In Case You Were Wondering

One of the many ways in which I wish I was like Mary Poppins is her take on explaining herself: "Let me make one thing perfectly clear: I never explain anything."

But, I frequently spend a great deal of time, energy and effort explaining myself, because it's important to me that people understand me. If they understand me, we'll live a harmonious existence, and everyone will be happier, right?

Yes, I actually do hang on to that hope. No comments about futility, please.

Anyway...

Apparently, there are people wondering if I've changed my mind about certain things, because, the theory goes, they didn't "really" affect me before.

You see, I belong - by choice, I feel impressed to add - to a religion that teaches that marriage is intended to be between a man and a woman, and my daughter married a woman.

For instance, someone recently said to me, "Have you come to terms with your daughter yet?" I have no idea what that inquiry means.

Do they mean, am I aware that my daughter does not follow the religion in which we raised her? Of course. When her age was still in single digits, she started arguing with us about church teachings because "nobody else does things that way." Once, when she insisted that "nobody else has household rules like that" (the subject was chores, something she detested) and I immediately rattled off the names of half a dozen families, she wailed, "Why are you talking about people at church?" I responded, "Why aren't you? When you use words like 'nobody' or 'everybody,' you'd better not know of any exceptions. Those words mean 'not even one person, worldwide.'" As a teen, she started saying things like, "Mormons do it all wrong." She stopped attending church at 18, and has never been quiet about her disagreements with doctrine or practices.

Do they mean, have I processed the fact that my daughter's in a relationship with a woman? Years ago. The first time I met my now daughter-in-law, she and my daughter were wearing matching rings. Even in the early years of the relationship, which dates back to when my now-28 year old was in college, my daughter's photos on my computer (her open Shutterfly account) contained an image of them kissing. Even early in the relationship, there were Internet searches of wedding venues. We didn't have to be Sherlock Holmes.

Do they mean, how do I treat my daughter's wife? The same way I always have, the same way I treat any person. From the time we met, we included her in family outings and family meals. Before we even met her, we bought travel souvenirs for her when we were on vacation. At Christmas, when we bought glasses with his favorite NFL team logo for my son-in-law, we bought her glasses with her favorite NFL team logo. We've included her name and photo in our Christmas card.

Do they mean, am I prepared for public scrutiny or questions? Always. How will people know anything if they don't ask? Plus, I'm generally a TMI person, not a privacy obsessed one. Virtually everything on my social media, for instance, is set on "public," so everyone knows what I'm saying about anyone and anything. I have never, ever asked my daughter or her wife to hide, to lie, to make themselves scarce, to not bring up their relationship around certain people. If people are obnoxious, well, that's a good sign that I need to keep those people, not my daughter, at arm's length.

Do they mean, am I aware that my daughter has unfavorable things to say about my religion? See above; yes, since her childhood.

Do they mean, am I prepared for this to be my reality? Of course. Anyone who believes that other people and their actions are, or should be, under the control of anyone but themselves is delusional or power hungry.

Do they mean, have I changed my mind and left, or doubted, my religion? That mindset - and yes, I have come across it - has always been so annoying. Do people usually change their minds, especially their deeply held beliefs, because someone else doesn't agree? Should they? I'm not easily swayed. Besides, it's outright offensive when someone says to me, "How can you belong to your religion, knowing that its beliefs cause your daughter pain?" but they are aghast and horrified if the question is reversed - "How can my daughter hold her beliefs, knowing that they cause her parents pain?" Take any answer you would give to one of us about free will and determining our own destiny, and apply it to the opposite question, as well, because the answers are the same.

Do they mean, do I agree with my religion? Yes, I do. Any official doctrine of my church is something that I embrace. Sometimes that has come quickly and easily (sometimes, before I even attended my church), and sometimes it's taken years of study and prayer. It's also offensive to me when someone sees me treat someone, anyone, outside of my religion with love and friendship, and then says, "So, you obviously don't believe (insert doctrine here) that the Mormons teach." (Yes, this has actually happened to me.) They are almost universally puzzled when I say, "Yes, I do. That's why my treatment of people doesn't depend on me agreeing with them. That's what my church teaches, that we are all children of God." I have no idea why people equate "children of God, who should be loved and cared for" with "agrees with and acts like me." I assure you, that is not what LDS members are taught.

As a subset of that, do they mean, do I think that this is the life that my daughter was destined to live? No, I do not. I do not believe in the "soul mates" concept that there is only one perfect partner for you. Anyone who's had a spouse die, or gone through a breakup thinking, "I will never love anyone that way again" knows that you will meet someone that you can love again (and that love is every bit as "real" as the love that you previously had). I think it is also possible to be deeply, truly in love, and have the relationship be one that should not be pursued. We know that, even if we don't enjoy the actions, or they don't come easily, we still need to practice good nutrition, exercise, hold a job (at home or somewhere else), be polite, be helpful, treat everyone fairly, clean our homes, do our laundry, refrain from violence, and a host of other behaviors. So, it makes no sense to me to say, "Unless you act on your sexual feelings, you're not being true to yourself, and you're doomed to failure." I don't think that "normal" necessarily equates to "desirable." I think that the fact that it biologically takes a man and a woman to perpetuate the species indicates that the ideal environment for raising them will contain a father and a mother.

A friend works for the local crisis hotline, and once went to her social media to ask, "What should I say to callers like this?" A caller said he was afraid to tell his parents that he was gay, because they thought homosexuality was wrong. My response was: I would say, "You think your parents are wrong. You think their views are hateful, divisive, inaccurate and hurtful. Yet, YOU LOVE THEM, and you WANT THEM IN YOUR LIFE, ALWAYS. That's undoubtedly EXACTLY how they feel about YOU."

So, I'm sitting there, having been asked if I've "come to terms," and having no earthly idea what that actually means. So I went with the only fact that matters, and said, "I love my daughter."

"I know that's what you say, but what about the Sharon in private?" Um - what? Did you just actually imply to my face that I do not love my daughter, AND that I'm two faced?

"She's the same person," I said. Remember the old computer term, WYSIWYG, which meant What You See Is What You Get? That's me. I do not have the energy to be different things to different people, and to try to remember how I'm "supposed" to act around them. My kids (and this daughter in particular) used to hate it when they'd tell some story that they were sure would embarrass me (on the theory that I'd bribe them to get them to shut up), only to discover that people already knew the story. Or, if they didn't, I was likely to say, "That's not the worst part!" and share more. I don't believe in tying myself in knots trying to make sure that others don't hear unflattering tales.

"I said Sharon."

"I know. And I'm telling you, the public and private Sharon look the same."

"Oh, I know you say that. But I know you."

Obviously not too well! This is someone who spent almost two decades in a relationship that they would not acknowledge in public, and they know very personal and often embarrassing things about me, and I'm the one accused of hiding? Seriously? I've told scores of people things that were none of their business, just because I overshare.

"You keep things inside." Do I make every effort to be civil, even when I'm angry, to be courteous, even when I don't like people, and make every effort to refrain from gossip? Yes; that's not being deceitful, that's being mature.

So, here I am, typing, trying to explain myself again, with no idea if that's possible, or even a good idea.

Let's try this. Here's a photo from my daughter's wedding:

That's my husband, me, our 4 kids, and my new daughter-in-law.

Here's one of all of the wedding guests:

Almost all of those people are members of my family. (The number inches closer to 100% if you count Mickey, and many of us would.) Since going on a cruise is expensive, the couple knew that the numbers would be small, but for a small ceremony, that's a lot of people. Now think about the fact that some people are there because they think my daughter is doing the right thing, and some are there just because they love my daughter.

The couple had a beautiful day that made them happy, and they shared it with loved ones.

Here's one from my oldest daughter's wedding:

That building we're in front of is the Salt Lake Temple. The woman in the wheelchair is my mom. She is not LDS, and she did not think that it was important to be married in an LDS temple. She is there, far from her home and in no small amount of physical discomfort, knowing that she cannot set foot inside the building, and that she will not see the wedding ceremony. She is there, in a borrowed wheelchair, because she loves my daughter.

The couple had a beautiful day that made them happy, and they shared it with loved ones.

This was taken at my grandniece's naming ceremony, at the synagogue my niece attends.

Only 3 people in this photo are Jewish, the parents and the new infant. The rest of them traveled a great distance, and are at the synagogue not to worship, but because they love my niece. (And, just as an aside, my niece is also in a same sex relationship.)

The couple had a beautiful day that made them happy, and they shared it with loved ones.

In sharing this I by no means am saying, "We are so amazing!" In fact, quite the contrary. My family and I are extremely ordinary. There are no rich, famous, or powerful people. We are flawed. We can be petty, bad tempered, forgetful, lazy, annoying, hurtful. We have money issue and health issues. We squabble and bicker. There are no Superhumans here.

Other people are doing the family thing better than I am. You're a good parent and your house is clean? Hats off to you. You work full time and coach your kid's team? I get exhausted just thinking about it.

We are so, so ordinary. Ordinary is good enough.

Any time someone wants to pat my daughter on the back for being willing to love such clueless parents, or to pat us on the back for loving such a difficult child, they need to stop. The idea that the main purpose of human interaction is achieving agreement is prejudicial and oppressive. I am amazed that so many people subscribe to it. It amazes and puzzles me any time someone feels that in order to truly love someone, or in order to even get along with civility, you have to agree, at least on the big stuff - religion, politics, etc.

Things that others said to my daughter undoubtedly contributed to the ridiculously long time it took for her to have The Conversation with us. Every time the subject of same sex relationships came up, we assured her that the horror stories you hear about people behaving badly in the face of such differences are a small fraction of the population. Most people handle them quite well, but those aren't the stories you hear repeated over and over again. Nobody calls up their friends and says, "Did you hear about Sally's parents? They behaved perfectly reasonably." Nobody re-shares "... and life went on as usual" stories on their social media. But many people perpetuate the idea that people will only treat you well if they agree with you. The positive stories that do get reblogged are the ones that say, "... and because we all agreed that Jimmy was right, everything was fine."

People say things like, "Religious parents are going to be the ones who behave badly," and, "Mormon parents are going to be a problem." Sometimes they say things like, "They'll come around eventually," indicating again the idea that everyone will need to agree for things to be fine, and that eventually, of course, everyone will agree. When I've asked people why this is, I get answers like, "Well, you hear all these stories..." or, "I had Mormon neighbors once, and they..." When someone says something like, "I had a Mormon uncle, and he...," I want to point out that I don't consider, for instance, my devout Catholic niece to be the final word in Catholic doctrine, or the poster child for her religion, or indicative of how all Catholics will (or should) behave. When I say things like, "I know a lot of Mormons who behave differently than that," I'm told that it's irrelevant, but those same people will insist that the people that they know or have heard about are hard evidence. Or, someone wants to get into a game of numbers - "I have more examples than you do!" (This is often despite the fact that they have never met as many LDS members as someone who regularly attends LDS meetings has.)

We never cautioned our younger children against spending time with, or listening to, their sister, either. We didn't view her as contagious in any way.

Someone once told me that the mere fact of my church membership indicated bigotry. Aside from the fact that that belief is the dictionary definition of prejudice, I was letting my children sit on the lap of my gay best friend with AIDS before my accuser was even born. I was still hugging him when the disease was advanced, and that was in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when people still said things like, "We don't know if the virus can spread through casual contact." Do not try to talk to me about bigotry if you have no idea what my life looks like, or if you think that a single piece of information is all that you need to know! (I get almost as upset at people who say, "Well, you can't blame her for thinking that. Most Mormons..." Again, that's prejudice, and again, you don't know most Mormons, even in your own community, much less worldwide.)

People told my son stuff like this, too, when he decided to leave our church, and not serve a mission. "Oh, your parents are going to just freak out!" It's almost understandable coming from people who've never met us, but even then it's annoying. Plus, we aren't the freak out type. Neither my parents-in-law nor my parents freaked out when we joined the church, either; the odds that we'd lose our minds over a child leaving were very small. (Plus, we'd already had one child leave the church; surely that's a pretty good indicator of how we'd act.)

"It's different when it's your own child," people said, dismissing the way we'd treated anyone else, gay or otherwise. You know how it's different? The parent/child relationship is permanent. Marriages are dissolved, friendships fade, but children are always yours. My child could never speak to me again, and I'd still be her mother. I could die tomorrow, my husband could re-marry, and I'd still be her mother. The parent/child relationship is the only biological relationship that you choose. You can't choose any of your other biological relatives, but any woman who has given birth has chosen, daily, for months on end, to bring a child into the world. That's how it's different.

(As an aside, I can speak to the mindset of giving birth, because it's what I did, but adoptive parents spend more time preparing, and they have to go find their children. They are equally determined; perhaps more so.)

So, for better or worse, I'm putting us out there, pointing at my family and saying, "People can disagree on fundamental things, and still love and support each other." "Support" does not mean "agree with."

In case you were wondering.

Now, when people say, "Well, I know this one Mormon family..." you can say, "I do, too." Plus, if we aren't impressive enough, I can point you in the direction of some really impressive people.

Come on, Arizona!

In early 18th century America, you could tell how someone was inclined politically by looking at the words they chose to describe the rumblings of rebellion against Britain here in her 13 North American colonies. Ask someone how they felt on the question of independence, and you favored splitting from Britain. Ask how someone felt about treason, and you favored staying a British citizen. Keep in mind, speaking out against the crown and plotting to overthrow the established government was treason. But, history books are written by the winners, and so we generally laud the revolutionaries as forward thinking freedom fighters.

Much can be accomplished just by simple choice of words. "The Devil's Dictionary" offers this definition for a standard household item: "An implement used chiefly to place dead animals in the mouth." EEEWWW, you say, until you read that the item in question is a fork. I've had restaurant meals with relatives who asked if a dish was vegetarian by saying, "Are there any dead animals in there?" After all, that's what meat is. (Full disclosure: I eat meat, and I do not mind hearing it described as dead animals.)

We often choose our words so that anyone holding an opposing view will sound narrow minded, unreasonable, violent, or any other negative connotation, just like choosing "independence" over "treason." Right now, as I write this in February 2014, the Arizona state legislature has passed a bill that is being described as a "religious freedom" issue. Who can be against religious freedom? Even my non religious, atheist or agnostic loved ones feel strongly about allowing religious freedom. Most Americans do. We have grown up seeing it as important. How could someone be against Arizona SB 1062 and therefore against religious freedom?

Well, here's the problem, from my point of view. The bill is not about religious freedom. It is not about free exercise of religion or conscience. It is specifically aimed at making it legal to exclude people with whom you do not agree, and prevent them from doing business with you.

So, why is that so bad? For instance, I own a photography business. I would not want to photograph a KKK rally. I would flatly turn down any offers to shoot porn (despite the fact that there are buckets of money to be made in porn, and I can think of lots of good, noble and also fun things that I could do with buckets of money). My husband once turned down a request to shoot portraits of a funeral, including portrait-type shots of the deceased, because he was uncomfortable doing so. That should be our right. No one should howl discrimination or file a lawsuit if we turn down their proposed job.

The thing is, it's already legal to turn down work. It happens all the time. Sometimes I'm already booked for that date, or I'll be out of town, my price is beyond their budget or any number of other reasons. Sometimes people turn me down, instead. I'm a writer, but I certainly don't get a "yes" every time I ask if a publication will publish my work. If I needed an attorney, the attorney would get to decide if they wanted to represent me, not the other way around.

You know those signs that hang in virtually every business that say, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"? Those exist for a reason. Maybe you walked into a restaurant with dreadful body odor. Other patrons complain, or just get up and leave. The restaurant owner is within his rights to ask you to leave. He shouldn't even have to give a reason. If he wants you to leave, it's his restaurant, so he has a legal right to kick you out. He does not need a special law that says, "If persons with offensive body odor ("offensive" being defined as noticeable and unpleasant to a reasonable person, or to a majority of persons) come within x number of feet of persons preparing, serving or eating food or beverages of any kind, the business owner may ask said person(s) to vacate the premesis." It is totally unnecessary for the law to be that specific, or for laws addressing each instance in which it would be OK not to serve someone. Bartender thinks you've had too much to drink? He can refuse to serve you. You're not dressed appropriately (either violating the "no shoes, no shirt" clause, or not wearing dress clothing at a high end restaurant)? They can refuse to let you in the door. It's already legal to make those decisions.

Can you imagine the legislative gridlock that would result from trying to spell out every single instance in which it's OK to turn down business? Even assuming that there were no other pressing needs to be addressed (HA HA HA!), it would be exhaustively time consuming, nitpicky and counterproductive. Plus, there would always be some loophole - "Ah ha! The statute says I can't come in wearing snowy galoshes, but it says nothing about muddy ones!" It's just beyond ridiculous.

Business owners reserve the right to refuse you business. Period. It doesn't need spelled out any further.

That's issue 1. Issue 2 is related, but on a different subject.

Remember, this law says that it's about the exercise of religious freedom. Again, such a statute should be unnecessary, because religious freedom is already guaranteed by law. No one can be forced to worship, or to worship in a particular way. No one can be kept from worshipping as they please.

Members of the clergy cannot be told to whom they must provide services, or how. If you go to a particular church or clergy member and ask, for instance, to be baptized, they will decide that based on their church's requirements. The government cannot tell them what those requirements are or should be. The answer may be yes, or no, or "after you fill these requirements," but no one outside the church should have any say in that at all. Opinions, sure, but influence, no.

This, folks, is the essence of religious freedom. With these two provisions - worship, or don't, as you please, and keep non-church interference out of churches - you're set.

I'm assuming that Arizona lawmakers are well intentioned. I assume that about anybody, until they prove me wrong. I have to assume that they're trying to make sure that nobody has to violate their conscience during the course of the work day. Here's the problem: they have explicitly stated that it's OK to refuse someone service because you do not agree with their lifestyle and/or religion. The impetus behind the law was to make it legal to turn down a potential customer if they are gay, and your religion teaches that homosexuality is wrong.

What?

In well over two decades of taking photos professionally, I have never asked a client about their sex life, ever. My religion teaches that premarital and extramarital sexual relations are wrong, but I have never, ever asked a couple hiring me for a wedding if they're having sex. I have never asked someone who wants a portrait whether or not they are an adulterer. EVER. Do you know why? Because it's none of my business.

We, as a society, have lost all sense that there are things that are none of our business.

If I were a member of the clergy, and a couple asked me to marry them, I'd have a right to ask about things that do not affect the wedding vendors. I might well ask about their sex lives. But I'm the photographer. I don't need to know! Neither does the caterer, the florist, the band or DJ, the dress shop, the servers, the limo driver or anyone else they've hired. Their sex life is between them, God, and occasionally, their clergy. If I am not any of those people, I don't need to know. Don't ask me to photograph your sex life, and we'll get along fine.

"But how can you work with people whose lifestyle you find offensive?" people ask. "Isn't that violating your moral code?" Setting myself up as judge violates my moral code.

Not only do I not believe in premarital or extramarital sex, I believe that alcohol and tobacco use is wrong. I believe that gambling is wrong. I believe that lying is wrong. I believe that cheating on your taxes is wrong. As a religious person, I do not think that civil authority carries the same weight as religious authority; therefore, I do not view civil marriage in the same light as I view a religious ceremony. I also believe that proper religious authority is available only in my church.

Yet, I have photographed civil weddings, weddings for people of other faiths, weddings for couples who live together (and even who have children together), weddings for homosexuals. Although I'm not privy to details, I'll bet I've taken photos for adulterers. At many, many events I work, there is alcohol served and tobacco consumed. I'll bet that I've photographed gamblers, liars, cheats, and other less than sterling types.

I did my best work for all of them.

I cannot, simply cannot, imagine a mindset that says, "I should only deal with those who belong to my faith and are living it to a degree that I find acceptable." It is not my job to shun huge swaths of society.

A friend of mine owns a computer consulting firm. She's Buddhist. If someone wanted her to design a website for a butcher shop, or a terrorist organization, I would not be surprised if she turned them down. Yet I will venture to say that she has never turned down a client because they were Christian, or Jewish, or ate meat. I'm very sure that she doesn't even ask. She's undoubtedly done work for restaurants that serve meat. I'm pretty sure that if a parochial school or church congregation wanted her to design a website, or troubleshoot their machines, or any other work, she'd do it and do it well. That's what being a reasonable human being looks like.

We have family in Arizona. Right now, under Arizona's law, my daughter could have a restaurant refuse to serve her because she's Mormon and the owner (or hostess or server) thinks that the Mormon Church is a cult. Is that what we want in America?

Once upon a time in America, it was legal to kill someone, just because they were Mormon. Governor Boggs of Missouri decided, under pressure from angry citizens, that Mormons were a threat to the peace and security of the community. In 1838, Boggs issued Executive Order 44, which stated, "the Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State if necessary for the public peace—their outrages are beyond all description."

The law remained on the books until 1976, when it was formally pronounced unconstitutional. I remember hearing, as a young person, about a Missouri man who murdered his neighbor and plead not guilty, on the grounds that his neighbor was Mormon, and the law was still on the books.

"How did the citizens tolerate Hitler's laws?" we ask; this is how. He said that the laws were protection, for the good of society - and besides, they won't hurt YOU, Average Citizen. They'll hurt other people, people who deserve it.

It doesn't matter if it hurts you.

My niece lives in Arizona, and could be grilled about her sex life if she went to buy a sofa, or a car, or a sandwich. Do you want to be asked who you're sleeping with before you can take home merchandise? Do you really need to account to a sandwich shop employee? (Do you need to ask about their sex life? What if they're an adulterer or polygamist or into something icky with animals - how could they possibly assemble your sandwich?) How is it that the Arizona legislature thinks it's OK for businesses to even ask who, if anyone, my niece is intimate with?

When I go to visit my family, I don't want to be turned away from a museum because I'm Christian and the owner is Hindu.

A woman in a headscarf or a man in a turban could be legally denied virtually any service under Arizona's new law, if the business owner were Christian and felt affronted by those who are not.

Religious freedom does not mean refusing to deal with those who are different from ourselves. Calling this bill a "religious freedom" issue does not make it a good idea.

I do not want to talk to total strangers about my worship or my sex life before I can make a purchase. I do not want to ask them about theirs before they hire me. No one should have to answer those questions in order to conduct business. That's religious freedom.

Marriage Opinions

                Sometimes I feel like I'm repeating myself too frequently (and really, I'm not fond of repetition), but people keep asking the same questions. Generally, I write down an answer I've been asked to give over and over, in the hopes that having it "down on paper" will mean that I don't have to say it as often.

                Part of the problem is differing views on the act of communication itself. I have always believed, and continued to function on, the idea that asking for someone's opinion is a way to understand what they're thinking. The point, it has always seemed to me, is for people with differing ideas to say, "OK, now I know why you act the way that you do. It's because you believe X." Then everyone goes on their way having been heard and with their views recognized. The world is a better place when we understand each other.

                I am completely uncomfortable, and in fact, flabbergasted, at a very common occurrence in modern "communication," the idea that everyone will, or should, walk away from a conversation agreeing with one another. I cannot imagine how this is supposed to take place. Get a small number of people together – say, 4 to 6 – and ask them to come to a consensus about what to have for lunch. It is not a quick, easy, painless or bonding kind of process. Yet otherwise rational people continue to believe that if they simply tell you why they don't agree with you on any topic, that you will see the error of your ways and change your opinion. The larger or more important the issue, the more they are convinced that this will happen. When it doesn't occur, instead of realizing that they have faulty expectations, they will get more and more upset, accusing those who continue (the nerve of them!) to believe something contrary to their own opinions of being stubborn, ignorant or the current favorite, hateful.

                It is not, nor has it ever been, hateful to disagree with anyone. It IS hateful to say things like, "You shouldn't even be allowed to say that!" and I have ironically heard that sentiment come out of the mouths of people who are claiming that they represent open mindedness and tolerance.

                So let me be clear – I express my opinion in order to ensure that others understand me, not so that everyone will say, "My goodness, she's right!" Understanding and agreement are not the same thing.

                I recently read a list of reasons that the author gives on why no one should ever oppose gay marriage. One of the reasons was, "Marriage is a civil ceremony. Therefore, marriage is a civil right." Here is why some of us will never agree on this issue.

                Some people believe what my religion teaches, which is that marriage is a religious rite, like baptism. We believe it was instituted before the world was created, by a Supreme Being, and is unaffected by the rules or whims or desires of men. Just as we do not believe that someone can choose or alter the correct form, or the necessity of, baptism, we do not believe that legal, man made rules have any effect at all on marriage. If you believe that marriage was instituted by humans, and especially if you believe that marriage was instituted by men in order to subjugate and oppress women, we will never agree on this subject. We will never have the same definition of marriage. We can understand each other, and we should, but we will not agree.

                The fact that civil marriage exists at all is a concession, we believe. Civil marriage came about because people wanted, but did not qualify for, marriage in its original form. Or, they wanted the benefits of marriage, but did not want or agree with the religion that provided it. People came up with a compromise – folks who did not want or did not qualify for a religious marriage could have a civil service, a union recognized by governments but not necessarily by churches. It is the religious equivalent of a GED, saying, "You can have the same legal standing and rights as couples married in the church, but you didn't fulfill the same requirements that others did." We believe that one of the biggest differences is that marriages performed only civilly last only until one spouse dies, whereas marriages performed by proper religious authority last forever.

                Even in my church, not everyone is married by such religious authority. It is not seen as a guaranteed right, but as something very precious and therefore obtained with a degree of difficulty.

                We're not alone. Many churches will have new converts rebaptized or remarried, even if they had already done these things years ago, because their church authorities do not recognize ceremonies performed outside of their church. Even if you are legally married for decades, in order for their church to consider your union (or your divorce) valid, you must fulfill their religious requirements.

                It goes without saying that the vast majority of folks on the planet will disagree on this subject. Not agreeing is OK.

                One of the other statements on the list was, "It is no longer your personal religious view if you are bothering someone else." Um, I'm sorry, but that's just silly. That's like saying that your opinion doesn't really exist if it bothers or offends me. You have a legal and God-given right to do things that bother and offend me. I have a legal and God-given right to do things that bother and offend you.

                I wish I remember which elected official said it, so I could properly attribute one of my favorite things ever said on the floor of the U. S. Congress. It was in the mid to late 1980s, when burning the U. S. flag was a hot button issue. One man stood up and said, "What makes this country great is not that it protects the rights of those that are right; it's that it also protects the rights of those that are wrong." If this man were from my state, he would have had my vote for life.

                I realize that it offends people when I say that I don't think that marriage laws should be changed. Pointing that out to me wastes both of our time. You are not changing what you think and do if I'm offended; I should not be expected to change myself because you are offended.

                Here's the thing: because civil marriage exists completely outside the framework of religion, there's some wiggle room. (I don't understand people who think that their religious leaders should change. If you believe that God is the author of your religion – and if you don't, why do you belong to it? - it doesn't make sense that you would say to God, "Gee, good job creating the universe and all, but I think you're wrong about this, and I think that I can do better.") This is why I think there's room for the creation of new laws, by humans and for humans. What any nation or group of people decides is not binding upon God.

                In order for gay couples to have all the legal rights and obligations of married couples, I believe that what needs to change are the domestic partnership laws, not marriage laws. Domestic partnerships should have, aside from gender, the same requirements as a marriage license. They should cost the same, be as readily available, have the same documentation, waiting periods, paperwork, officiants, whatever. Aside from gender, they should be the same as a marriage. Adoption of children, alimony, insurance, everything should be identical. Commonlaw marriage laws already recognize that people can be granted the rewards and obligation of marriage without going through the usual avenues. I think that domestic partnerships should be another reflection that you can take different roads to the same legal  destination. Governments should recognize domestic partnerships as being equal to a marriage, the same way a GED is the legal equivalent of a high school diploma.

                I read an opinion that said that civil partnerships were not equality because "they deny me the right to call my chosen partner my husband." I don't think so. First, "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Second, I know heterosexual unmarried people who refer to their partners as "my husband" and "my wife."  In my life, we have aunts, uncles, siblings, nieces, nephews and a grandchild who are not related to us by birth, marriage or adoption; we still refer to them by those familial titles. I know both heterosexual and gay families that practice plural marriage – not legally, of course, but that's the point. They consider more than one person a spouse, regardless of the law. When someone introduces me to someone else, I will refer to that person by that title, whether legal or not. Call someone "my husband," and I will always introduce and refer to them as "X's husband." I know men who used to be women and women who used to be men – I refer to them by their chosen gender and new names (despite the fact that I think their spirits will be returned to their original gender after death). It's just common courtesy.

                I've also heard, repeatedly, that it's discriminatory and offensive to call gay unions by a different title than heterosexual unions. I just can't get behind that. Here is a group expecting others to change, bend or give up their religious beliefs, the teachings of their parents and/or their moral convictions, (opinions that, by the way, have been accepted for many years) because that group believes that those beliefs are wrong. (I'm not concerned with which side is a majority; I think that majority votes are a very unreliable way of determining moral considerations.) They expect this to happen immediately and quietly and painlessly. They further expect that their ideals should be made law, the sooner the better. Yet, they are unwilling to bend themselves on the matter of a single word. "It must be called a marriage, or it's inferior," even if it is legally identical. That equation is extremely lopsided. When I was a kid, people said, "All we want is the legal rights that others have." Now, they say, "It's not equal unless it has the same label."

            I would not mind if all partnerships formed legally instead of religiously were called "partnerships," leaving "marriage" as a strictly religious term. I don't think that's "discriminatory" at all. I do mind when someone tells me that that opinion means that I'm "hateful" and that I view some people as less than human. I don't call you "hateful" because you disagree with me, I tell these people, but they tell me, "It's different." No, it isn't.

Churches should always be free from government interference, and free to choose what they will or won't recognize. Freedom of religion does not mean that choosing to practice a religion is unpatriotic. Read any founding document of the United States, or speech given by someone revered as a Founding Father, and you will find phrases like "Almighty God" and "the Hand of Providence." They intended that there be no state religion and no government interference in religious matters, not the absence of religious thought or influence. Every person is legally (and morally) allowed to choose for THEMSELVES, not for everyone else.

I really cannot stand hearing someone say, "You can't legislate morality." OK, I'll say – let's take, "Thou shalt not kill." Coming from the Bible as it does, we obviously have to weed that out of our laws, so let's eliminate all laws regarding murder, manslaughter, wrongful death, child abuse that causes death, medical malpractice or neglect of any kind resulting in death… out they go. "Thou shalt not steal" – out go the laws on theft, burglary, embezzlement, fraud, robbery, tax evasion. "Thou shalt not bear false witness:" perjury, libel, defamation of character, fraudulent claims, misleading advertising, plagiarism, intellectual property right, copyright – gone.

Please. You can try to tell me that it's just a coincidence that those laws have a counterpart in ancient religious law, but I won't buy it. I don't believe in coincidence.

Disagreeing with anyone – let me make that clear, ANYONE – does not mean that you should ever view them as less of a person, less valuable, less intelligent, less deserving of your consideration or friendship or love or courtesy. That includes people who hold opinions that you find wrong or offensive or immoral. If you are going to call me, or anyone else, choice names because of their beliefs, if you are going to believe that you don't need to be polite to me because I'm wrong, if you feel that it's OK to make fun of me because I'm wrong (or misguided or uninformed or brainwashed - I've heard them all), then you have no leg to stand on, and in fact look rather ridiculous, when you tell me that your view is the one that celebrates and breeds tolerance.

Legal Definitions

This is another sample column I wrote while applying for a newspaper job. I've expanded upon it because 600 words weren't enough to avoid confusion.

For the record, because people frequently ask me, yes, I am aware that most people, including most of my friends and relatives, do not agree with me. I don't understand why that matters so much to some people. I want to ask them if they only accept people who agree with them completely into their lives. I always thought that the point of communication was to understand each other, not to assure that everyone agrees. I don't attempt to be contrary for its own sake, but I'm not affronted if differing opinions exist among my loved ones - because, let's face it, there will be dissent.

************************************************
On several occasions, I've read eloquently written opinions that lay out supposed persecution based on sexual preference. They quote instances in the Bible, and lifestyles throughout history, to show that their lifestyle has "always" existed, and was often accepted or even encouraged. People insist that it is ignorance, prejudice or squeamishness that causes others to avoid embracing this lifestyle as acceptable.

They tell heartfelt and tearful stories of the stress of "hiding our love" from others. "How can loving someone be wrong?" they ask. They are sure that the stress and shame they cope with are the result of not being accepted by their friends, family or peers. They speak longingly of the day when they can "celebrate" their relationships openly.

These opinions have not been written by homosexuals. They have been written by pedophiles. One recent advocate (who literally wrote a book on the subject) complained that the word "pedophile" should not be viewed in a negative light, "because it literally means 'child lover.' " A few of these opinions have been written by proponents of incest. Mackenzie Phillips described their mindset well: "My father had a lot of love and no boundaries."

Because I've had people ask me how homosexuality and pedophilia are related, here's the best way I can describe why I'm comparing them at all. Both are lifestyles that include sexual behavior that others find off-putting, but the practitioners wish was accepted by everyone.

I'm not talking about predatory behavior. I'm talking about the Jerry Lee Lewises and the Mary Kay Letorneaus, monogamous, heterosexual people whose partner was underage. Predators are a different category altogether, and are unfortunately very equal opportunity. They don't enter into my discussion here.

With both fictional and real life polygamists on TV, there have been rumblings that any consensual sexual behavior should not be illegal. "It doesn't hurt anyone. Just let them be."

There are those who feel that putting any limits on any sexual behavior is wrong and repressive.

This is why I oppose changing marriage laws to accommodate homosexual marriage. I am squarely in favor of some kind of domestic partnership law that provides insurance, inheritance, parenting, community property and other rights to those who wish to have those legal provisions. I think it should provide identical benefits to marriage. I think it should be available to anyone in a romantic or a non-romantic relationship, widowed siblings sharing a home, or anyone else who wants it. To me, this is not about who you're sleeping with, or why.

When I was growing up, gay activists said, "We just want the benefits everyone else gets." Now, when someone says, "OK, here's the benefits," they're told, "It's not enough. It has to be called a marriage, or it's discriminatory."

I'm unclear as to how, exactly, marriage laws are considered discriminatory when they apply to heterosexuals as well. Heterosexuals can live together, have children together, buy property together, but if they haven't fulfilled the legal requirements of a marriage, they don't get the legal benefits.

It is a bad idea to say that, from a legal standpoint, any sexual relationship is as legitimate as any other. It opens up the proverbial can of worms, and takes us down roads we really should not travel. Once we have decided that any relationship between consenting adults is legitimate, it's a small step to deciding that forbidding such relationships on the basis of age or genetics is discriminatory. Once that happens, someone will argue that if one person consents, that's enough. It works for recording conversations, right?

Someone suggested to me that we should do away with all civil marriage laws, and make everyone, heterosexual or homosexual, apply for the same civil license and be granted the same civil legal union. Leave all matters of "marriage" to churches, and come up with something else for everyone not wishing to have a religious union. I could probably get behind that idea. That way, in theory, no one could feel discriminated against.

It's not a good idea, in my opinion, to change legal definitions, especially ones that have stood for centuries, because we think we've come up with a better idea, and for centuries, the one constant in marriage laws and practices has been that it is a male/female relationship, available to those who meet certain criteria.

Think about it deciding that the current system of legal definitions doesn't work. What about legal definitions of, say, ownership? It could be convincingly argued that it is impossible to truly own anything, that everything belongs to God or to the Earth, and we can, at best, borrow it. It can be argued that money is a flawed way to determine ownership, since it discriminates against those with less lucrative jobs and therefore, less money. It could even be argued that resources should be distributed by merit. Now think about turning such decisions over to the government, or even to a citizen community. Who decides the "merit?" Who distributes said resources? Doesn't that scare the bejeezus out of you? It should. It's hard to get even half a dozen reasonable people to agree on lunch, much less anything of sweeping importance. Add in influence, power, money and human nature, and I've gotta tell you, I don't want anyone deciding, for instance, that they "need" my house more than I do, because I have empty bedrooms, and then creating a legal way to take it from me.

At the risk of creating a firestorm of words, I think I need to address the fact that yes, my religion enters into this equation. I know, I know, many people will now dismiss what I have to say out of hand. The only time that irks me is if they expect me to listen to them, but feel no need to listen to me. Call it karma, call it The Golden Rule, call it whatever you want - if you expect civility and respect, GIVE civility and respect.

I do not believe that anyone is supposed to live a gay life. I also don't think anyone should smoke, drink, cheat on their taxes, be promiscuous, be dishonest in business - a host of different behaviors that are acceptable to larger or smaller segments of society. People often find that anywhere from eccentric to ignorant, but they don't get as up in arms as they do when sexual matters are involved.

I didn't quite understand why, a couple of decades ago, people found brain chemistry studies to prove that some people were just going to be gay, because of the chemical compounds in their brains. When someone is found to be schizophrenic, bi-polar, ADD, ADHD, diabetic or anything else involved with brain or body function, we don't say, "Well, since they're born that way, it's obviously a viable way to live their lives. We should allow them to embrace it. It's arrogance and ignorance to try to change it." We say, "This will keep you from reaching your full potential. Medication and counseling can help." But I'm supposed to accept that, because there are identifiable differences in the brains of gay people, it's something that should be embraced and encouraged.

My religion tells me that, in order to reach our full potential, everyone needs to be in a male/female partnership. If you discard religion, let me put it this way - there is no evolutionary purpose to same sex couples. It does not promote the survival of the species.

My religion teaches that having homosexual feelings is not wrong, but encouraging or acting on them is. It teaches the same thing about any number of other impulses - the urge to steal, to kill, to hurt others, to cheat, to be selfish. Having these thoughts is not wrong. It's part of being human.

Encouraging or acting on them is what makes them wrong. No one would say, "I am a murderer" because they wished the death of another person (who hasn't?), or, "I am a thief" because they thought about how simple or pleasurable it would be to steal something. It doesn't make sense to me to say, "I am gay" because you were attracted to someone of your own gender.

And the sexual behavior is the ONLY thing in a homosexual life not compatible with a heterosexual life. You always felt different? So did everyone else. You liked trucks but hated baby dolls? I spent my childhood climbing trees and fishing; I would rather have unanesthetized dental work than a mani-pedi. You always felt drawn to fashion? Good for you! Make beautiful clothes! You love someone deeply and want to share your life? Marvelous. I could take an hour and name all the people I love deeply and truly, people I want to be around every day through my whole life, people I miss when they are gone, people who are in my head when we're apart, people I adore, starting with my family. I am only having sex with one of them. That's as it should be.

So, if I believed that all relationships were the same, I would fiercely fight to see them treated that way; but I don't, so - I don't. If you took religion out of the equation, I might feel differently. I'll never know, because I can't in good conscience remove it.

I know how and why people disagree with me. I have even occasionally found someone who said, "I just can't be friends with someone whose ideas I find offensive and immoral." I wonder if they stop to think that I have been their friend, and was willing to remain so, even though I found their ideas to be offensive and immoral?

On that note, a huge and hearfelt THANKS to everyone who loves me, and I them, despite disagreeing; those wonderful people in my life who can and do share their opinions and hear mine. That's the best of human nature.

Phoebe and Tyler

 

I've been thinking about Phoebe Prince and Megan Meier a lot lately. At one time – in Phoebe's case, a mere 10 months ago – their names were every bit the buzz word, topic du jour that Tyler Clementi is now. They were young and beautiful and they killed themselves after being bullied.

Apparently, the "problem" with Phoebe was that she was able to attract boys. Big deal, right? But in high school, everything is a big deal. Most adolescents don't yet know how to place things into proper context. Some kids teased her because she was an immigrant with a thick accent (she was from Ireland). Some were jealous that she fit in apparently so easily with so many diverse kids. After she had relationships (at least one a sexual one) with two popular boys, and befriended another boy who had a girlfriend, she was warned to "stay away from other people's men." (I've always wondered why girls don't threaten said "men" to stay faithful, but I see the whole "stay away from my man" thing so very often.) Phoebe was called a slut and a whore, both behind her back and to her face. Often, the slur of choice was "Irish whore," as thought that was somehow better or worse than an American or Brazilian or Sudanese whore.

Megan thought she'd met a great boy online. He was good looking, funny and a good listener. She was probably just starting to think of him as a current or potential boyfriend when he became very different, saying hurtful things that culminated in, "The world would be better off without you." She hung herself before finding out that her "friend" named "Josh" was actually the middle aged mother of a classmate. She never meant for anything bad to happen, this duplicitous woman swore.

I can see their faces in my head, snapshots that their families shared after their deaths. The girls are smiling, mugging and laughing. Megan had a tendency to make the ridiculous "kissy face" that two of my nieces often do when being photographed. Phoebe liked eyeliner and scarves.

There's other young, beautiful, dead people I never met taking up room in my brain. Hope Witsell was 13 and in junior high. With the poor judgment common to kids her age, she sent topless photos to a boy she was attracted to. She hoped he'd be impressed enough to become her boyfriend. Instead, he shared the photos, and his friends shared the photos, and THEIR friends shared the photos, and Hope found herself ridiculed by hundreds of kids from not only her own school, but also the local high school. She too was called a slut and a whore. "I can't be a whore," she wrote in her journal. "I'm too inexperienced." She, too, killed herself.

Jesse Logan was 18, five years older than Hope. She was a stunning blonde, about to go off to college and adult life. She'd been through middle school and high school, but she was still a teen. She, too, had the bad judgment to send topless photos of herself to a boy who shared them. Of course, you can see a pattern here and guess what happened – the name calling, the humiliation, the tears and the self inflicted death. She was not a whore, but she'd become convinced that that was all anyone would ever think of her.

Sladjana Vidovic was the 4^th teenager in her community to commit suicide in a period of just over 2 years. All had been bullied. Sladjana was called "Slutty Jana" and "Slutty Jana Vagina;" just like calling Phoebe an "Irish whore," this name calling denigrated her heritage as well as humiliated her personally. She and another teen suicide from her community, Jennifer Eyring, were heterosexual. Two others, Eric Mohat and Meredith Rezak, were at least rumored to be homosexual.

When I heard about Tyler Clementi, the fact that the infamous footage shot by his roommate and sent out over the Internet showed him with another man seemed to be the smallest piece of the puzzle, to me. I've heard many people speculate that being "outed" as being gay is what caused him such despair that he killed himself. I read one opinion that speculated that, "in his mind, it was better to be dead than to be gay." It's impossible to say what Tyler was thinking, since we can't ask him, but I think that assumption is faulty.

I remember being nineteen, Tyler's age, even though it was more than half my lifetime ago. I was no longer in a high school environment, where everything is washed in insecurity and hormones, but I wasn't that far removed from it, either. If someone had taken video of me in an intimate situation, including making out, with my boyfriend, and had shown that video to others, I would have been shatteringly, deeply humiliated and angry. The Internet didn't exist in 1985, so there would have been no chance of thousands or millions of people seeing the video, and I still would have been so mortified that I would have been unable to move about in public, or even with my friends, for fear of someone saying something hurtful. I would have cried for hours at a time and been inconsolable. I would have severed friendships, unable to comprehend how friends could do something so hurtful. I quite probably would have at least considered breaking up with my boyfriend, as though that would help. I can't say with any certainty that I wouldn't have felt suicidal. My entire world would have caved in.

I married the man who was my boyfriend at age 19, so I would not have been embarrassed to be seen with him, or to have anyone know that we were dating. I absolutely would not be feeling ashamed of being heterosexual. I wouldn't have been doing anything unheard of or illegal or even odd. Yet I know that if I was away at college, I would almost certainly have dropped out, unable to function on campus or return to my classes. If I thought the video would follow me home, the chance of my feeling suicidal would have increased tremendously. I would not have been able to imagine getting over or working through the pain and fury. Betrayal of any kind pushes my emotional buttons, so I would have been crushed. I would have been unable to function normally in any way.

After Tyler found out that his roommate was taping him and transmitting it, he wrote that he was "kinda pissed," and he also said that his roomie was "a pretty decent roommate." Not exactly heated language, under the circumstances. It was also a full day after those comments that he took his life. If I were to guess, I would say that whoever he was dating broke off the relationship, or at least suggested that they shouldn't see each other for a while. I'm also guessing that Tyler expected mostly sympathy from others - "Dude, I can't believe your roommate would do that!" - and was horrified to discover that even his friends were laughing about the incident, laughing at him. Some may have even urged him to join in the laughter - "C'mon, you gotta admit it's funny!" - and some probably avoided meeting his eye. That's conjecture, of course, but based on what you know of human nature, it sounds pretty plausible, doesn't it? Here's what also seems likely to me: Each incident over that 24 hours piled on top of the others, until Tyler felt that he would never, ever be able to get out from under the mountain of humiliation and pain. The aftermath was worse than the original betrayal of trust. He couldn't ignore or compartmentalize the incident, the usual male reaction to stress. I think the fact that he'd been with another man is the smallest component of the puzzle. Many straight kids have felt similar despair in similar circumstances. Some of them have also taken their own lives. I can't imagine that they thought being straight was worse than being dead.

The very thing that makes these kinds of incidents so common in kids and young adults (as opposed to, say, those in their 40s) is the very thing that devastates the victims so: immaturity and inexperience. I've heard bullies or other perpetrators express astonishment that their behavior was that harmful. They can't imagine why the victim didn't just shrug it off. S/he was too sensitive, they say. They feel that their behavior is "normal," and can't imagine being devastated by it. The victims, meanwhile, cannot imagine a reality in which they could shrug it off. They cannot imagine anything that would feel worse, and they can't imagine getting over or getting past it.

Sometimes, others make it worse by saying things like, "This is nothing. When you get older, you'll go through things that make this seem like a walk in the park." Hurting kids think, oh my gosh, why would I want to stick around if I'm just going to experience things worse than this? That sounds unimaginable and horrifying. What well meaning folks, usually older adults, mean when they give advice like this is, "Your current reaction is all out of proportion. In a few years, you'll see that it really wasn't the end of the world," but they often phrase it badly or are dismissive. They also fail to remember that often, this truly is the worst thing these kids have ever experienced or can imagine.

Think about a hungry infant. The child truly cannot imagine anything worse than what's happening right now. S/he is hungry! It's awful! They wail, they howl, and when the food comes, every fiber of their being relaxes. When the same child gets a little older, the wailing and howling is gone. The child has realized that the hunger doesn't last forever. Maybe they get moody or grumpy, but they don't shriek. By the time they're adults, they could be famished, but they'll be able to stand around a party making chit chat while they wait. They've learned that hunger is temporary and really not that difficult to cope with.

Teens and young adults sometimes can't see past what they're feeling right at the moment. Everything is magnified. Every pain feels like the end of the world.

I have little patience with people who tell me that adolescence itself, or the exclusion, teasing and outright rudeness that comes with it, is harder for gay kids. True, no one teases heterosexual kids about being heterosexual, but there's plenty of other reasons. Ask the fat kids, the special ed kids, the poor kids, the unattractive kids, the awkward kids.

It's totally socially acceptable to be obnoxious to certain kinds of people. Recently, while spending time with a teenage kid I truly like, one who usually champions the underdog and befriends the friendless, this kid made a surprising remark about a very portly individual who had just gone by. When asked why they thought that particular comment was appropriate, eyes rolled, and the explanation was, "It's not a handicap, it's a lifestyle choice." As a person of considerable mass myself, you don't want to get me started on the variety of ways other people have expressed their opinions about my size, from the outright obnoxious to the supposedly supportive. I'd love to say that behavior was relegated to those who haven't yet reached adulthood, but that would be laughably false. Many otherwise reasonable people see nothing wrong with that, either. They believe that I have chosen to be fat and therefore have chosen to be ridiculed, or they believe that their rude behavior is somehow helpful and motivational, and will cause me to change. After all, "it's a lifestyle choice."

What if something truly is a lifestyle choice? Does that mean that anything goes, behaviorwise?

That same reasoning extends to anyone who looks markedly different than the speaker's preference. I've seen clean cut, wholesome looking folks exhibit vicious behavior toward the dyed, pierced, outlandishly clothed set, and I've seen the outlandish ones heap vicious behavior upon the Cleaver-looking ones. After all, they reason, if you choose to be obviously different than me, it should just be a given that I will not only have a problem with that but that I will express this displeasure freely.

Ask any kid whose family doesn't have money how they're treated in school. For most of my life, I only owned one pair of pants at a time. When I was in 9^th grade, the boy who sat behind me in my science class pointed that fact out, loudly, every day. I was treated to comments like, "Don't those smell?" Gee, thanks, kid. I finally insisted on being taken to buy another pair – no easy feat when your household income consists of your dad's pension and your mom's 20 hour a week job. Hand me downs were OK with my dad, but buying secondhand was not, so new clothes were expensive. I made sure, for the rest of high school, to always own two pairs of pants, and to wear one on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, and the other on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. Sunday I wore a dress; occasionally I'd wear one to school, just to avoid wearing my pants.

Ask kids for their stories about what it's like if your family's on welfare, lives in a trailer or wears outdated fashions. Again, you'll run into that idea that if the kids don't want to be treated that way, well, their parents should simply make more money. They should also just expect to be teased and excluded – that's "just how things are."

This is not to say that the wealthy kids or popular ones get off scot free. Jealousy causes some truly abhorrent behavior. Ask any kid whose prized 16^th birthday car has been vandalized. Ask a cheerleader who's been the subject of rumors.

Religion is another magnet issue for intolerance and bad behavior. So, unfortunately, are physical handicaps, and mental disabilities often bring out the very worst in those around them. I am sure that everyone can instantly recall instances of mocking aimed at these kids, especially if their speech or movement is affected. Often, this too is seen as "normal" and in "good fun." Develop a tough skin, kids are told when they're hurt. This is just life.

I'm tired of hearing about what is "normal." Cancer is normal. It's afflicted humans (and animals) throughout history. All disease, filth, decay and death is normal. Does that mean that we elevate it to the status of desirable?

Now, in the wake of these recent publicized lost lives, when we should be trying very hard to pull together, I'm hearing and seeing another layer to the divisiveness that I've encountered for years. It infuriates me.

Now it is becoming even more acceptable to attack others based on their religious beliefs, if those beliefs include the tenet that homosexuality is wrong. That covers one heck of a lot of people, belonging to a whole lot of religions. Naturally, it's most prevalent, and most vicious, among kids. "It's the fault of people like YOU that gay kids are killing themselves," kids say to their friends, classmates and acquaintances, even if those kids have never done any bullying.

An LDS (Mormon) leader said, in a televised church meeting, that the church's stance is (and always has been) that homosexual behavior is considered sinful. Since then, things have been more difficult for LDS kids, especially high school students. "It's because of your church that people are committing suicide!" they're told. "Your church leaders are killing kids." "These suicides are your fault."

Wait a minute. Wait, wait, wait. It's OK for YOU to freely express your opinion, on TV, in print, in person, over the Internet, but it's NOT OK for people who disagree with you to do the same? It's not only acceptable, but encouraged, for you to say that being homosexual is acceptable to God, but it ISN'T acceptable for anyone else to say that it's abhorrent to Him? It's OK for you to say that the LDS religion, or any religion, is responsible for personal despair, but it's NOT acceptable for anyone else to say that your philosophy, your beliefs, are wrong?

I cannot tell you how often I pose these questions and people say, "Well, of course it's wrong to bully or attack someone, but I'm just trying to prevent more deaths." Never yet have I found a speaker who's OK being told, "Well, of course it's wrong to bully or attack someone, but I'm just trying to keep souls from going to hell."

If you think I'm kidding, find an LDS teen; ask them what's been said to them, and around them, at school. People are angry, and they want someone to blame.

A gay and lesbian group staged a demonstration, dressed all in black and laying on the sidewalk around LDS Church headquarters, "representing all the gay youth lost to suicide." Church leaders handled it with quiet grace, fully supporting their legal right to assemble. I wonder if a demonstration staged by religious youth, wearing chains and shackles representing sin and condemnation, would be similarly received around the headquarters of any gay and lesbian group.

LISTEN UP. Let us all be perfectly clear. It is not, and should not, be morally or legally wrong to disagree. Societies that forbid dissent or differing opinions are called totalitarian, repressive, dictatorships. WE DO NOT ALL HAVE TO AGREE. THERE IS NOTHING MORALLY OR LEGALLY WRONG WITH DISAGREEMENT. It should be possible to be civil to others, and to support their right to their beliefs and behavior, without sharing them. No one kills themselves simply because others disagree with them, or because others voice an opposing opinion.

It is imperative to a peaceful, productive future that we all get a handle on this simple, basic truth: we just treat those who disagree with us with the same civility and respect we would like to receive for our opinions.

If you can, and should, speak your mind, so should those who disagree with you. Civilly. Without name calling. Without venom.