ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/gdm/archive/v02.n020

Internet Message Format | 2000-03-06 | 44KB

From: [e-mail] (gdm-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: gdm-digest V2 #20
Reply-To: gdm-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


gdm-digest            Monday, March 6 2000            Volume 02 : Number 020




----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 12:51:20 -0700
From: "Perry L. Porter" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ---> Needless death.

Scott Matis, 30, committed suicide the morning of Friday, 25 Feb 2000, in
the chapel of the Santa Clara Stake Center, in Santa Clara, CA.  He was a
gay Mormon, who wrote the letter found at

http://www.freeourfamilies.org/prop22/mormon_letter.htm

- ------------------------
[Excerpt from this web page.]

The entire premise of the Church's argument, however, is that if I were to
fulfill the measure of my creation, fall in love with a man, and desire to
commit my love to him through marriage, then suddenly I become
anti-family. My union somehow will weaken families. Which family, Ryan? My
family? Your family? Whose family am I supposed to destroy? When placed in
this context, it seems so absurdly silly.

However, this is exactly the intent behind the Knight Initiative.

This is precisely why you will not see a church member who has a gay son
or daughter placing signs on his or her lawn. These members will not be
walking around their neighborhoods. These members will ache every time a
gay debate ensues in the chapel halls. These members know the intent of
their children's hearts. They know the goodness of their spirit. They see
the goodness in their children's gay friends. They see and experience
homophobia on a personal basis, and they collectively mourn the Church's
involvement in the Knight Initiative. I wish that I could shout this
message from the rooftops, but alas, I sit alone in my room typing
wondering what will happen next.

- ----------------------

There will be a service tomorrow in Santa Clara, and Friday, at the Orem
Cemetery at 11:00 am.

His suicide note includes references to the difficulty of being gay within
the mormon community, as well as the negative effects of the continuing
pro Prop 22 efforts in church meetings he attended.

(Footnote: Stuart committed suicide in his Stake Center in Santa Clara,
California on Friday, February 25th, 2000. His suicide note mentioned that
he hoped that his death would help bring some attention to this travesty.)

[according to a friend] This is confirmed.  This can be sent anywhere.




Perry     <[e-mail]>    http://pobox.com/~plporter

- -

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 11:31:59 -0700
From: "Perry L. Porter" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ---> Stuart Matis, editorials

[Sorry I got the name wrong yesterday, his name was Stuart, not Scott.  He
went to the same mission that I did some 25 years ago.  We were not there
at the same time as he is younger by 14 years.  I feel a little affinity
with Stuart, because he must have had some similar cultural experiences as
I did in Italy.  I can not identify with all the suffering that he lived
trough, because I am Heterosexual, but I recently went through a fairly
amicable divorce and depression at times has been difficult.  I can not
imagine what it would be like to be faithful LDS and Gay.

I have many friends that are gay, and known others that did what the
church taught them to repent of their feelings, get married, have children
and everything would be ok.  I have also listened to the feelings of
children and former spouses of these gay people that followed the church's
council and got married, trying to fix their gayness.

It is heart breaking to here these women, tell how for years they would
try to seduce their husbands as best they could, even begging them to make
love to them.  The feelings of despair, and rejection as their husband
seemed disinterested.  The damage to these poor women's self esteem, and
the anger once they found out that they had married a gay man, and that
the church used them as a guinea pig in a lame attempt to reverse
biological urges!

Is the church about family values when it comes to Prop 22?

NO!  The church is about conformity, narrow-minded conformity, of a
worldview of the 1950's that never really existed!

Just this week the Utah Legislature passed a bill that the only sex
education that can now be taught in Utah schools is abstinence!

Well in the heat of the moment, when a teenager starts touching sexual
body parts, and things continue, and they choose human urges over ride
their instructions on abstinence, what happens next???  Unprotected sex,
and the risk of pregnancy is what will be going on in the back seat of
car!!!  After all if abstinence is based on a religious, they are smart
enough to know they can repent of what ever they do sexually, it is all
done behind closed doors of the bishops office, is what will cross their
mind, if anything, other than "this feel great", crosses their mind!

Do teenagers assume that their parents are practicing abstinence for 3
years between the birth of children or after the last child?  Surely
teenagers will hear about birth control, do we now want them to learn
about it from other teenagers?  After 4 years of teenagers teaching
teenagers about birth control, how accurate is the information going to
be?

This is an example of how Utah/Mormon culture view traditional sex, so how
messed up are their views on homosexuality!

Voting for Prop 22, where the ONLY legal marriage is between one man and
ONE women, stomps on the graves of our pioneer ancestors that went to
prison in acts of civil disobedience to allow for non-mainstream
marriages!!!

Of the 70 year period that polygamy was practiced it was only somewhat
legal for 10 of those years, 1852 - 1862.  Even when they went to Mexico
and Canada after 1890, it was illegal in those countries!

No legislation is going to alter the urges of Homosexual people any more
than passing prop 22 is going to make me feel attracted to men instead of
women!  But if allowing gay persons to marry, removes the social stigma,
and allows gay people come out earlier and not feel pressured to hid it
and feel pressured to marry someone of the opposite sex just to conform to
Mormon pious views of sex, then that vote is in reality PRO FAMILY!

Being Pro Family, means to favor all stable family relationships, not just
those in the majority.  Gay people are going to do what they want to do,
whether we label it as legal or not.  But why not have them go with what
they feel from the very start, in stead if messing up the lives of their
spouses and children, by pretending to be something they are not, because
of social pressure from a religious myopic view of sex!

I was just going to introduce for a paragraph or two, before presenting
the following editorial, but this debate is so bass ackwards!]

- -----------------------

Subject: Stuart Matis

Hi all.

Stuart Matis, who was in the Italy Rome mission with me and is a cousin of
my friend Greg, died last Friday. I have attached a letter he recently
wrote to BYU's Daily Universe (printed 2/21), and a follow up letter from
another cousin (2/28). Food for thought.



http://newsnet.byu.edu/noframes/show_story.cfm?number=7940&year=current

Dear Editor:

I am gay. I am also LDS. My first same-sex attraction occurred when I was
seven, and for the next 25 years, I have never been attracted to women. I
realized the significance of my sexuality when I was around thirteen, and
for the next two decades, I traveled down a tortuous path of internalized
homophobia, immense self-hatred, depression and suicidal thoughts. Despite
the calluses on my knees, frequent trips to the temple, fasts and devotion
to my mission and church callings such as elders' quorum president, I
continually failed to attenuate my homosexuality.

I came out last year. My bishop and my father each gave me a blessing
inspired by the spirit that proclaimed that I was indeed gay and that I
would remain gay. Thus, I read a recent letter to the editor with great
regret. The author compared my friends and me to murderers, Satanists,
prostitutes, pedophiles and partakers of bestiality. Imagine having to
live with this rhetoric constantly being spewed at you.

My aunt is a psychiatrist in Ogden and has worked with over 1,000 gay
Latter-day Saints. Because of her work with these church members, she has
been forced by necessity to specialize in homosexuality, depression and
suicide.

I implore the students at BYU to re-assess their homophobic feelings. Seek
to understand first before you make comments. We have the same needs as
you. We desire to love and be loved. We desire to live our lives with
happiness. We are not a threat to you or your families. We are your sons,
daughters, brothers, sisters, neighbors, co-workers and friends, and most
importantly, we are all children of God.

Stuart Matis

Santa Clara, Calif.



http://newsnet.byu.edu/noframes/show_story.cfm?number=8101&year=current

Dear Editor:

I would like to respond to the letter last week that began "I am gay. I am
also LDS." The author of that letter was my cousin. Like most Latter-day
Saints, I used to think that being gay meant that you had earned yourself
a one-way ticket to hell and that you obviously had to choose this for
yourself.

I found out in December that my cousin was gay. Understandably, it turned
my world upside down. He was very active in the church, he served a
mission, he graduated from BYU and he frequently went to the temple.

The fact is, he didn't choose to be gay. Why would he choose something
that would have made his life that much harder? He struggled over this
part of himself. In his 32 years of living, not once did he do anything
that would have cost him his membership in the church.

So why do I tell you about him? Because he felt so much self-hatred,
because he realized he would never marry, because his life was more
difficult than we'll ever understand, that he decided to end his life
Friday morning. In his suicide note, my cousin said he ended his life
because he was gay.

Please stop yourself from jumping all over the issue, thinking that you
completely understand these people, when you have not even talked to them.



I have a testimony in the prophet and the brethren, and believe in
everything they say. But I think as members, we are far from perfect. We
are so quick to judge, we are so quick to assume that issues are black and
white, and that everything else falls by the wayside.

Please reach out to those who need your help. I wish that I had done that
for my cousin, but it's too late for that. The best I can do is tell
others to do the same.

I don't condone homosexuality and I don't agree with it, but I do realize
that this is something people struggle with. I don't know what Christ
would do when it comes to these people, but he wouldn't condemn them, and
he wouldn't turn his back on them.

In a school that is Christ-centered, maybe we can make a conscious effort
to do the same.


Ryan Shattuck

Hollister, Calif.


Perry     <[e-mail]>    http://pobox.com/~plporter

- -

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 00:14:15 -0700
From: [e-mail]
Subject: [none]

[From the front page of the Salt Lake Trib]
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: gdm

For Some, Mormon Stance on Gay Issue Creates a Crisis of Conscience

Sunday, March 5,

2000

BY DAN EGAN

THE SALT LAKE

TRIBUNE

TRACY, Calif.

- -- It's dinner time, and Alan and Yvette Hansen's home is a quintessential
picture of Mormon domesticity.

Toddlers scoot from their seats and romp about, pushing a toy vacuum
cleaner and toting around dolls.

"My name is James!" shouts a 4-year-old who sneaks away from the dinner
table while his mother tries to coax a sibling into taking medication for
an ear infection. "My -- name -- is -- Jaaames!!!" "James," replies Yvette
Hansen, 31, holding an eye dropper over her squirming daughter. "Use your
inside voice, please." Inside voices.

That is an admonishment Alan and Yvette Hansen have been hearing
themselves. The couple have been speaking out against California's
controversial "Proposition 22" -- perhaps louder than they should,
according to their leaders in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints.

The Mormon church and many of its roughly 740,000 members in California
are on a crusade to pass Tuesday's ballot initiative, which would ban
recognition of gay marriages in the state. The Hansens, who describe
themselves as good Mormons, have a problem with that.

And now they have a problem with their church.

"I obviously believe God doesn't want me to vote 'yes,' he wants me to
vote 'no,' " says Alan Hansen, who opposes the initiative on grounds it
could lead to discrimination against homosexuals and a loss of rights for
children of gays.

He also makes it clear he has a problem with his church's support of the
measure, and because of that, he says, church leaders have slapped him
with an "informal probation." It is not his opposition that is the
problem, says Hansen's ecclesiastical leader, Manteca Stake President Rex
Brown.

"People certainly are free to say whatever they'd like to say in regards
to Proposition 22," Brown says. "The real issue is speaking out against
the church." Brown would not comment on Hansen's status in the church,
citing church policy on confidentiality.

While a majority of California Mormons appear to support both Proposition
22 and their church's unabashed support for it, the Hansens do not stand
alone. Many are eager to whisper to the news media that all is not well
among the rank and file. Resentment, they say, roils because the church's
fund-raising and aggressive campaigning for Proposition 22 are forcing
them to choose between supporting their church leaders or their homosexual
family members and friends.

Just last week, a 32-year-old gay Mormon man put a gun to his head and
pulled the trigger on the steps of a Mormon chapel in Northern California.
He was profoundly opposed to Proposition 22, though his family insists the
suicide was not politically motivated.

Others disagree, but hardly any who are opposed to the church's official
position will allow their names to be used in newspaper stories. They say
they fear repercussions and note that when documents were leaked last
summer that outlined Mormon leadership's fund-raising strategies for the
campaign, leaders "were all but beating the bushes to get the squealer to
come out." The chill that has since spread across California's Mormon
landscape has created such a bitter climate that some say they no longer
feel free even to privately express their opposition to a measure they
believe is discriminatory.

"The issue is so sensitive," says one member of a Southern California
ward. "It's just pretty doggone touchy and people don't want to betray
themselves to somebody who might report them. In ways, it's like what I
imagined it was like living in Russia, where people acted as the eyes and
ears of government." So they bite their lips or speak in hushed tones, and
most always insist their names not be used for publication.

But not 30-year-old Alan Hansen. He is practically clanging cymbals.

"This is the first time I've found myself left of center. I'm a pretty
conservative guy," says the marketing manager for an Internet start-up
company in San Jose. The Hansens live in the little city of Tracy, located
about 60 miles east of the San Francisco Bay Area. "[But] many think the
church is not on the moral high ground here." Hansen insists he is not
attacking the church, he is simply criticizing its stance on Proposition
22.

He and his wife say they are happily heterosexual, and he says this is the
first time he has found himself crossways with his church, which spent
more than $1 million in similar, successful ballot initiatives recently
held in Alaska and Hawaii.

While church headquarters in Utah reportedly has not given a dime to the
California cause, local leaders have for nearly a year prodded members to
write checks in support of the campaign. Their donations are not
considered tithing, nor are they tax-deductible.

It's impossible to say how much of the estimated $8 million raised so far
for the Yes on 22 campaign has come from Mormons because individual
contributors do not list church affiliation on campaign finance forms. The
Mormon church is joined in its campaign by other religious organizations,
including the Catholic Church, which has given more than $300,000, and the
California Southern Baptist Convention, Assemblies of God and several
Muslim and Protestant denominations.

Anti-Gay or Pro-Family? The LDS battle is being waged with more than
money. Each Sunday, letters of support are read to California wards, and
members are entreated to canvass neighborhoods and put Yes on Proposition
22 signs in their yards.

"The ecclesiastical pressure has been enormous," says one former bishop,
who continues to hold a high church leadership position in the Bay Area.
"We've never seen anything like this." Even LDS Church President Gordon B.
Hinckley has weighed in.

"We regard it as not only our right, but our duty to oppose those forces
which we feel undermine the moral fiber of society," Hinckley said last
fall. "Such is currently the case in California, where Latter-day Saints
are working as part of a coalition to safeguard traditional marriage from
forces in our society which are attempting to redefine that sacred
institution." At the same time, Hinckley says the church will continue "to
love and honor them [homosexuals] as sons and daughters of God." The LDS
Church rarely wades into stormy political waters. But, Hinckley and other
leaders say, this is a moral issue, and it calls for political activism.

Gay rights advocates question why the church picked Proposition 22 instead
of loads of other legislation -- child welfare or domestic abuse laws, for
example -- that could reinforce the fabric of families.

"They [homosexuals] feel like this is in their face and is really
anti-gay," says Gary Watts, a Utah Mormon and father of two gay children.
He is co-chair of Family Fellowship, a support group for Mormon parents of
gays and lesbians. "Up until I became familiar with the issue about 11
years ago, I probably would be there with everybody else [supporting
Proposition 22]. Unless you . . . know someone who is gay or lesbian, it's
very easy to demean them." Gay marriage is not currently allowed in
California or any other state. Proposition 22 simply ensures that
California will not have to recognize gay marriages that might some day be
sanctioned in other states. Advocates of the measure note that dozens of
states as well as Congress have passed similar measures, and they argue
nothing will change for gay couples. They say the initiative is merely a
chance to reaffirm their position on marriage.

Opponents say there is nothing positive about a 'yes' vote.

They call the issue a "wedge" intended to nudge the state's gay population
to the fringe. They contend Proposition 22 could lead to a host of lost
rights, including health benefits, hospital visitation privileges, and,
most importantly for the Hansens, cause harm to children of homosexuals in
areas like inheritances, custodial rights and medical benefits.

It is a personal issue for the Hansens, who have been foster parents to
five children. They are in the process of adopting 4-year-old Jessica so
she will become legal sister to James and Nicholas, 2, their biological
children. They worry Proposition 22 could push homosexual parents out of
the the picture at a time when California needs all the parents it can
get.

"We need to protect anybody who is willing to take extraordinary steps to
take care of kids," says Alan Hansen.

And, say the Hansens, sexuality is not a factor in determining who is a
good parent.

"As foster parents, we've seen plenty of married people in traditional
families raising their kids badly. We've raised their kids for them," adds
Yvette Hansen. "I don't care what [homosexuals] do in their bedroom. If
it's a sin, it's between them and God." "Is it more important," presses
Alan Hansen, "to call someone a sinner than it is to protect children?"

Politicking at the Pulpit: The Hansens' quiet convictions bubbled into the
public recently after Alan Hansen wrote a letter to the local newspaper
criticizing both the proposition and the Mormon church's stumping at the
pulpit.

"When I attend church, I go there hoping to get close to God. I go to
study the life of Jesus and to learn to live like him. I go to repent of
my sins and rededicate myself to righteous living. I go to church to
improve myself," he wrote in a letter to the editor that appeared in the
Tracy Press.

"When my church tells me how to vote or where to spend my political
dollars, it takes away from my opportunity to worship and consider God in
my life." While Hansen is not surprised those words ruffled church
leadership, he contends they should be willing to tolerate his dissent.
After all, he notes, the church has entered the political debate. And he
is just debating those politics.

"The church told members we don't have to vote 'yes,' " Hansen told a
reporter for the Tracy Press. "Well, that means I can vote 'no,' and I can
talk about my reasons." Others are also starting to speak out.

"I'm disappointed that we are supporting a proposition that is so
divisive, that causes parents who have homosexual children to be really
put in a situation of having to choose between the church and their
family," says Richard Rands, a Mormon who lives in the Bay Area.

"This is such a divisive issue for families, which is very ironic because
families are at the core of the church's concern here," says Rands' wife,
Janet.

Other local church leaders acknowledge the issue is at the root of some
discord, but they say support for the measure and the church's position on
it have been overwhelming.

"When the prophet [Hinckley] speaks, we listen," says Brent Newbold, a
Mormon bishop and owner of a dry cleaning store in the Sacramento area.
"It's caused people to make a decision -- [to state] where they stand."
And, says Newbold, nine out of 10 in his ward stand by their church.

At least one woman in his ward, however, quit attending because of the
church's position.

"I don't call her in and give her a hard time," says Newbold. "Hopefully,
she'll come back." But a steady trickle of Californians may be leaving the
church permanently because of the issue. Kathy Worthington, a Utah
gay-rights activist who is coordinating a drop-out campaign, claims she
has been in contact with more than 300 people who want to stop being
Mormon.

A former Mormon herself, Worthington says she has copies of more than 100
notarized letters sent to church headquarters by people who are trying to
sever their ties with their religion because of Proposition 22.

"This [issue] seems to be the last straw for a lot of people," she says.

Church spokesman Michael Purdy said he could not provide information
regarding Worthington's assertion.

But Janet Rands has seen enough to know that some harm already has been
done.

"I don't think anyone sat down with the intention of driving people away,
but I do see that," says Rands, a psychologist. "The sad thing is, this
affects their kids, a generation who won't be learning their Bible songs,
who won't be reading the Book of Mormon." That could include the Hansen
children.

Alan Hansen, a lifelong Mormon who served a mission in Japan and was born
while his parents attended church-owned Brigham Young University, says he
has been stripped of his teaching position in the church for being so
outspoken on the issue and could face harsher penalties.

"The bishop has said I need to make a public apology for my comments," he
says. "I haven't said anything that is not the truth, and a person should
not be punished for telling the truth." His wife frets he may be on the
road to excommunication, but he's not so scared that he will stop lobbying
for an issue he holds sacred.

"I was asked -- if it came down to [my position on] Proposition 22 v. my
church membership, which would I choose," he says. "I'd choose both.

"If I couldn't choose, it would be out of my hands. It wouldn't be my
choice."

⌐ Copyright 2000, The Salt Lake Tribune All material found on Utah OnLine
is copyrighted The Salt Lake Tribune and associated news services. No
material may be reproduced or reused without explicit permission from The
Salt Lake Tribune.


Perry     <[e-mail]>    http://pobox.com/~plporter

- -

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 22:04:48 -0700
From: "Perry L. Porter" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ---> Letter to President Hinckley

[A friend of mine sent this to me today, I forward it to be forwarded to
anyone that lives in California and is LDS!]

Letter to President Hinckley

I'm mailing the following letter to President Hinckley this morning.  You
have my permission to distribute this letter where you will.

==========

Deana Marie Holmes
 1857 South 500 East #A
 Salt Lake City, UT 84105
 [phone]
 [e-mail]





March 5, 2000


President Gordon B. Hinckley
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
47 East South Temple St.
Salt Lake City, UT 84111

Dear President Hinckley:

I have wanted to write to you about this previously, but have felt  as if
any letter I  might write to you would not be answered or  simply be
brushed off as not  important in what you consider to  be "the greater
scheme of things."  However,  after reading  about Alan Hansen in today's
Salt Lake Tribune, I realized that I   could no longer remain silent.

What disturbed me the most about the whole article, even more  than the
Church's fervent and avid support of Proposition 22, is  this quote from
the article:

Others disagree, but hardly any who are opposed to the  church's  official
position will allow their names to be used in  newspaper  stories. They
say they fear repercussions and  note that when  documents were leaked
last summer that  outlined Mormon  leadership's fund-raising strategies
for the  campaign, leaders  "were all but beating the bushes to get the
squealer to come out."



The chill that has since spread across California's Mormon   landscape has
created such a bitter climate that some say  they  no longer feel free
even to privately express their  opposition to a  measure they believe is
discriminatory.


"The issue is so sensitive," says one member of a Southern   California
ward. "It's just pretty doggone touchy and people don't   want to betray
themselves to somebody who might report them. In   ways, it's like what I
imagined it was like living in Russia, where   people acted as the eyes
and ears of government."


So they bite their lips or speak in hushed tones, and most  always  insist
their names not be used for publication.


I confess to you, President Hinckley, that I have been one of  those
people who  has talked in hushed whispers and among  confidantes about
what I feel is wrong  about the Church's  support of Proposition 22.  Even
before Brother Hansen was   brought in for discipline, it was abundantly
clear that if one  spoke out, there would  be negative consequences to
such  speaking.  I am embarrassed that I have been  so fearful. I have
not been afraid to speak out on other issues, but until today I   was
afraid to write you a letter to tell you that as a member, I  object to
what has  been going on with Proposition 22. After  reading about the
struggle of Brother  Hansen to understand why  he is being punished for
standing for something, I now  regret  that I have remained silent and I
repent.

I should have written to you a long time ago and told you that I  object
strenuously  to the Church leadership using its influence to  strong-arm
Church members into  donating their time, talents  and financial resources
to this Proposition 22  campaign.   Church members would have been better
served by their  leadership  asking them to donate their money, energy and
time  to more concrete efforts to  better family situations, such as
improved living conditions for children and health  insurance  coverage
for all families.

It does not speak well of a religious organization in a free society  when
its   members are fearful of speaking out because of the  possible
consequences.  This  is particularly true when it is not  simply a moral
issue but a political issue at stake.  It is simply not  right that
members of the Church should feel muzzled and unable   to express their
political opinions because their viewpoint is not  the one favored  by the
leaders of the Church.  The corrosive  effects of  this can be seen in the
 overwhelming dominance of  one party in the political life of Utah.

President David O. McKay said the following in General  Conference in
April  1950:

This principle of free agency and the right of each individual to  be
free not only to think but also to act within bounds that  grant to  every
one else the same privilege, are sometimes  violated even by  churches
that claim to teach the doctrine of  Jesus Christ. The  attitude of any
organization toward this  principle of freedom is a  pretty good index to
its nearness to  the teachings of Christ or to  those of the Evil One.
[...]



He who thus tramples underfoot one of God's greatest gifts to   man, who
would deny another the right to think and worship as  he  pleases
propagates error and makes his own church in  that  regard as far as he
represents it a propagator of evil.



President Hinckley, I know you believe the Church leadership  has a moral
right  to speak about issues of the day.  I urge you:   Please make it
clear that members  have this right to speak as  wellùeven if the position
the member takes is not the  position  of the Church.  Members should not
be disciplined for openly  discussing  their political opinions as has
happened here.

Thank you for your time and I hope to hear from you soon.

Sincerely yours,

Deana Marie Holmes

=======================================


[From the front page of the Salt Lake Trib]

For Some, Mormon Stance on Gay Issue Creates a Crisis of Conscience

Sunday, March 5,

2000

BY DAN EGAN

THE SALT LAKE

TRIBUNE

TRACY, Calif.

- -- It's dinner time, and Alan and Yvette Hansen's home is a quintessential
picture of Mormon domesticity.

Toddlers scoot from their seats and romp about, pushing a toy vacuum
cleaner and toting around dolls.

"My name is James!" shouts a 4-year-old who sneaks away from the dinner
table while his mother tries to coax a sibling into taking medication for
an ear infection. "My -- name -- is -- Jaaames!!!" "James," replies Yvette
Hansen, 31, holding an eye dropper over her squirming daughter. "Use your
inside voice, please." Inside voices.

That is an admonishment Alan and Yvette Hansen have been hearing
themselves. The couple have been speaking out against California's
controversial "Proposition 22" -- perhaps louder than they should,
according to their leaders in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints.

The Mormon church and many of its roughly 740,000 members in California
are on a crusade to pass Tuesday's ballot initiative, which would ban
recognition of gay marriages in the state. The Hansens, who describe
themselves as good Mormons, have a problem with that.

And now they have a problem with their church.

"I obviously believe God doesn't want me to vote 'yes,' he wants me to
vote 'no,' " says Alan Hansen, who opposes the initiative on grounds it
could lead to discrimination against homosexuals and a loss of rights for
children of gays.

He also makes it clear he has a problem with his church's support of the
measure, and because of that, he says, church leaders have slapped him
with an "informal probation." It is not his opposition that is the
problem, says Hansen's ecclesiastical leader, Manteca Stake President Rex
Brown.

"People certainly are free to say whatever they'd like to say in regards
to Proposition 22," Brown says. "The real issue is speaking out against
the church." Brown would not comment on Hansen's status in the church,
citing church policy on confidentiality.

While a majority of California Mormons appear to support both Proposition
22 and their church's unabashed support for it, the Hansens do not stand
alone. Many are eager to whisper to the news media that all is not well
among the rank and file. Resentment, they say, roils because the church's
fund-raising and aggressive campaigning for Proposition 22 are forcing
them to choose between supporting their church leaders or their homosexual
family members and friends.

Just last week, a 32-year-old gay Mormon man put a gun to his head and
pulled the trigger on the steps of a Mormon chapel in Northern California.
He was profoundly opposed to Proposition 22, though his family insists the
suicide was not politically motivated.

Others disagree, but hardly any who are opposed to the church's official
position will allow their names to be used in newspaper stories. They say
they fear repercussions and note that when documents were leaked last
summer that outlined Mormon leadership's fund-raising strategies for the
campaign, leaders "were all but beating the bushes to get the squealer to
come out." The chill that has since spread across California's Mormon
landscape has created such a bitter climate that some say they no longer
feel free even to privately express their opposition to a measure they
believe is discriminatory.

"The issue is so sensitive," says one member of a Southern California
ward. "It's just pretty doggone touchy and people don't want to betray
themselves to somebody who might report them. In ways, it's like what I
imagined it was like living in Russia, where people acted as the eyes and
ears of government." So they bite their lips or speak in hushed tones, and
most always insist their names not be used for publication.

But not 30-year-old Alan Hansen. He is practically clanging cymbals.

"This is the first time I've found myself left of center. I'm a pretty
conservative guy," says the marketing manager for an Internet start-up
company in San Jose. The Hansens live in the little city of Tracy, located
about 60 miles east of the San Francisco Bay Area. "[But] many think the
church is not on the moral high ground here." Hansen insists he is not
attacking the church, he is simply criticizing its stance on Proposition
22.

He and his wife say they are happily heterosexual, and he says this is the
first time he has found himself crossways with his church, which spent
more than $1 million in similar, successful ballot initiatives recently
held in Alaska and Hawaii.

While church headquarters in Utah reportedly has not given a dime to the
California cause, local leaders have for nearly a year prodded members to
write checks in support of the campaign. Their donations are not
considered tithing, nor are they tax-deductible.

It's impossible to say how much of the estimated $8 million raised so far
for the Yes on 22 campaign has come from Mormons because individual
contributors do not list church affiliation on campaign finance forms. The
Mormon church is joined in its campaign by other religious organizations,
including the Catholic Church, which has given more than $300,000, and the
California Southern Baptist Convention, Assemblies of God and several
Muslim and Protestant denominations.

Anti-Gay or Pro-Family? The LDS battle is being waged with more than
money. Each Sunday, letters of support are read to California wards, and
members are entreated to canvass neighborhoods and put Yes on Proposition
22 signs in their yards.

"The ecclesiastical pressure has been enormous," says one former bishop,
who continues to hold a high church leadership position in the Bay Area.
"We've never seen anything like this." Even LDS Church President Gordon B.
Hinckley has weighed in.

"We regard it as not only our right, but our duty to oppose those forces
which we feel undermine the moral fiber of society," Hinckley said last
fall. "Such is currently the case in California, where Latter-day Saints
are working as part of a coalition to safeguard traditional marriage from
forces in our society which are attempting to redefine that sacred
institution." At the same time, Hinckley says the church will continue "to
love and honor them [homosexuals] as sons and daughters of God." The LDS
Church rarely wades into stormy political waters. But, Hinckley and other
leaders say, this is a moral issue, and it calls for political activism.

Gay rights advocates question why the church picked Proposition 22 instead
of loads of other legislation -- child welfare or domestic abuse laws, for
example -- that could reinforce the fabric of families.

"They [homosexuals] feel like this is in their face and is really
anti-gay," says Gary Watts, a Utah Mormon and father of two gay children.
He is co-chair of Family Fellowship, a support group for Mormon parents of
gays and lesbians. "Up until I became familiar with the issue about 11
years ago, I probably would be there with everybody else [supporting
Proposition 22]. Unless you . . . know someone who is gay or lesbian, it's
very easy to demean them." Gay marriage is not currently allowed in
California or any other state. Proposition 22 simply ensures that
California will not have to recognize gay marriages that might some day be
sanctioned in other states. Advocates of the measure note that dozens of
states as well as Congress have passed similar measures, and they argue
nothing will change for gay couples. They say the initiative is merely a
chance to reaffirm their position on marriage.

Opponents say there is nothing positive about a 'yes' vote.

They call the issue a "wedge" intended to nudge the state's gay population
to the fringe. They contend Proposition 22 could lead to a host of lost
rights, including health benefits, hospital visitation privileges, and,
most importantly for the Hansens, cause harm to children of homosexuals in
areas like inheritances, custodial rights and medical benefits.

It is a personal issue for the Hansens, who have been foster parents to
five children. They are in the process of adopting 4-year-old Jessica so
she will become legal sister to James and Nicholas, 2, their biological
children. They worry Proposition 22 could push homosexual parents out of
the the picture at a time when California needs all the parents it can
get.

"We need to protect anybody who is willing to take extraordinary steps to
take care of kids," says Alan Hansen.

And, say the Hansens, sexuality is not a factor in determining who is a
good parent.

"As foster parents, we've seen plenty of married people in traditional
families raising their kids badly. We've raised their kids for them," adds
Yvette Hansen. "I don't care what [homosexuals] do in their bedroom. If
it's a sin, it's between them and God." "Is it more important," presses
Alan Hansen, "to call someone a sinner than it is to protect children?"

Politicking at the Pulpit: The Hansens' quiet convictions bubbled into the
public recently after Alan Hansen wrote a letter to the local newspaper
criticizing both the proposition and the Mormon church's stumping at the
pulpit.

"When I attend church, I go there hoping to get close to God. I go to
study the life of Jesus and to learn to live like him. I go to repent of
my sins and rededicate myself to righteous living. I go to church to
improve myself," he wrote in a letter to the editor that appeared in the
Tracy Press.

"When my church tells me how to vote or where to spend my political
dollars, it takes away from my opportunity to worship and consider God in
my life." While Hansen is not surprised those words ruffled church
leadership, he contends they should be willing to tolerate his dissent.
After all, he notes, the church has entered the political debate. And he
is just debating those politics.

"The church told members we don't have to vote 'yes,' " Hansen told a
reporter for the Tracy Press. "Well, that means I can vote 'no,' and I can
talk about my reasons." Others are also starting to speak out.

"I'm disappointed that we are supporting a proposition that is so
divisive, that causes parents who have homosexual children to be really
put in a situation of having to choose between the church and their
family," says Richard Rands, a Mormon who lives in the Bay Area.

"This is such a divisive issue for families, which is very ironic because
families are at the core of the church's concern here," says Rands' wife,
Janet.

Other local church leaders acknowledge the issue is at the root of some
discord, but they say support for the measure and the church's position on
it have been overwhelming.

"When the prophet [Hinckley] speaks, we listen," says Brent Newbold, a
Mormon bishop and owner of a dry cleaning store in the Sacramento area.
"It's caused people to make a decision -- [to state] where they stand."
And, says Newbold, nine out of 10 in his ward stand by their church.

At least one woman in his ward, however, quit attending because of the
church's position.

"I don't call her in and give her a hard time," says Newbold. "Hopefully,
she'll come back." But a steady trickle of Californians may be leaving the
church permanently because of the issue. Kathy Worthington, a Utah
gay-rights activist who is coordinating a drop-out campaign, claims she
has been in contact with more than 300 people who want to stop being
Mormon.

A former Mormon herself, Worthington says she has copies of more than 100
notarized letters sent to church headquarters by people who are trying to
sever their ties with their religion because of Proposition 22.

"This [issue] seems to be the last straw for a lot of people," she says.

Church spokesman Michael Purdy said he could not provide information
regarding Worthington's assertion.

But Janet Rands has seen enough to know that some harm already has been
done.

"I don't think anyone sat down with the intention of driving people away,
but I do see that," says Rands, a psychologist. "The sad thing is, this
affects their kids, a generation who won't be learning their Bible songs,
who won't be reading the Book of Mormon." That could include the Hansen
children.

Alan Hansen, a lifelong Mormon who served a mission in Japan and was born
while his parents attended church-owned Brigham Young University, says he
has been stripped of his teaching position in the church for being so
outspoken on the issue and could face harsher penalties.

"The bishop has said I need to make a public apology for my comments," he
says. "I haven't said anything that is not the truth, and a person should
not be punished for telling the truth." His wife frets he may be on the
road to excommunication, but he's not so scared that he will stop lobbying
for an issue he holds sacred.

"I was asked -- if it came down to [my position on] Proposition 22 v. my
church membership, which would I choose," he says. "I'd choose both.

"If I couldn't choose, it would be out of my hands. It wouldn't be my
choice."

⌐ Copyright 2000, The Salt Lake Tribune All material found on Utah OnLine
is copyrighted The Salt Lake Tribune and associated news services. No
material may be reproduced or reused without explicit permission from The
Salt Lake Tribune.


Perry     <[e-mail]>    http://pobox.com/~plporter

- -

------------------------------

End of gdm-digest V2 #20
************************