Archbishop’s letter ‘Redefining Marriage’

This past Sunday, a coalition of Churches in Australia had letters read to them from the pulpit. I'm unsure if the LDS Church in Australia participated in this same program.

Dr. Peter F. Jensen, Anglican Archbishop, Sydney, Australia

Dr. Peter F. Jensen, Archbishop of the Anglican (Church of England) in Australia issued this letter. In response, I sent him the letter below:

Good Morning Sir

I write the following with the fullest degree of respect for you, your Church and your position on gay marriage.

At the age of 16 I was baptized a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I appreciate that this of itself may cause you to have some doctrinal issues with my faith, but as a Christian I trust you can take it in face value.

At 19 I left home for my two year mission. It was an amazing experience, I spoke with hundreds of people and shared the message of the birth, death and resurrection of the Saviour. I taught of his redeeming love and the mercy of his atonement.

From about the age of 12 I had feelings for boys which I knew was not right in the eyes of the Church and for most in society. I prayed and prayed and at times fasted for help from Heavenly Father to remove these feelings from me.

As a young man in my 20's these feelings continued and finally at the age of 36 I resigned myself to the belief that gay was a part of who I was. I promise you it was not a choice that I'd made at some point to be gay. I would suggest that having been in the gay community for some time now there is a small group who do make that choice. However it's not my role to place judgement upon those people.

As with all Christians, the LDS perspective on marriage is one of sanctity and reverence. You may be aware that LDS doctrine teaches that marriage is of an eternal nature and one that is required to enter the highest degree of glory in the next life. Again, your doctrinal view will be different, but I share it here only to convey my respect and reverence for the institution of marriage.

In the final years before I "came out" I remember stirring some vigorous discussions in Sunday meetings around the issue of homosexuality and the institution of the family. At the end of the day, all gay people belong to a family. That family may have had a mother and father, or in many cases a single parent.

While LDS Church leadership has made statements like "homosexuality is the greatest threat to the family" and "gay marriage is the beginning of the end of the family" I was never able to get anyone to articulate clearly, exactly why that was the case. I personally feel that alcohol, drugs, abusive fathers and poor financial management are a greater threat to families than the actions of homosexual couples who may be our neighbours.

In my extensive reading on the topic of "gay marriage" I've come across many views. I'm supportive of the view that in no way should Churches be forced to facilitate a marriage between couples of the same sex. As I've shared with my friends, why would I want to share such a happy occasion with a body who despise my very existence. I would personally rally with you should there ever be a hint of government imposing such a law on Churches. Just as I claim protection under law for my rights, so Churches should be able to claim the same right.

But, is marriage a religious claim?

I don't believe it is. The current argument is a political one. If the Christian lobby feel so strongly against gay marriage, why are they not so zealous in suggesting that Muslim, Jewish, Hindu etc marriage also not be recognized? Because this is about denying gay people the ability to marry, not to protect the institution of marriage itself.

Can I propose a solution?

Perhaps government needs to remove itself from the business of "marriage".  "Marriage" is the domain of religious bodies. Government should only be able to issue licenses for Civil Unions while Churches issue certificates of marriage. This would be a fair and equitable approach, providing the same legal stance for all citizens under the law.

What about the children?

This is possibly one of the biggest issues and one which has caused great pain for many people in the gay community. The inference being that they are somehow less of a parent because their partner is of the same gender. The Christian lobby talk of the requirement for a child to have a mother and a father. 

No mention is ever made of the army of single parents who provide a warm and loving environment for their children. I grew up in such a home and have never felt I missed out when it came to volume of love a child should have in their life.

For those gay couples who adopt a child, there's perhaps only one source, dysfunctional heterosexual couples who have surrendered their responsibility of parenthood.

In Closing

I'm confident my position hasn't changed your views, but I hope it shows you there are people in the gay community who can have a civilised discussion on this heated topic.

As the debate commences in federal parliament today I hope all parties can behave in a dignified way.

Sincerely 

Derek Bell

Mascot, NSW, Australia

Love is Sweet!

A Weekend Away Warms the Heart

My partner and I went to Melbourne this weekend to celebrate with some friends who are opening a new retail food store. The store opens in two weeks. I went down Friday morning and spent the day with a client and my partner flew down Friday night.

We stayed at the Sofitel Hotel on Collins street, what the locals call the "Paris End of Collins". It's a beautiful part of Melbourne. He got in late and was starving, so we found ourselves having room service at midnight, a cheeseburger and a club sandwich and sticky date pudding for dessert. 

Armie Hammer & Leonardo Di Caprio in a scene from J. Edgar the movie.

We watched a movie, well I did after he fell asleep in the opening scene of "J. Edgar" with Leonardo Dicaprio - how he could fall alseep with such eye candy on screen is beyond me!

Saturday Morning

The hotel had wooden shutters which we closed before going to bed which meant we didn't wake until 10:45am, the room was so dark, it was wonderful. We then headed out to Camberwell to see our friends store. We found a nice cafe, had lunch with our friend which interrupted his plastering at the store.

We then wondered down Burke Road, Camberwell did some completely unnecessary shopping and headed back to the Sofitel. Dinner was at 7pm, literally behind the hotel. We had an amazing evening, plenty of cocktails and the food was fabulous.

Sunday Morning

We woke Sunday morning, a little earlier this time. We had some breakfast and headed out to a friends place for a scrumptious mexican lunch and then off to the airport for our 5pm flight home to Sydney.

You see, the simple pleasure of a relationship are worth so much more than all the money in the world. I'm lucky to be in a relationship with an amazing man whom I adore and love. Live is good and for those who are not there yet, it really does get better.

There Has To Be A Better Way

The ability of a nation to present itself as progressive and modern can be a task harder than perhaps originally thought. By what measures and against which values system can a nation choose to align itself? For the West, we largely base our values on those of the Jewish and Christian biblical texts of which Moses's Ten Commandments are the basis.

As we look into recent history, those values seem to have served us well. Our societies live in relative peace despite the current disruption based on the poor fiscal management of our governments, businesses and of course individuals are required to saddle some of the blame. It's individuals, like government and business, who have overspent and lived beyond our means. It's a simple equation, we really shouldn't spend more than we have i.e. credit.

Bad Legislation

In the US and Australia we have political parties who are generally aligned on a single values system, but worlds apart when it comes to implementing systems and polices that interpret those values. In the US we've seen paranoid state governments attempt to legislate that Islamic law, Sharia Law, cannot be recognised as a legitimate legal system. It creates issues from the point of view that, for example, Catholicism is a foreign faith based in Italy. From a legal point of view this stance is a mine field.

Producing legislation based on a paranoid view of a minority is dangerous. On the 27th October, 1838 the US state of Missouri and their Governor Boggs issued “Missouri Executive Order 44” also know as the “Mormon Extermination Order”. The law called for the extermination of Mormons, it was legal to kill members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That law was finally repealed in the 1976, 138 years later. I'm sure US President hopeful Mitt Romney feels comfortable visiting Missouri today in the knowledge it's now illegal for someone to kill him!

So mistakes have been made, bad legislation produces bad outcomes for society. In Australia, governments are fixated on creating programs that benefit "families", at least their interpretation of what constitutes a family. As a single, white, gay man there are really no benefits I receive from the Australian government. Should I? Well, my answer is based partially on my political views and my belief that governments role is to represent all it's constituents fairly.

The Absence of Fairness Across the Board

I firmly believe that as we all pay taxes, any benefit should be made available to all tax payers. If a couple earn $280,000 and have four kids, should they receive less benefit from the government compared to a couple with four kids who earn $80,000? I don't think so. Australia's tax regime does a great job of killing any desire by one person to excel in their work and produce a higher income. The more you earn, the greater percentage of your income goes in tax. Hardly an incentive.

It's here I would turn to some ancient values from the Jewish biblical texts which suggest 10% of ones earnings go to the Lord. I’ve seen this model work well in a Church setting, it creates a level playing field, regardless of our income, we can all pay 10% to the government in tax. Then, those who choose, can pay an additional 10% to their Lord, maker or whomever they choose.

I think this level playing field would then make any benefit payments from government i.e. from a surplus, easier to distribute to all citizens. I would love to see the figure of how such a fiscal change could be implemented. In principle I think this is a great idea, in practice I'd need an economist to do the numbers to see how it could work. At the end of the day a surplus belongs to the people who produced it, the people, not the government.

Presenting Ourselves As Something Other Than We Really Are

I struggle to understand the US view on many political issues, the disdain and enmity towards opposing political views is toxic, Australia is not much better today. Health care is a great example of this. From a nation purporting itself to be a Christian nation, the words and venom sprouted about what's seen by many in the US as socialised medicine, is appalling. The notion that a family who can't afford private medical insurance should suffer the consequences of illness, is reprehensible. I would simply ask these "Christians", what would Christ do?

The American predisposition to run in the opposite direction of anything that resembles socialism is astounding. The question has to be asked, “how's your current republic serving you?”. An advanced society should be able to look to alternatives and seek new ideas when the current system has obvious shortcomings.

A Balance

Just so we're clear, my view is that our Westminster system of government with it's constitutional ties to the British Monarchy is the best system of government we have available today. The checks and balances and the role of the monarchy provide a stable platform for democracy to thrive. Can we do better? I'm sure we can, but there seems to be an absence of anything better today. 

I admire the US/French style of government, but disagree with the Presidential model and the process of the presidential selection process. The current US presidential race costs billions and who does it serve besides media companies and the many consultants involved in the process?

Australia was formed as a federation of states with an Act of Parliament, the US lost hundreds of thousands during the American Revolutionary War and then the Civil War. Something many American’s seem to lose sight of when they point the finger at developing nations around the world where they insist in getting involved based on perceived US domestic security threats.

What Does It All Mean?

At the end of the day, I firmly believe we have great room for improvement. All nations and the many communities within those nations have a responsibility to afford all citizens the right and privilege of peace and security without any threat based on their faith, the colour of their skin, their sexual orientation or their religious affiliations.

What do you think?

One of These Kids Will Grow Up To Be Fabulous

I Cried Laughing

Last night my partner showed me the photo below which he had stumbled across on someone's facebook page. Without even reading the text I almost suffocated laughing. Once I read the text and looked at the faces of the boys to his left and right, I laughed even harder.

I think what I liked about this was the complete absence of any gay hate text and just a kid being embraced for who he is. I think I also see a little of myself, I'm not sure I was quite that "fabulous" when I was his age - but I probably felt it inside.

Won't it be a good day when we can just embrace people, especially kids, for who they are and not through what we expect them to be. If you know any kids like this little fella, let them know that when they grow up, they're also going to be fabulous.

The Gay Marriage Debate Continues

The Media Reporting Cycle

Over a few of my past blogs, I've shared my views on gay marriage and shared with you some of the letters I've written to my elected officials. It seems over the past twelve months, from my own observations, there is barley a news cycle go by that the gay marriage debate is not mentioned in some way or another.

We have a TV current affairs show in Australia called "ABC Australia - Q&A" (Google "QANDA ABC"). The shows tag line is "Adventures in Democracy". It's a great show and generally has a political bent to it, but not always. On Monday evening, May 14th, 2012 they had Penny Wong - Federal Minister for Finance & Deregulation on the show. She and her partner have recently had a child, however I should point out Ms Wong does not flaunt her sexuality to the media, in this instance, she's a private women.

Whenever she's on QandA there are tweets across the bottom of the screen "Wong for Primeminister". She's a very cool operator, decisive, clear when she speaks and certainly has an air of authority. The challenge came in the show recently where a question from the studio audience asked one of the other panellists, from the opposition party, how his wife and children seem to be more of a family than Minister Wong's. (See the youtube video below with an excerpt from the show)

You could see he was uncomfortable with the question, his response was the usual rhetoric that a child's best chance for success was by having a mother and a father, not two mummies or two daddies. I always feel bad for the single mothers in this debate, while never mentioned, they're quietly told that their family is also not ideal.

Amongst her response, Minister Wong said "I know what my family is worth". There could be no real additional comment to that statement and as timining would have it, that was the end of the show. The media picked up on that statement as did some enterprising individuals.

You can buy t-shirts on line with the statement and I imagine mugs, coasters etc within a short period of time. While our ability to love those whom we love and to possibly marry those whom we love is the desired state of some in the gay community, for others it doesn't seem to matter.

I think most of us want the same legal rights as heterosexual couples and especially the safeguards that come with that legal position for our children, the tag of "marriage" is perhaps not as eagerly sought after. The straight folks don't seem to have done so well with the institution of marriage, divorce rates, general levels of happiness etc. Are we sure that's what we want?

My Letter to Australian Prime Minister - Julia Gillard

Prime Minister Julia Gillard, Prime Minister of Australia

This morning as I sat at my local cafe, wearing my A&F hoodie and with a blue wool scarf wrapped around my neck because it was so cold, I decided to write an email to Prime Minister Gillard in relation to an article in today's Sun-Herald newspaper. 

For my readers outside Australia, Prime Minister (PM) Gillard is Australia's first female PM. She's living in a defacto relationship and has no children, she's a lawyer and politician. A common mix. That background will help in relation to my comments below.

Good Morning PM,

It seems Major General Angus Houston is far ahead of your government in his acceptance of the gay community. I'm at a point where I simply don't understand why you do and say the things you do. While I absolutely respect your opinion as a private citizen on the matter of same sex marriage, I absolutely don't support your view as my PM.

Your stand against me, my friends and those I love is nothing more than bigotry and a denial of what I believe is my right that you and the opposition seem adamant to enforce. If the ADF, the bastion of all things macho can, for the past 20 years, be accepting of the gay community, why on earth is it such a struggle for you.

The hypocrisy of your own living arrangements makes your stand even more of a joke. Let me be clear, I personally don't care who you live with and the circumstances under which you live - that's your right afforded by law. But, in part, to align your views with those of the conservative Church community while "living in sin" is unfathomable to me.

I'm not 100% clear on what moral ground you base your opinions about same sex marriage. The media tell us you're an atheist, that's cool. But any humanist view would typically be open to same sex marriage. But are you a humanist? I don't know!

You're now in a minority more aligned with leaders of backward African and Middle Eastern countries on the subject of same sex marriage. Please don't defend your position by espousing the changes to legislation that gave gay folks many of the rights as straight folk, personally I thought that legislation was a joke. It missed the key point of providing equality for all Australians.

Well, that's my thoughts for the day. Like so much of what your government has done, your stance seems to be about clinging to power and not being the leader of a great democracy where the citizens of this nation are heard and their voices are respected.

Sincerely

Derek

For US readers, you may enjoy this "tongue in cheek" editorial from one of Australia's journalists - Annabel Crabb. "Time we call came out of the closet" in response to President Obama's recent comments about gay marriage. 

"Familes are Families" - Chief of Defence Force, Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston: Australian Defence Force

This year marks 20 years since the Government of Australian Primeminister Keating lifted the ban on gays serving in th Australian Defence force. It's taken time for that change to become culturally accepted, but changes along the way have helped.

As head of the Australian Defence Force (ADF), Major General Angus Houston said in 2005 "Familes are Familes". This opened the way for gay and straight defacto couples to become entitled to relocation funding, compensation and superannuation (401k). It's seems the ADF is far ahead of the current Gillard Government in recognizing gay couples and their rights. In today's Sun Herald newspaper there's a two page spread titled "Gays in the Military". Sounds like a play on words from the Little Britain skit "I'm the only gay in the village".

I have friends serving in the ADF, only straight that I know of. On occasion I've socialised with these guys and girls, they're outstanding people. I've always had a high level of respect for anyone who would volunteer to take up arms and potentially put their life on the line for their fellow countrymen and, it what seems the case in modern warfare, defend those who can't defend themselves i.e.Iraq, Afhganistan etc.

I describe this as an "inflated level of respect and even reverence". To give you an idea, did you ever watch the West Wing? In a few episodes President Bartlettt would have to make a phone call at the end of the episode to a family who's son or daughter had been killed in a military operation. I would be brought to tears as he went through that process, he afforded the deceased soldier, I thought, the greatest level of respect by making that phone call. Yeah I know, maybe I'm a sap, but it's more than simply liking men in uniform I assure you :-)

Second Class Citizens 

My partner and I have been together for three years, that's a long time in any relationship these days. I love my partner mor than words can express, he's my oxygen, I think of him every day, I love all aspects of who he is as a person. I'm lucky to have a family that are open to our relationship and care for him as I do. Mum (mom for you Yankee readers) has asked from time to time about marriage.

At this point I gently remind her that it's illegal in Australia for gays to be married. She suggests that a commitment ceremony would be nice. I'm adamant that I will not partipate in a ceremony that I believe reinforces my status as a second class citizen. Until I can be married to the man I love and I'm afforded the rights associated with that union from law, I won't do it. What do you think? I'm cool with other gay folk who want to do this, but it's not what I want to do.