Shame on Rhode Island’s Governor

http://www.projo.com/news/2009/pdf/veto_s0195_funeral_directors.pdf

 

Please read this veto signed by the governor of Rhode Island, Donald Carcieri.  The bill proposed seeks to provide domestic partners funerary-arrangement decision-making power.  Currently, as you can see from the amended bill, there is no such provision, which means that should a person in a domestic partnership die, his or her partner has no say, the deceased’s family does.  This bill simply sought to make domestic partnerships somewhat more on par with marriages, a common talking point of anti-gay rights advocates (“They’re equal!”).

 

But it was vetoed.  The Governor vetoed it.  And take a look at his reasoning.

“A one (1) year time period for any relationship is not sufficient length of duration to establish a serious, lasting bond between two (2) individuals to supplant the surviving individual over traditional family members….”

 

WHAT?!?!  This is outrageous!  If this is the case, why are there not laws preventing people from getting married less than a year after meeting?  Why are all of the rights and privileges of married couples afforded upon the simple statement of “I do”?  If a newlywed died while on the honeymoon, would you say to them, “Oh, sorry, your relationship wasn’t long enough to warrant funerary rights”?  Completely discriminatory and heterosexist.

 

It isn’t until his second paragraph that he makes a somewhat defensible statement.  But his primary concern is not legalism nor procedure.  It’s relational legitimacy.  This is reinforced by his third “reason” for his veto:

 

“Finally, this bill represents a disturbing trend over the past few years of the incremental erosion of the principles surround traditional marriage…”

 

Marriage as “traditionally” defined is the legitimate relationship.  Domestic partnerships, which is used euphemistically for same-gender relationships, are illegitimate.  They have no relational legitimacy, they are not recognized by Rhode Island, and they are merely threats to the definition of state-sanctioned intimate, personal relations.  The proposed (and vetoed) bill is not the disturbing trend.  The bill is the lens through which we can better see the disturbing trend: discrimination against non-heterosexuals.  Or, to quote the apostle Paul:

 

“Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin” (Romans 3:20)

 

Governor Carcieri is not shown to be righteous by observing the law here; rather through the laws in place, we have become conscious of the interpersonal and structural sin of heterosexism.

 

 

 

 

“Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law.  The commandments, ‘Do not commit adultery,’ ‘Do not murder,’ ‘Do not steal,’ ‘Do not covet,’ and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’  Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.” (Romans 13: 8-10)

Reveal to Repeal: Holding Mormons Accountable

This blog was inspired by the following article:

Mormonism’s Black Issues | Religion & Theology | ReligionDispatches

The issue at stake is that up until 1978, black people (of African descent, as every Mormon publication is quick to point out; before 1978 non-African blacks could, theologically, join the priesthood) could not be a part of the Priesthood of the LDS Church.  The reason this issue sticks with me is because despite Mormons only making up 2% of California, they played a huge role in the Prop 8 battle.  This means that the Mormons staking so much on this issue puts them, their doctrines, their history, and their Church squarely in the realm of scrutiny.  Before Prop 8 went to vote, I tried to talk with a number of my Mormon friends, but none of them would discuss the issue at length with me.  Invariably, the conversation would halt when I brought up the historical parallel of the LDS Church’s historical stance on blacks or polygamy.  I would not get any messages back.  The conversations would not progress any further.

Finally, 2 days ago a friend of mine actually sent back a message after I beseeched her to connect me with someone in the LDS Church who could engage me in conversation.  And she honestly and sincerely admitted that she had no idea why the Church had the stance it did (regarding blacks).  God issued a command and the Church had to follow it.  Simple as that.  The paradigm she is working from, indeed the paradigm many if not most Mormons appear to work from (judging from the research I did in putting this blog together), is greatly at odds with my own.  It makes it difficult to converse at times because talking past one another can easily happen.

I write this with the intention of clarifying things for both Mormons and us non-Mormons.  As I am a strong advocate for gay rights (both within and without Christianity), including the right to marry, I must stand at odds with my Mormon brothers and sisters.  I must stand against them, but that does not mean I cannot sit at table with them.  It does not mean we cannot walk together in conversation and mutually understand one another better.  It is in that vein that I write.  Hard questions will be asked; harsh criticisms leveled, but I sincerely hope someone will take up the call to clarify misunderstandings I have, augment the histories I excerpt, and shore up my weak spots.
The overarching issue at stake here is this: I view the Church changing its stance on issues as the people who make up the Church coming to realize they had something wrong whereas the Mormon understanding is that God reveals truth “line by line, precept by precept.”  Therefore, with the catalyzing article above as a paradigmatic example, I would view the LDS Church’s stance on Priesthood-privilege changing as evidence of human fallibility coming to recognize its error, not divine decree.  But the Church instead recognizes it as a new revelation from God.  The Church is perfect.  There was no error of judgment.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was not being institutionally racist, but instead individual Mormons grasped for justification of something beyond their understanding and therefore, consequentially, the Church as a whole became labelled racist.  This is the stance of the Church (Reveal to Repeal, as I call it), but it is a very roseate shade.

First, let’s look at some current discussions on the issue of race in Mormonism from within Mormonism.  Below are excerpts from a talk given by Marvin Perkins, Director of African American Relations for the Southern California Public Affairs Council of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Marvin Perkins is a black Mormon talking on the issue of blacks and Mormonism.  To be quite honest, it is a very troubling read.  At one point (well, to be fair, at many points), Perkins quotes Scripture  from the Book of Mormon to set the stage for his argument.  When Perkins finally speaks directly to the Curse of Ham/Cain, he quotes the following two Scriptures (among others):

2 Nephi 5:21

21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. (not my emphasis)

3 Nephi 2:15-16.

15 And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites; 16 And their young men and their daughters became exceedingly fair, and they were numbered among the Nephites, and were called Nephites. And thus ended the thirteenth year. (not my emphasis)

As is not difficult to see, it seems that the Mormon Scriptures make it pretty clear why blacks (African or otherwise) would have a hard time with the LDS Church.  Perkins attempts a very, very convoluted explanation of why we cannot read this as literally speaking to skin color.  It involves looking at many footnotes of what words should be read in what context with what other Scripture.  To be honest, although I feel I gave all the footnotes and other Scripture a fair reading, Perkins is reaching.  The word for “skin” is apparently supposed to be understood as referring to “scales” of the eyes (cf. Acts 9:18 or 2 Nephi 30: 6).  However, even if one were to accept Perkins’ convoluted exegesis, he actually says the following in reference to the 3 Nephi 2: 15-16 passage:

“There are Blacks here today who are members of the Church. Why have we not turned White? But there are Blacks who have joined the Church, married White spouse, and their children became lighter than their Black parents. Then those kids grew up to marry those that believe as they do, which most are White, so they married White, and their kids became even lighter, and so on. Makes you think a bit, doesn’t it?”

When I read this, I could not help but yell out in shock.  Perkins attempts to explain that the Scriptures do not refer to skin color.  He (and many other articles) try to exegetically explain why literal black skin is not what is being talked about, but then he says this.  He says that black skin is being eliminated (dare I say, overcome) because of blacks marrying into the overwhelmingly white religion that is Mormonism.  And that this, in light of 3 Nephi 2: 15-16, is a good thing.  This is, in fact, a practical way to see the curse of Ham/Cain being lifted.

This is, in fact, racist.  Disturbingly so.  It is even more heartbreaking that it may be branded as legitimately not-racist because a black Mormon said it.  Even more so because I’m a white Protestant criticizing it.  Forgive me, but eugenics, innocuous or blatant, is one of the oldest and most despicable practices in part because of how ethnocentric it has been throughout history.  The whole idea is to breed a better humanity.  A humanity without Them or the Other denigrating it.

It must be said, however, that the LDS Church did indeed allow black men (of African descent!) to join the priesthood in 1978.  Now, you’ll find publications touting excerpts from 19th century church documents that talk about how the groundwork had clearly been laid for eventual inclusion of (African) blacks:

“While leaders had taught that blacks ‘were not yet to receive the priesthood’ (Letter of the First Presidency, as published in the Improvement Era, February 1970), it was known that one day the full blessings of the Gospel related to the Priesthood would be available to them. The temporary exclusion ended unexpectedly – and happily – in 1978, sooner than many had imagined.” (not my emphasis)

However, different paradigms withstanding, I look at these historical parallels and just wonder:

“The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. At certain times and for His specific purposes, God, through His prophets, has directed the practice of plural marriage (sometimes called polygamy), which means one man having more than one living wife at the same time. In obedience to direction from God, Latter-day Saints followed this practice for about 50 years during the 1800s but officially ceased the practice of such marriages after the Manifesto was issued by President Woodruff in 1890. Since that time, plural marriage has not been approved by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and any member adopting this practice is subject to losing his or her membership in the Church.

In 1889 in the face of increasing hardships and the threat of government confiscation of Church property, including temples, Wilford Woodruff, President of the Church at the time, prayed for guidance. He was inspired to issue a document that officially ended the sanction of plural marriage by the Church. The document, called the Manifesto, was accepted by Church members in a general conference held in October 1890 and is published in the Doctrine and Covenants as Official Declaration 1 (see also “Excerpts from Three Addresses by President Wilford Woodruff Regarding the Manifesto” following Official Declaration 1).”

Note that the official LDS website admits that “in the face of increasing hardships and the threat of government confiscation of Church property, including temples” the President “was inspired to… officially end the sanction of plural marriage.”  Further, note that marriage between a man and a woman is “essential to [God’s] eternal plan.”  There is no “for now” or “as yet” or any qualifier.

Relatedly:

“Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court, by a 9-0 vote, declared Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute, the “Racial Integrity Act of 1924″, unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.”

This Supreme Court decision took place, as you may note, immediately on the heels of the Civil Rights Act.  After these nation-changing events, you have this occur:

“In June 1978, President Spencer W. Kimball received a revelation extending priesthood ordination to all worthy males of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Official Declaration 2). Before that time only worthy male members who were not of black African descent were ordained to the priesthood.”

Yet again, the LDS Church changes its policies right after major shifts occur in the political landscape because of a new revelation.  To my more cynical eye, I see the political winds changing with regard to race-relations and therefore so does God.  To my Mormon brothers and sisters, however, it will be more along the lines of “Before 1978, with the way the world was, humanity was not mature enough to handle black leaders.  Therefore, God, in His good and loving wisdom, delayed this until we were ready.”  However, I do not see and have not heard any talk of women being considered equal or GLBT persons.  Even if it is eventually.

Instead we have these official stances of the LDS Church with regard to gays and lesbians:

“People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are” (Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign, Nov. 1998, 71).

“We want to help these people, to strengthen them, to assist them with their problems and to help them with their difficulties. But we cannot stand idle if they indulge in immoral activity, if they try to uphold and defend and live in a so-called same-sex marriage situation. To permit such would be to make light of the very serious and sacred foundation of God-sanctioned marriage and its very purpose, the rearing of families” (Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign, Nov. 1998, 71).

Or you have this official policy regarding women:

“The priesthood—the authority of God to perform ordinances and act in His name—is conferred only on worthy male members of the Church. Men who hold the priesthood have no advantage over women in qualifying for salvation or eternal life through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. “

In both cases, there is a distinct lack of any forward looking.  There is no “yet” involved.  There is no built-in concept that these things might change.  For a Church that believes in continued revelation, there is a lot of hard and fast rules.  And there is also a lot of political action to prevent gay marriage despite the fact it was legal in CA when Prop 8 was voted on.  Because of these historical trends, I cannot help but look at all of this “yet” talk with regard to African blacks being allowed into the priesthood as retrojection.  Looking back, of course we can see all of these bread crumbs leading to eventual inclusion.  But, as current political issues show, those bread crumbs either do not exist or are so miniscule that there is no trace of them in current discourse.  In 20 years, when gay marriage is legal, will there be another revelation?  Will there be innumerable publications where Mormon leaders clearly left the door ajar for future inclusion of gays and lesbians?  It certainly doesn’t look like it now.  There is, for some reason, a certitude about this particular never-changing rule of God which makes absolutely no sense to me when understood in light of Mormonism’s history of changing policies.

My problem is this: the LDS Church does not admit that is has been wrong.  Flat-out, no-qualifying wrong.  It was not wrong on polygamy.  It was not wrong on race.  It is not wrong on gay marriage.  These were commandments from God, both in their institution and their repeal.  They had to be followed.  There is a curious dance between claiming to merely follow God’s commandments, but yet also speaking of human foibles.  I agree wholeheartedly that it would be difficult to see white supremacy as wrong when everything around you says its ok.  What’s normative in a culture is difficult to work against or even to recognize as wrong.  But, when time passes and history shows us that something is wrong.  Horribly wrong.  Inhumanely wrong.  It is even more inhuman to say that you were right to uphold the status quo.  That not knowing any better, when God’s decrees are involved, exonerates you of sin.  As if sincere ignorance absolves the Church’s guilt regarding race then and regarding sexuality now.

And so it is with gay rights.  Mormons played a key role in the Prop 8 battle.  I have no qualms with them exercising their right to vote.  I have no problems with them standing up for their individual beliefs.  I do have qualms with the beliefs themselves.  I do have problems with the institutionalization and apotheosis of racism, sexism, and homophobia.  What I do have a problem with is when my God and my Savior are used as tools of oppression up until such a time that culture changes enough that the Mormon Church can then reveal God differently.  History seems to show us that is what has happened time and time again.  This is not a uniquely Mormon trait.  Conservative strands of every major religion are bastions of traditional gender roles and sexuality norms.  This does not excuse any of them.  This demands explanation.

Can the LDS Church step outside itself to see its perpetuation of racism (even to the point of fostering internalized racism?), upholding of sexism, and revoking of Others’ rights as contrary to the Gospel?

We are still experiencing a world where interracial couples are being denied their right to marry, we are still struggling in a nation with glass ceilings for women outside and inside the Church, and we are in the midst of a inter- and intrastate war over gay rights.  The LDS Church has changed its stance on one of those issues.

Can the LDS Church change on others?

Can the LDS Church admit it was and is wrong?

(Author’s Note: There is an entire world of websites and literature that analyzes Book of Mormon Scriptural changes, Mormon-funded archaeology, and personal testimonies that paint the LDS Church in a far more sinister light.  I am not writing to demonize the LDS Church or its Scripture .  I am writing because the LDS Church stripped my friends and family of their rights in California.  I am writing because the LDS Church barred my brothers and sisters from entering the priesthood.  I am writing because the LDS Church has a lot to answer for, but won’t even seriously entertain the questions.  I am writing to the Mormons out there who do not have answers for these criticisms because we are peers and we have a mutual duty to keep one another honest.  Until Mormons can give a decent account of their erroneous past, they must be held all the more accountable in every manifestation of error in the present.)

I Have a (Day)Dream

It was disturbingly too easy to simply alter the appropriate pronouns, nouns, and adjectives in Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous speech to have it apply to the current situation regarding the GLBT community. I don’t think it histrionic nor overly simplistic to draw parallels between the Civil Rights Movement of the 60′s and the current Gay Rights Movement. While there are significant differences, one cannot deny that the very hopes and principles King espoused are indelible. If those foundational words were applicable for one group undergoing a vicious fight for rights, it is only natural that another movement fighting for rights in America should take up his words. Therefore, I sincerely hope this is not taken as an illegitimate use of famous words spoken, but instead as a contextualizing of important and inalienable ideals for a new time and place.

I am happy to rejoin anew with you today in what went down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.

Seven score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.

But now, over one hundred years later, another group of brothers and sisters still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the homosexual is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, gays and lesbians live on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of relational prosperity. One hundred years later, the bisexual and transgendered are still languishing in the corners of American society and find themselves an exile in their own land. So I have come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.

In a sense we have come to our nation’s capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all people, yes, gay as well as straight, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her GLBT citizens are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given homosexual people a bad check, a check which has come back marked “insufficient funds.” But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check — a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of social justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quick sands of social injustice to the solid rock of fellowship. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God’s children.

It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of GLBT’s legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Two thousand and eight is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the homosexual needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the GLBT community is granted their citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.

But there is something that I must say to people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.

We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the GLBT community must not lead us to a distrust of all heterosexual people, for many of our straight brothers and sisters, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. They have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone.

As we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, “When will you be satisfied?” We can never be satisfied as long as a gay person is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied, as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as a lesbian’s basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating “For One Man and One Woman Only”. We cannot be satisfied as long as a bisexual in Mississippi cannot vote and a transgendered person in New York believes she has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.

I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow-minded cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of familial brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.

Go back to Mississippi, go back to Arkansas, go back to Southern California, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair.

I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a daydream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.”

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the children of gay fathers and the children of straight politicians will be able to sit down together at the table of fellowship.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the orientation of their sexuality but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day, down in Arkansas, with its vicious homophobes, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Arkansas, gay boys and lesbian girls will be able to join hands with straight boys and heterosexual girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.

This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back into the World with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of fellowship. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

This will be the day when all of God’s children will be able to sing with a new meaning, “My country, ’tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim’s pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring.”

And if America is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!

Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California!

But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia!

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!

Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children, gay men and straight men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, “Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”