment is a defensive measure against those who would ignore the will of the states appropriately expressed and require, as a matter of federal law, the recognition of same-gender marriages — or the invalidation of state laws that require that marriage be between a man and a woman. In summary, the First Presidency has come out for an amendment (which may or may not be adopted) in support of the teaching function of the law. Such an amendment would be a very important expression of public policy, which would feed into or should feed into the decisions of judges across the length and breadth of the land.

ELDER WICKMAN: Let me just add to that, if I may. It’s not the Church that has made the issue of marriage a matter of federal law. Those who are vigorously advocating for something called same-gender marriage have essentially put that potato on the fork. They’re the ones who have created a situation whereby the law of the land, one way or the other, is going to address this issue of marriage. This is not a situation where the Church has elected to take the matter into the legal arena or into the political arena. It’s already there.

The fact of the matter is that the best way to assure that a definition of marriage as it now stands continues is to put it into the foundational legal document of the United States. That is in the Constitution. That’s where the battle has taken it. Ultimately that’s where the battle is going to be decided. It’s going to be decided as a matter of federal law one way or the other. Consequently it is not a battleground on such an issue that we Latter-day Saints have chosen, but it has been established and we have little choice but to express our views concerning it, which is really all that the Church has done.

Decisions even for members of the Church as to what they do with respect to this issue must of course rest with each one in their capacity as citizens.

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: The emphasis that has been placed in this conversation on traditional marriage between a man and a woman has been consistent throughout. Do you see any irony in the fact that the Church is so publicly outspoken on this issue, when in the minds of so many people in the United States and around the world the Church is known for once supporting a very untraditional marriage arrangement — that is, polygamy?

ELDER OAKS: I see irony in that if one views it without the belief that we affirm in divine revelation. The 19th century Mormons, including some of my ancestors, were not eager to practice plural marriage. They followed the example of Brigham Young, who expressed his profound negative feelings when he first had this principle revealed to him. The Mormons of the 19th century who practiced plural marriage, male and female, did so because they felt it was a duty put upon them by God.

When that duty was lifted, they were directed to conform to the law of the land, which forbad polygamy and which had been held constitutional. When they were told to refrain from plural marriage, there were probably some who were unhappy, but I think the majority were greatly relieved and glad to get back into the mainstream of western civilization, which had been marriage between a man and a woman. In short, if you start with the assumption of continuing revelation, on which this Church is founded, then you can understand that there is no irony in this. But if you don’t start with that assumption, you see a profound irony.

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: What about various types of support groups for those with same-gender affliction?

ELDER WICKMAN: I think we neither encourage nor discourage them, but much would depend on the nature of those groups. We certainly discourage people getting involved with any group or organization that foster living a homosexual lifestyle.

Ultimately, the wisest course for anybody who’s afflicted with same-gender attraction is to strive to extend one’s horizon beyond just one’s sexual orientation, one’s gender orientation, and to try to see the whole person. If I’m one that’s afflicted with same-gender attraction, I should strive to see myself in a much broader context… seeing myself as a child of God with whatever my talents may be, whether intellect, or music, or athletics, or somebody that has a compassion to help people, to see myself in a larger setting and thus to see my life in that setting.

The more a person can look beyond gender orientation, the happier and more fulfilling life is likely to be. The worst possible thing for any of us — no matter what our temptations, no matter what our mortal inclinations may be — is to become fixated with them, to dwell on them. When we do that, not only do we deny the other things that comprise us, but experience teaches that there will be an increased likelihood that eventually we will simply succumb to the inclination.

ELDER OAKS: The principle that Elder Wickman has talked about, in a nutshell, is that if you are trying to live with and maintain ascendancy over same-gender attractions, the best way to do that is to have groups that define their members in terms other than same-gender attractions.

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: If you had to describe this enormously complex question in a couple of basic principles, what would that be?

ELDER OAKS: God loves all of His children. He has provided a plan for His children to enjoy the choicest blessings that He has to offer in eternity. Those choicest blessings are associated with marriage between a man and a woman by appropriate priesthood authority to bring together a family unit for creation and happiness in this life and in the life to come.

We urge persons with same-gender attractions to control those and to refrain from acting upon them, which is a sin, just as we urge persons with heterosexual attractions to refrain from acting upon them until they have the opportunity for a marriage recognized by God as well as by the law of the land. That is the way to happiness and eternal life. God has given us no commandment that He will not give us the strength and power to observe. That is the Plan of Salvation for His children, and it is our duty to proclaim that plan, to teach its truth, and to praise God for the mission of His Son Jesus Christ. It is Christ’s atonement that makes it possible for us to be forgiven of our sins and His resurrection that gives us the assurance of immortality and the life to come. It is that life to come that orients our views in mortality and reinforces our determination to live the laws of God so that we can qualify for His blessings in immortality.

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Thank you.

 http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/same-gender-attraction

http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Mormon-LDS_orders_for_29_June_2008_on_same-sex_constitution_ban

Luke is played by Van Hansis and Noah is played by Jake Silbermann. Their characters met back in May 2007.  Then there was this prolonged coming out story line filled with prerequisite high drama, filled in by the soap opera frozen pauses at the end of each scene while  haunting, longing music trail off into commercial breaks.

Oh yeah,  there was that girl named Maddie who was dating Luke. That was a mess.  Duh! Maddie!  You finally figured out he liked Boys. What did it take? A  whole season?

Well,  the guys accepted their rainbow membership and  declared their love  for each other.  Of course, it was also mixed in with some of the hottest gay love scenes on American daytime TV.

Like any good soap opera worth it's salt, couples can only be happy for a minute.  Luke and Noah were no exception.

Pretty soon Noah had to marry Iraqi born Ameera to protect her from homeland security.  You know, typical gay guys helping their straight girlfriends out. Luke even moved in with them for a while. You know that was a disaster waiting to happen. It did . Imagine the fights just over  hair products in the morning.

There was hope.  A couple of days of ago through some miraculous fate of of ACLU magic, they found a way to solve Ameera's international problem.  Apparently, ACLU has more power than any military counter intelligence unit on the planet. So  exits Ameera.

Was there now hope for Luke and Noah?   The clip shows trouble in queer coupledom.

Is this the end of Luke and Noah?  Will we see Hot Men make out again on daytime TV?  Will there be a big Gay TV Wedding in Callifornia that will be broadcast all over the world with big product endorsements?  Will they find out they really are brothers? - Ewww.    Will one of them be run over by a big truck only to be found alive 20 years from now?

Stay tuned...

Gary and I recently attended the house warming party of our friends, Robert and Alfredo, in San Francisco.  I immediately was drawn to their front room where their big plasma HDTV TV sat.  I am hoping to get one this summer.

Robert put on the musical, Hairspray, that he recorded from one of his premium cable channels.  That movie has a lot of colors so it showed off the TV's capabilities very well. 

I saw the movie in the theatre when it came out.  I enjoyed it. John Travolta and Christopher Walken were great!  I loved when they did that duet together as Edna and Wilbur Turnblad.  Although, Robert was more critical of Travolta's performance.  Okay, let me get back to point.

The HDTV experience mesmerized me.  It was LOVE at first resolution line.  First, the vivid, clarity against the pronounced black hues brought the colors out so well.  It was like the screen was dipped in a bowl full of Disney and Pixar. It was beautiful.

The colors were dancing in my eyes.  I was lost to this new dream world. The Idiot Box just got charming.

My world of pure sensation was interrupted but some chatter.  That kind of chatter that had that tinge of high pitch nasal sound that came with critical disdain. The kind my aunties would get when they talked about the newly new divorced neighbor lady who lived next door to my grandmother's house, every time she brought a new man home.

The chatter was coming out from the mouth of Alfredo and out of the mouth of his friend, Antonio. They were running down the movie and pointing out a lot of negative aspects.  Not exactly.  They were running down the hairstyles, make up and clothes in the movie.   

Before I go on,  Alfredo just completed his first semester in cosmetology school so of course he is now a fashion and style expert.   Apparently,  HDTV just brought all of his skill sets to the surface.  He noticed every bad wig line, every make up imperfection.  Every wrinkle line. I mean EVERY wrinkle line.  

From what he and Antonio were saying, you would think we were watching a horror movie!  Alfredo made Michelle Pfeiffer sound like a skinny, wrinkled ghoul. I looked at her through lenses of HDTV.  I did see wrinkles.  OMG!  There were a lot! 

I started seeing pimples and other things on the other actors' faces. The clarity of HDTV made everything look a lot more fake.  Everyone aged a decade or two.

As I was about to fall into despair thinking that HDTV will take away the fantasy out of TV.  That it will take away all the impossible perfected images we see portrayed in TV that I  love;  and that it make these gods and goddesses of the small screen  seem... well....ordinary...like me..  Yes, just as the tube was about to burn out in my mind,   Alfredo said , with the finesse of Joan Rivers, "They are coming up with special make up for HDTV."  

Hope rose in my heart.  I leaned over to Gary. I am getting one of those HDTV's before the end of the summer.  Only bigger.

How about you?

And Lead Me to Salvation

Take My Love

For Love is Everlasting

And Remember

The Truth that once was Spoken

To Love another Person

is to see the Face of God

-Les Miserables-