My book is on Amazon!

My book became available online the same day that SCOTUS issued the Prop 8 and DOMA decisions (27 July). Talk about your serendipity!

You can buy my book in hard copy:

or on Kindle.

Enjoy!

Mormons: Why do we get same-sex marriage so wrong?

Today I posted in one of my Facebook groups:

Sunday School teacher just mentioned how romantic Ruth 1:16-17 is (whither thou goest I will go...). It's obvious she doesn't realize that the quote is spoken by one woman to another. Good thing my friend is here to keep me from pointing out the legitimacy of same-sex family relationships as evidenced in this story.

Some of the subsequent thread debated the nature of Naomi and Ruth's relationship. I share my response in this post.

I feel I should clarify. I can see that my inclusion of the word romantic may have led to the conclusion that I assert a romantic relationship between Ruth and Naomi. I do not see any evidence for that assertion.

Instead, my appeal would have been to the more central aspects of relationships that merit being categorized as familial. Those aspects include, most predominantly, three: (1) a long-term commitment to caretaking, (2) an economic partnership, and (3) cohabitation. Though not new to the stage, (4) companionate, (5) romantic, and (6) sexual love are fairly recent occupants of the lead role, and even in the present are, I argue, lest central to the concept of family than the first three. 

For instance, consider the case of a couple who wants to get married, and are committed to (1), (2), and (3). Further imagine that the woman in that relationship recently underwent a vaginectomy (or imagine the man lost his penis in an accident), and that the couple does not intend nor are they capable of genital sex. None would consider them barred from marriage candidacy, nor would their relationship fail to constitute a family.

Similarly, parent-child relationships elicit the three core aspects of a family relationship: (1) a commitment to caretaking (though admittedly in only one direction, though it could hardly be otherwise because a child is dependent by nature), (2) an economic partnership (primarily in just one direction, again unsurprising), and (3) cohabitation. In these three important senses, family relationships are genderless.

(4) Companionate, (5) romantic, and (6) sexual love are frequently associated with the subset of family relationships that are spousal, but are less central, and if you go back a century or two or three, generally, less central still. Thus, and this would have been my point: Naomi and Ruth's relationship strikes us powerfully as being familial, and same-sex relationships do as well, _for the same reasons_. (1-4 anyway, 5 and 6 being rather awkward for two presumptively straight women from different generations and living in their culture and century). 

I believe Mormon practice is incredibly good at getting family right, most things considered. Latter-day Saints understand and emphasize the importance of commitment, stability, and much to their credit, building the social capital needed to support the demands of keeping families healthy. Many church programs, teachings, and even its very structure (e.g. the local ward) are seemingly calculated towards founding, maintaining, and nurturing healthy families.

For those reasons, it is at once both painful and surprising that we get this one so wrong. There is so little that matters about what anatomical structures are found in your crotch, and so much that is harmed by presuming that your birth genitals do tell us something about your fitness for governance, or about what genitals you should be paired with in marriage, or about whether you're a candidate for ordination. 

As I've argued extensively (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocUHzmK6IjU, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNAIB3cxiLA,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1jDUcBKml0) and continue to maintain: the sooner we acknowledge our baseless presumptions, the sooner we regain hemorrhaging credibility as a people and as an institution, and the sooner we cease to wrongly stigmatize LGBT persons, same-sex relationships, and those who fail to express a penis at birth (i.e. women). And that, in my opinion, would be a wonderful thing.

LDS Transsexual Policy: A Critique

My presentation at the 2013 Mormon Transhumanist Association Conference, held 5 April in the Salt Lake City Public Library.

An earlier draft version of the paper version is here.

American Philosophical Association: my presentation in San Francisco on 30 March 2013

The Mormon Transhumanist Association newsfeed published:

Brad Carmack, director and secretary of the Mormon Transhumanist Association, represented the Mormon Transhumanist Association at the 87th Annual Meeting of the American Philosophical Society in San Francisco on 27-31 March 2013. Brad spoke on the subject of "Transfigurism: a Syncretization of Mormonism and Transhumanism". His thesis was that emerging technology will continue to affect the evolution of religion, and Mormon Transhumanism is an early example of some of the adaptations we might expect to observe more broadly going forward. In the video recording, Brad speaks from 1:38:56 to 1:50:48 and participates in the panel discussion beginning at 2:04:40.
----------------

I give my piece at http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=7Sr1kcogOoE#t=5936s
Fabuloso conference, I loved it! Dale Carrico was nice to me too. He's the kind of guy I'd naturally be friends with: far from the monster others' reports had me fearing. :-)

Marriage Equality: the debate goes on

An acquaintance of mine emailed me recently as part of his fundraiser for his trip to Washington to support traditional marriage:



We've been having a pleasant dialogue since. I wonder how many similar discussions are going on in the world right now.

On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 12:05 AM, Brad Carmack <bradleycarmack@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi ____! 

Thanks for the invite below. Marching in Washington D.C. sounds like an exciting opportunity! I've advocated publicly for traditional marriage myself, via calling voters in Maine in 2009, and I also feel that the Prop 8 case is a very significant one.

I did want to ask though, if you wouldn't mind sharing, why you feel to support a traditional version of marriage rather than a more inclusive version, i.e. one that accommodates homosexual as well as heterosexual orientation. Since opposite-sex marriage is much more difficult an arrangement for gay people than same-sex marriage, some argue that a more inclusive marriage (that is to say, for gay people as well as straight people) helps to strengthen marriage by making marriage an expectation and opportunity for a larger portion of our community. Buttressed by traditional norms of caretaking and commitment, gay couples and their families arguably stand to gain from entering into marriages, just as their opposite-sex counterparts do.

Brad,

Thanks for responding! Great to hear from you. This is a very thoughtful question, and I appreciate you asking it because I think discussion on this issue is so important. 

There are a couple of reasons I feel strongly that marriage should continue to be defined as between a man and a woman. The most important to me is my religious beliefs, of course.

It makes sense to be candid about that, and I respect your acknowledgment of the fact. Many LDS members understandably take the same position for religious reasons. Some of them then go on to make secular arguments that they're not very serious about, as a pretext for why they truly take the position they do.  

But since my religious beliefs don't matter to most people, there are a few secular reasons I believe this is the best policy as well. Most of them center around children. Research shows, and I believe strongly, that children do best when they have both a mother and a father.

What research do you refer to, and what does it mean to you to claim that research evidences children do best when they have both a mother and a father? I have heard this argument before, but as of yet it doesn't add up to me. If a man were to claim his junior high son is the best free throw shooter, certainly he would mean the best free throw shooter on his team, or in his district perhaps. He would not mean that his son is the best free throw shooter in the world, or the best free throw shooter possible: as soon as someone in the comparison group came along and demonstrated a higher shooting percentage, the father would have to admit his son is no longer the best out of whatever particular group he was comparing to.

Similarly, most research that compares family structures did not include same-sex couple households in their sample: and they certainly did not include married same-sex couple households, since historically there have been so few to study due to the lack of access to marriage for same-sex couples. Instead, comparisons were often made between married opposite-sex couple households, cohabiting opposite-sex couple households, and single parent households. Thus, that research cannot be used to compare opposite-sex couple families to same-sex couple families.
Those few studies that do include same-sex couple families suggest there is little difference in parenting outcomes when compared to opposite-sex couple families, or a slight increase in parenting outcomes if the parenting couple is a pair of women rather than a man and a woman. 

Legalizing gay marriage would almost without question lead to legalization of adoptive rights for gay and lesbian couples. Some argue that this would be better than leaving children in foster care or orphanages. Some also argue that gay couples are also more loving and caring than many heterosexual couples. I can definitely see their point on both of these counts.

That's fair: I think you're right to acknowledge that there are gay couples that are more loving and caring to children in their care than some heterosexual couples.  

However, if our aim is to get children out of foster care or orphanages, or to increase kindness in the home, there are other ways to accomplish this goal than legalizing a type of union in society that can never hope to replicate the ideal situation of having both a mother and a father in the home.

Again, I would challenge your claim that a mother and a father is an ideal situation for children. If you presume the fact, then there is little use trying to prove it: if you claim that a particular family structure is ideal, how could any other family structure even have a chance of besting it? Also, if you wish to create better homes for children, why wouldn't you spend your limited resources advocating research-based drivers of parenting outcomes, such as (1) stable, (2) low-conflict, (3) dual parenting, (3) drug-free homes with (4) adequate, steady income? Those four factors account for much more of the variability in child welfare than the number of genders in the parenting couple. Importantly, marriage can contribute significantly to the first three factors: and given the immense number of children that are and will grow up in same-sex couple households regardless of the outcome of the marriage equality debate, it would be in their interest to have their same-sex couple parents married rather than not married.

Children do not have a voice in this debate, so we must speak up and explain what would be best for children and their development in society.
I would agree that children do not have a voice in this debate, but that fact does not mean that your position or its opposite is any more right than the other. 

Additionally, the legalization of gay marriage has shown in many cases to decrease religious freedom, as well as parental rights in education. Both of these concern me deeply as a religious person and as a parent.
Perhaps: but couldn't religious persons and parents who take the opposite position argue just as strongly in the opposite direction? A straight mother who believes in same-sex marriage claims the absence of gay marriage diminishes her parental right in education. A religious gay man says his religious freedom is decreased because gay marriage is not legal. What marginal argument from parental rights in education or religious freedom can be made against gay marriage, that can't be made against its absence?
These are just a few reasons. So feel free to ask additional questions if you'd like!

I contributed to his campaign today. I look forward to his responses.

A Critique of the LDS Prop 8 Amicus Brief: "reliance interests" as the new rational basis for opposing same-sex marriage

"Von G Keetch: Counsel of Record." 

Von Keetch's name is the first to appear on the LDS-led coalition amicus filed in support of the proponents of Proposition 8 in the SCOTUS case that will likely be decided this summer.

If you want to sue the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Von Keetch is your man.

He's also exceptionally competent and the best stake president I ever had, leading my BYU stake for three of the years I lived at the Alta Apartments. Below, I offer my licensed attorney's first blush responses to the brief Von filed with the Supreme Court of the United States.

First, 
I am fascinated by the alliance evidenced by this particular document: one part Southern Baptist Convention, two parts Evangelicals, one part LDS, and a few others (including a union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations). I find it significant that this ecumenical coalition, despite their differences, united on submitting this religious freedom-asserting opposition to same-sex marriage.

Second,
I confess that I find many reasonable arguments in both the analysis and the summary.

• No law is invalid when it “merely happens to coincide or harmonize with the tenets of some or all religions.” McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 442 (1961).
• And whatever the failings (past or present) of individuals within our faith communities, we are united in condemning hatred and mistreatment of homosexuals.
• Holding Proposition 8 void because of its religious support would fly in the face of this Court’s teaching that the Constitution “does not license government to treat religion and those who teach or practice it, simply by virtue of their status as such, as subversive of American ideals and therefore subject to unique dis- abilities.” Mergens, 496 U.S. at 248 (quoting McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U.S. 618, 641 (1978)
• That Proposition 8 was supported by some religious voters or is in harmony with some religious views is constitutionally irrelevant. 

In many places, the amicus appropriately cited precedent that accords a place for religious voices in public debates.

Third, I find that the brief does not fairly represent the diversity of views of same-sex marriage held by those that constitute the members of the participating entities:

• Tens of millions of Americans are represented in the diverse group of faith communities that join in this brief. Despite their theological differences, these communities are united in declaring that the tradi- tional institution of marriage is essential to the welfare of the American family and society. This brief is submitted out of a shared conviction..."
• "Yet for us and our members, traditional marriage is also indispensable to the material welfare of children, families, society, and our republican form of government."

Perhaps the authoritarian, hierarchical structure of the LDS institution permit the maintained illusion that the LDS membership is united in the view that traditional marriage is "essential to the welfare of the American family and society" and "indispensable to the material welfare of children, families, society, and our republican form of government." However, the brief was not filed on behalf of the Corporation for the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and thus it would be more accurate to say "some" or "most" when representing the memberships' views. I anticipate that the many LDS pro-marriage advocacy groups (including Mormons for Marriage and Mormons for Marriage Equality) might arch an eyebrow at being informed that they affirm traditional marriage at the expense of a definition that includes same-sex couples.

Fourth, the amicus hid a few surprises. As the rational bases for supporting Prop 8 seem to have failed both the district and appellate level in the Ninth Circuit, the brief asserts two bases that, I think, are relatively novel:

"Proposition 8 is valid for additional reasons the court of appeals did not consider. Judged by conventional rational-basis review, Proposition 8 reasonably serves the legitimate ends of restoring the definition of marriage congruent with the people’s moral sense and protecting the substantial expectation and reliance interests of opposite-sex couples in the traditional institution of marriage. Each of these rationales independently satisfies the Equal Protection Clause."

These two are new to me. The latter is fairly easily toppled: the same argument could be made along the race dimension by racially matched couples before anti-miscegenation laws were declared unconstitutional in Loving. Picture white Jane and white John arguing that you can't define marriage to include black Sarah and white Joseph because Jane and John grew up expecting all marriages to be between partners of the same race. The amicus addresses this inconsistency:


"By 1967, if not long before, it was pellucidly clear that anti-miscegenation laws were antithetical to both the Fourteenth Amendment’s core prohibition on racial discrimination and the Nation’s highest moral values. Indeed, by then no credible voice defended such laws, as they were obviously just naked attempts “to maintain White Supremacy.” Id. at 11. Here, in contrast, there is no clearly established constitutional right to same-sex marriage and there are credible voices in politics, academia, and religion as well as leading members of the bench and bar defending the constitutionality and wisdom of traditional marriage."


I would point out that both slavery and anti-miscegenation enjoyed support from "credible voices in politics, academia, and religion as well as leading members of the bench and bar defending the constitutionality and wisdom of traditional marriage." Much of the amicus relies on a very strong appeal to tradition, a well-known logical fallacy which nonetheless is the basis for our precedence-leaning federal common law system. The reasons appeals to tradition fail are obvious: oppression of women and disenfranchisement of blacks, for instance, both enjoyed long recognition and moral approval but are both harshly and broadly condemned today.

We have no qualms about defining "citizen" to include women and people of African descent, even though at the time some citizenship laws were passed or upheld by judges, those demographics were not contemplated as part of the definition. Similarly, the brief's recitation of cases affirming marriage (for some reason, the brief repeatedly cites 19th century cases and references John Locke, Adam Smith, and David Hume) are unpersuasive in the context of a debate over what marriage legally is. Further, the existence of a clearly established right to same-sex marriage under Romer and Bowers is argued, and not as lacking as claimed.



Thus, we are brought back to square one: are marriage definitions that preclude same-sex couples antithetical to federal prohibitions against sex discrimination and the Nation's highest moral values? Let's see if the second newbie holds an answer to that question, rather than the mere appeal to two fallacies (popularity and authority, in this case) offered by the first basis.

On its face, restoring the definition of marriage congruent with the people’s moral sense appears a candidate reason that might be considered rational.

"Proposition 8 Recovers a Definition of Marriage That Is Congruent with the Values of California Voters and Thus More Likely to Sustain the Institution of Marriage. Enacting Proposition 8 recovered the meaning of marriage that is most consistent with the value choices or moral sense of California voters."


Because the CA supreme court recognized same-sex marriages shortly before Prop 8's passage, the word recovered does some appropriate. Yes, the meaning of marriage was changed away from the man-woman only meaning that most held precedent to the court's decision. Yes, the recovery was most consistent with the moral sense of CA voters, as the majority voted in favor of the Proposition. I suppose the same basis could be posited in favor of an anti-miscegenation Proposition, had a CA court similarly began recognizing racially-mixed marriages and the majority of CA voters voted in favor of such a positions. However, aside from that rebuttal, the basis strikes me as rational.

Fifth, 
I notice that the brief somewhat ironically notes how little treatment the subject of homosexuality receives in church.

"Our faiths uphold the virtues of marriage and family life through teachings and rituals that seldom mention homosexuality."

From my perspective, this fact leads naturally to the conclusion that the LDS Church should naturally embrace same-sex marriage, as the anatomy of the two partners bears no necessary impact on the spiritual aspect of their union, commitment, and household. The brief's recitation of "We are among the “many religions [that] recognize marriage as having spiritual significance,” Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 96 (1987), indeed as being truly “sacred,” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965)" is consistent with a same-sex marriage-embracing approach.

Sixth, 
I detect an unfair depiction that is weaved through several portions of the brief.

I don't think heterosexist marriage is more focused on societal and children's needs than a sex-neutral construction. Nor would man-woman-only marriage be less focused on the desires of the couple. As Judge Walker pointed out, marriage has long been recognized as the forming of a household by two adults: and a same-sex household is neither more nor less structured to the needs of children than is an opposite-sex one. The old "homosexual relationships are selfish and heterosexual ones are focused on children" argument never made sense to me. There are fertile and infertile opposite-sex marriages that are averse or abusive to children, and same-sex ones that are very welcoming of the same. Similarly, there is no structural aspect of the relationship that is more or less focused on the desires of the couple. The reasoning here is a head-scratcher for me.


Conclusion

I conclude that I'd like to read some more analyses. :-) What have others said about the brief?

"Bishop's Guide: Same-Sex Attraction" - my take

The Church just published online a resource entitled "Bishop's Guide: Same-Sex Attraction." Below is my Facebook comment responding to the same, which I also submitted to the site under my own name as feedback.

There's a lot to like. For instance, the emphasis on "expressing love and acceptance to the individual is an important step to minister to him/her" is appropriately central. Also, placing primacy on the "seek to understand" step is productive.

The downsides, however, are many. As Edward pointed out, several old and largely counterproductive myths are underscored, such as (a) the positive correlation between loneliness/rejection and the strength of homosexual feelings, (b) the utility of avoiding triggers, (c) the relationship between lack of emotional connection and homosexual feelings, and (d) a connection between homosexual orientation and addiction, abuse, or emotional health.

The additional resources links also in many cases provide tired, inaccurate anecdotes which:

- compare homosexual orientation to "alcohol, tobacco, pornography, gambling, or other serious sins." In addition to failing to distinguish between temptations and actions, this depiction grossly misrepresents the value of same-sex romantic relationships

- repeatedly depict homosexual orientation as a "problem," "burden," "trial of faith," or "challenge." E.g. "many of us are developing spiritual muscles through the calisthenics of adversity. This is a fight that can forge a profound closeness with Heavenly Father and the Savior because victory hinges on our ability to rely on Them completely."

- fail to use terms such as "gay" and "homosexual orientation," opting instead for the "same-sex attraction" phrase that fails to match the permanence, depth, or centrality to identity that most homosexuals (and their heterosexual counterparts, myself included) would ascribe to their sexual orientation

- inappropriately burden homosexuals with the unrealistic and unhealthy expectation that they fight same-sex sexual fantasies (" we still have the power to resist and reform our feelings (as needed) and to assure that they do not lead us to entertain inappropriate thoughts"). Though extreme frequency of sexual fantasizing can become as a mental issue, for the majority of naturally sexual people this type of expectation has caused and will continue to cause unneeded and regrettable distress.

- suggests "victory," "overcoming same-sex attractions," "battle," and "healing" to those who are righteous enough, a pernicious idea that has caused untold damage to thousands of gay Mormons over the past 4 decades

- advises a host of unhealthy responses to homosexual orientation, including in addition to those above isolation from those with more positive views about the value of same-sex romantic relationships and, incredibly, quitting your job ("I urge you to distance yourself from those who see nothing wrong with same-sex attraction. Avoid places frequented by those who are involved in this lifestyle. Quit your job if need be. This is a battle for your eternal exaltation—and battle is a fitting word.")

- sidesteps the majority experience by highlighting minority cases, such as successful mixed-orientation marriages where the gay spouse feels diminished homosexual attraction.
"I found that my burden had been lifted sufficiently to pursue marriage. My struggle with same-sex attraction rarely comes up these days. She knows of my challenge—something I still face from time to time but am able to manage—but it doesn’t define our relationship. " Also,
"I know some people who struggle with same-sex attraction experience the burden being lifted entirely; they’re able to overcome it. That’s not the case for me. I still struggle with emotions or thoughts from time to time, and it takes strength and energy to manage them. I also know people who may not have the blessing of having it somewhat alleviated, as I have. I don’t know why people face challenges—this one or any other—with such different outcomes, but I do know that our God is not a cruel god. And I know that obedience brings peace."
Obedience in the form of avoiding same-sex romance has not brought peace to countless gay Mormons who, unsurprisingly, find celibacy or mixed-orientation relationships anything but peaceful. Would the majority of us (i.e. the straights, myself included) expect to find peace if we avoided all romantic and sexual relationships with a member of the opposite sex?

- repeatedly suggest that dating and marriage can or should be pursued when same-sex attractions are sufficiently diminished (the latter being an independently problematic proposition)
"I hope to one day sufficiently curb my attractions to make the first tenuous steps toward dating" also,
"'Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices, which first should clearly be overcome with a firm and fixed determination never to slip into such practices again.' The ability of individuals with same-sex desires to date and marry depends on their progress made with the Lord’s help in overcoming these attractions—an effort that is neither easy nor quick."

- perpetuates the twin, false/unfounded, and insidious propositions that
(1) sufficient faith and effort has resulted, for many, in overcoming homosexual orientation, and
(2) gay Mormons should focus on the next life, at which point they will be made straight and can then be a spouse in a straight, opposite-sex marriage.

"While many Latter-day Saints, through individual effort, the exercise of faith, and reliance upon the enabling power of the Atonement, overcome same-gender attraction in mortality, others may not be free of this challenge in this life. However, the perfect plan of our Father in Heaven makes provision for individuals who seek to keep His commandments but who, through no fault of their own, do not have an eternal marriage in mortal life. As we follow Heavenly Father’s plan, our bodies, feelings, and desires will be perfected in the next life so that every one of God’s children may find joy in a family consisting of a husband, a wife, and children."

It is difficult to imagine a teaching more conducive to suicidal ideation. Given (1) the centrality of man-woman marriage to God's plan, and (2) the practically non-existent odds of a gay person becoming straight in the next few decades of his/her life, it is unsurprising that a significant proportion of gay Mormons have considered, attempted, or succeeded at killing themselves.

Conclusion:
Besides contributing towards the continued push of gay Mormons towards the suicide ledge, I'd say the resource is a step in the right direction.