A Nietschean Moment with LD Fob

Little Dude pointing to the wall where a Minerva Teichert painting was until yesterday:

"Jesus all gone."

Do All You Can

The following letter is to be read by local leaders to their Fob congregations today, Sunday, June 29, 2008:

Dear Friends of Ben,

It has come to our attention that throughout the United States activists are fighting to corrupt traditional marriage and in doing so attacking the very fabric of our society. Today we ask you to do all you can to fight back, to ensure that the only legitimate definition of marriage is our definition, because it is a well-known fact that two different definitions of the same thing cannot coexist in the same country, or the entire universe will implode. It is for this reason that we ask you to set aside your ability to think for yourselves so you can campaign for the following political cause that we decree as just and holy.

As you know, in the recent past activist judges have legitimized so-called same-haircolor "marriages." This is unacceptable. The Book of Ben chapter 3 verse 19 clearly states that "he who lieth with another of the same hair color in the way that a dark-haired man lieth with a light-haired woman has sinned, and must be stoned to death." Now modern-day fobby scripture has revealed to us that the Book of Ben chapters 1 through 10 are no longer the Word of Ben, which is why we no longer stone sinners to death (well, mostly just because it's illegal, but we're working on that; see next week's official letter to be read in Fob congregations), but we know that the first part of that verse is still true. We know this because we have an icky feeling inside whenever we see dark-haired people kissing other dark-haired people. (Light-haired people kissing light-haired people, on the other hand, kind of turns us on--being dark-haired people ourselves, and thus righteously attracted to light-haired people--but we know this is very very very wicked and must be condemned publicly.)

Furthermore, we know that children deserve to be raised by one dark-haired parent and one light-haired parent. This is the way Ben intended it to be, and we know that because that's how it was on Leave it to Beaver. Children raised by two dark-haired parents or two light-haired parents will grow up to be either serial killers or cross-dressers, and really is there much difference between the two? Yes, we know that scientific research does not support this theory, but that's just because all scientists are pro-same-haircolor activists. Whatever you do, don't listen to them.

Now, some people have a problem with constitutional amendments that define marriage as between a dark-haired person and a light-haired person because these amendments are based on doctrines of the Fob religion, which apparently not every person in America believes in (yet). To these people we say Poo on you. Nah nah nah nah nah nah, we're not listening. Perhaps the founding fathers of our great nation (and the founding fathers of each state thereof) neglected to mention in their constitution(s) that marriage should only be between a dark-haired person and a light-haired person, but this was clearly an oversight. They didn't mention it not because they didn't intend it, but because they forgot to. We know this because we've rewritten history so that all founding fathers were believing Fobs, or would have been if they'd had a chance. We're giving them that chance now, by rewriting our nation's constitutions.

To our friends who have already slipped through the cracks of our country's legal system and have "married" people of the same haircolor and started "families" before we could make such an act unconstitutional, rest assured that this is all for your own good. Your "marriages" aren't real marriages and your "families" aren't real families anyway. If you had legal rights to your children, you would only use them to encourage them to be serial killers or cross-dressers (or both) anyway. You don't really want that, do you? Don't answer that. We don't want to know.

To our fellow Fobs who are same-haircolor-attracted but don't act on it, please know that we love you and think about you a lot--at least every time we have to fight for another constitutional amendment ensuring that you never ever marry each other. We know that you must live lonely lives while in this mortal existence, especially now that we've told you that you should no longer ignore your desires and marry an opposite-haircolored person, lest that marriage fail and you blame us for it (sorry to those of you who got married before we changed our mind on this one). So long as you never ever ever ever so much as think about kissing someone of your same haircolor, let alone "marrying" them, you'll live a tolerable life here, and we're pretty sure you'll be happy after you die. If you fail, you will be miserable for all eternity, but rest assured that Ben loves you anyway.

Signed with love and righteous affection,

Mr. Fob

Horton Heard a Who?

Tonight we saw Horton Hears a Who, which turned out to be much more entertaining than I anticipated. It's interesting on a philosophical level too, whether you look at it as a fable whose moral is that you should have more faith in science, or as an allegory about humanity's relationship with deity--with the disturbing possibility that the gods may or may not believe in us.

To the 2%

Tonight FoxyJ sent me the link to this feature on religion in the United States in USA Today. Besides being a fascinating survey of religious beliefs and demography, and on top of that a wicked cool interface, the feature was well-timed for me in that Foxy sent it while I was stewing over this article I read tonight about the LDS Church, once again, telling its members to vote for anti-family legislation disguised in pro-family rhetoric. Seeing via USA Today that Mormons make up only 2% of California's population helped me put things in perspective and calm down a bit. I'm still angry that people feel that denying basic rights to families who don't fit an ideal invented in the 1950s is somehow Christlike or even humane, but at least the impact of this particular instance is limited by demography.

As for the small portion of that 2% of Californians who are Mormon who happen to read my blog, as well as any other Californians who may have a say in the anti-family constitutional amendment that the LDS Church believes so strongly should be passed, even if I believed I had the kind of power to make people do whatever I say, I wouldn't tell you to vote or campaign against this proposed amendment based solely on the fact that I say so. Rather, I ask only that you carefully study the facts before making any decisions, which is exactly what the LDS Church tells its members to do in situations not involving gay people marrying each other.

Gay people will couple up and raise children whether or not they're allowed to legally marry. The only thing denying them marriage rights accomplishes is to severely limit their ability to give their partners and their children the legal protections they deserve. My friend Scot, who is planning on legally marrying his husband of thirteen years (also the father of his two sons) next month, has put together articles on the statistical effects of same-sex unions, arguments for marriage equality, and the "ideal family" argument against same-sex marriage.

Employed!

After eight months of unemployment, I will have a job again in mid-May. This afternoon I interviewed for and was offered a job with a company evaluating web searches. Not only is this something that fits in with my career interests, but it also pays well, is part-time, and is done entirely from home. This means that I have a well-paying job that will cover the gap this summer between the end of my stipend and the beginning of FoxyJ's in the fall, that I will be able to keep said job over the transition from Seattle to Davis (and over the stay in Utah that will hopefully come in between the two), and that next year while Foxy is in school I will be able to be a stay-at-home dad and still contribute to my family's economic survival. Really, this is about as ideal as it gets. (Well, no, as ideal as it gets is Foxy winning millions on Jeopardy! while I sign a five-book contract with some big publisher.)

There have been several points in my life when I didn't know how I or my family was going to pay the rent or buy food in the not-too-distant future, and I've never worried about it because it always just works out. If there is a theme to my life, it is that things always work out, usually much better than could possibly be expected. It's tempting to attribute this good fortune to an omnipotent being who is watching out for me (and probably a more convincing argument could be made for an omnipotent being watching out for FoxyJ and her husband just happens to be in the blessed safety zone), but that raises the question of why said being doesn't provide other equally or more deserving people with the same good fortune.

At any rate, whether it's God or the Universe or simply the people around me who make good things happen, I do notice and I do appreciate it. I'll return the favor if the opportunity arises.

Sí, que hubo mucha mierda

The plays went really well. There were maybe ten people in the audience for the dress rehearsal on Thursday night, which was a bit disappointing, but actually a nice way to ease into performing for real live people. At least our professor laughed at all the appropriate moments. Friday and Saturday night, though, we were completely sold out and had waiting lists of people trying to get in. The turnout completely exceeded anyone's expectations based on Spanish Department plays done in previous years. Friday night it was obvious that very few attendees spoke Spanish--it was a good five minutes and several jokes into the first play before anyone laughed. But then we got into some good physical humor and the audience started reacting. Saturday night, however, the audience was laughing from practically the first line, and that was certainly gratifying.

In the first play, "El retablo de las maravillas," I play Chanfalla, a conman who brings a "show of wonders" to a small town, explaining to the townspeople that in order to see the "marvelous marvels" of the show, they must not have any Jewish or Moorish blood (this was written at the height of the Spanish Inquisition) and they must be legitimate children of married parents. So when the show begins and no one sees these amazing things I'm telling them they should see, no one wants to admit that they see nothing, lest they be branded a convert or a bastard. Everything goes downhill, though, when an important military leader shows up demanding room and board for his soldiers, and when the townspeople realize he doesn't see the marvels, they determine that he's "one of them" and in the midst of their accusations he goes berserk and tries to kill everyone, barely letting me and my sidekick escape with our lives.

Here's a picture of me (in all my green-tights glory) with my sidekick, Chirinos:


And here's a closer shot with Chirinos and our grumpy musician, Rabelín:


During the second play, "El entremés famoso de los romances," which is either an inspiration for Don Quijote or a cheap knock-off, depending on when it was written, I go backstage to transform from Spanish con artist to Aztec royalty, ending up like this:


Not bad, eh? I think the Native American blood in my family (via my half-Indian half-sisters) shows in my very convincing portrayal of a sixteenth-century Mexican.

In the third play, "La loa para el auto sacramental de El divino narciso," an allegory written by Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz, I play el Occidente, who, together with his wife, la América, represents the native people of Mexico at the time of the Spanish Conquista. My wife and I are just chillin', having a good time with our rituals of human sacrifice, when in come el Celo (Zeal) and la Religión, who represent the Spanish military and Catholic missionaries, respectively. El Celo is ready to kill us all, but Religión convinces him to let us live so she can convert us, so after he comes in and scares us with his raping and pillaging and we basically have nothing left, she then gets to work showing us how our "Great God of the Seeds" is really the one true Christian God, even though we don't know it. After a bit of arguing and el Celo throwing his weight around, finally we come to see the light and agree to be baptized, rejoicing in the day we came to know the true God of the Seeds.

Here's me with my equally Aztec-looking wife, together with our conquerors (el Celo played by DISOBM/DINKWM):


I enjoyed playing both roles, but for different reasons. Chanfalla is just a fun character, and I had a good time being a showman and making people laugh. El Occidente, on the other hand, I enjoyed because he was a challenge, and the play itself much more difficult to pull off precisely because it wasn't funny. Sor Juana wrote "La loa" as a Mexican nun, very aware of the tensions between her faith and that of her ancestors, and although she shows respect for both, she is clearly a Catholic writing for Catholics. While she and her audience would naturally find a resolution in which the natives are converted to Christianity satisfying, the same could not be expected of my audience or of me.

Because of this, I had a hard time figuring out how to play el Occidente. At first I had this vision of him as your generic noble savage, because that's how it seemed Sor Juana was writing him. He was regal, strong, and above all serious. After a couple weeks of practice, though, we realized the play needed something else, so we decided to play up the slight traces of possible comedy--found mostly in the fact that el Occidente is terrified of el Celo and is basically a tool who does whatever the women tell him to. This helped me get into the character a bit more, but it didn't feel right. Particularly as a white American, I didn't feel good about portraying this symbol of all native Mexicans as a buffoon, and I realized I had crossed that line when one of the directors said a couple weeks ago, "Be careful--don't make el Occidente seem ridiculous. Try to think about what he must be feeling through all of this."

It wasn't until this past Wednesday evening--the night before the dress rehearsal--that I finally figured it out. Yes, el Occidente is terrified of el Celo, but he also has nothing left to lose, so he's not going to back down from a fight so easily. And yes, he listens at first to his wife and later to la Religión, but again not because he's weak but because he has nothing else to hold onto. His world has been pulled out from under him, his people murdered, and the god he trusted to protect him did nothing. Why not, then, listen to what this strange white lady has to say about her God? With this perspective, it was easy for me to show at the beginning of the play my faith in the God of the Seeds, in the middle my genuine rage for el Celo, and not quite so easy, though I hope I pulled it off, my belief in la Religión's words at the end. The trick was that, even though this resolution is in my mind a tragedy, it isn't in the eyes of my character.

I don't know how successful I was, but my professor said I almost had him to tears. So maybe I have some acting skills. At any rate, it's been an amazing experience.

Scared Faithless

Tonight the Ugly Swan and I caught the bus down to the Seattle Center for a Seattle Men's Chorus concert called "Scared Faithless." It was a beautiful show centered around the theme of (can you guess?) religion and homosexuality. About half the music was psalms, hymns, and gospel music like Randall Thompson's "Alleluia," "God Help the Outcasts" from The Hunchback of Notre Dame, and Y.M. Barnwell's "Would You Harbor Me?"; while the other half was more political, often satirical songs like "The Fundamental" (in which listeners are encouraged to get up, grab their Bibles, and "do the Fundamental"), "A Hymn to Fred Phelps: God Hates Fags" (in which Mrs. Phelps and a barbershop-style octet ponder whom among fags, dykes, Jews, and Mormons God wants them to hate most), and even a tribute to closeted LDS missionaries called "Sweet Mormon Boy." Woven into the songs were brief narratives from members of the chorus telling of their personal experiences with faith--or lack thereof, as represented by a man who prefers the terms "reasonable" or "rational" to "atheist" or "agnostic" as labels to describe himself. Despite the fun poked at fundamentalism and religion in general, the concert really was not an attack on faith but rather a celebration of faith in all its forms; one of my favorite songs was one in which the lead singer proudly proclaims that he cannot remain in the closet, that God has made him this way and he can no longer deny that he is unchangeably... Catholic.

So a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, and a Unitarian walk into a gay bar...

This morning Sir Jupiter and I attended a workshop on religion and homosexuality at the Unitarian Universalist church in Edmonds. The workshop, sponsored by the UU in association with the Religious Coalition for Equality, focused on the intersection of homosexuality with various faith traditions. Four speakers led discussions on homosexuality in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Unitarian Universalism, respectively. Perhaps the most enlightening part of the day was the lunch hour spent with a Muslim lesbian and her brother--there are a lot of interesting parallels between Islam and Mormonism--but I also got a lot out of the actual sessions. Here are some brief thoughts from each of them (several of my insights, by the way, had little to do with homosexuality):

Judaism

Rabbi Harley Karz-Wagman, of the Reform tradition, talked about the question of whether homosexuality is a natural state of being or a learned characteristic, which is important to Judaism not because it answers the question of whether homosexual relationships are sinful--a lot of things that are natural are sinful--but because it is a starting point in the quest to find such answers. He explained that Yetzer HaTov (the inclination to do good) and Yetzer HaRah (the inclination to do evil) both come from God and are both necessary for good to be done in the world. Yetzer HaRah encompasses lust, greed, pride, and appetite, and without these drives human beings would not be motivated to do anything. Our job, I suppose, is to make sure they drive us to do good. Returning to the question of whether homosexuality is sinful, the Rabbi responded to apparent condemnations of same-sex relations in Leviticus with two sayings from the Talmud:

"You have to judge according to that which you see with your eyes." (i.e. not according to an ancient text whose meaning is unclear)

"If a sick person says he must eat and a hundred physicians say he does not need to eat, we must listen to him. For the heart knows its own bitterness."

Christianity

Reverend Richard Gamble of the United Church of Christ spoke about what he sees as the two Christian churches: the first views God as the Strong Father, where the answer to every question is "Because I said so," obedience is the motivating factor, order comes through coercive power, security comes in following the rules, and the hierarchical structure of the church is the unquestionable source of rules; the second views God as the Nurturing Parent, where the only rule that matters is that we love God and our fellow man. I think it's obvious where Rev. Gamble places himself in this binary system. In defense of what appears to be Us vs. Them mentality, the reverend tells the parable of three men dying of thirst in the desert. One man says there's an oasis to the north, another says there's an oasis to the south, and the third, attempting to resolve the conflict through compromise, suggest they find some middle ground. So they stay where they're at and die. Perhaps it's possible to acknowledge that there is an Us and a Them without necessarily making it Us versus Them. Perhaps I spend too much energy trying to find that middle ground when really there is none. I don't know. This is a new idea to me.

Islam

Nayer Taheri, an Interfaith Chaplain and Islamic scholar, spoke about homoerotic traditions in medieval Islamic cultures and juxtaposed these with the modern Islamic misconception that homosexuality exists only as a result of western influence. She noted that just as conservative Christians cite the few biblical passages that seem to address homosexuality, Muslims will insist, "But the Qur'an says..." She reminds us, though, that neither the Qur'an nor the Bible say anything--they are inanimate objects, incapable of speech. They "say" only what we interpret them to say. Like in western culture, Muslim persecution of homosexuals seems to be a case of homophobia informing scriptural interpretation, rather than vice versa. Ultimately, all religions boil down to the same thing: treat others as you want to be treated. I wonder if she was at the interfaith sermon I blogged about two weeks ago?

Unitarian Universalism

This section of the workshop unfortunately felt like a promotion for the Unitarian church. Yes, they were fighting for gay rights long before anyone else was, and yes, I'm intrigued by the all-encompassing nature of their approach to religion--it would seem to fit nicely with my All-Paths-Lead-to-God philosophy of late--but at the moment I'm happy with the church I'm attending. Nonetheless, I'm grateful to them for putting on this workshop. I enjoyed learning about other faiths and how LGBT members of those faiths reconcile their sexuality and their religion. As one participant pointed out this morning, one of the greatest struggles of queer people is to rebuild our relationship with God after so many of us have been hurt so deeply, ostensibly in his name.

Fellowship

Mostly because I'm socially retarded, I haven't made many friends at my new church. The half a dozen folks in the Sunday school class I go to recognize me and at least the teacher knows my name, but other than that I pretty much just sit by myself during the service and leave quietly when it's done. I sign the register that's passed around every week and I've given them my contact info so I get newsletters in the mail and someone even called this Sunday evening to verify that the Mr. Fob at my new address is the same as the Mr. Fob at my old address (as if Fob is a common name...). Other than that, though, church has been a relatively solitary thing, and I'm okay with that; I'm not a hugely social person, and if I were then I probably wouldn't attend a church for a month and a half without introducing myself to anyone. On the other hand, part of my reason for attending any church is to have a sense of community, and while I do feel some sense of community simply by nature of being among people who are also there to come closer to God, I would probably feel a stronger sense of community if, say, I knew the name of the person sitting next to me.

So I was happy this Sunday to recognize a face in the choir--I wasn't sure because I was way in the back of the chapel, but it looked a lot like a librarian I work with. So today when I saw her at work, I asked if she sings in a choir. She said yes, and I told her that I'd seen her on Sunday. She was surprised that she'd never seen me at church, as she and her husband have been attending that church for nearly twenty years, as long as they've lived in Seattle. We talked a little bit about the choir--apparently it's a very good one, and has toured around the country and around the world--and then a bit about the church. I admit I was a bit hesitant to break the taboo of talking about religion at work, but I figured I was safe since she had, in fact, been singing in the choir.

About halfway through the conversation my friend smiled a little awkwardly and said, "I guess I just figured you were... Mormon."

I laughed and explained that her assumption was not too far off base.

We talked a little about University Congregational's lack of dogma, which is largely the reason why I enjoy it. She admitted that sometimes the church is a bit too liberal for her, but that overall she feels more comfortable than in the Baptist church she used to be in. She said that she and her husband had noticed the same tension between wanting to be open-minded and not wanting to dilute Christianity that I had.

She said she'd say hi next time she sees me at church. I find this very comforting. Now I have a friend at church. And I didn't even have to introduce myself to someone I don't know!

My Marriage, Oversimplified in Four Lists

Reasons I Married FoxyJ

1. She is an amazing person. I loved her, I enjoyed spending time with her, I wanted to share my life with her.
   
2. I believed--most of the time, at least--in the LDS Church, which teaches that homosexual relationships are sinful. As far as I was concerned, marrying a woman was my only option, and I could not imagine being happily married to any woman besides FoxyJ.
   
3. When I considered ending the engagement because I was unsure if I could commit to the marriage, I couldn't bear the thought of hurting FoxyJ.
4. I prayed about it and felt that getting married was the right thing to do.

Reasons I Stayed Married for Five Years Despite Recurring Doubts

1. She is an amazing person. I loved her, I enjoyed spending time with her, I wanted to share my life with her.
2. Even when I no longer believed in the LDS Church, I believed in the commitment I'd made to her. A change in religion does not automatically absolve one of responsibility to the promises one made while under the influence of that religion.
3. When I considered ending the marriage, I couldn't bear the thought of hurting FoxyJ, and later S-Boogie, and later Little Dude.
4. I prayed about it and felt that staying married was the right thing to do.

Reasons I Have Chosen to End the Marriage

1. She is an amazing person. I love her, I enjoy spending time with her, I would like to share my life with her, but as much as all those things are true they don't take away from the constant desire to share my life with a man or the emptiness I've felt for years. Despite frequent moments of joy, overall I was unhappy with my life. My unhappiness, as much as I tried to mask it, hurt FoxyJ.
2. Once I no longer believed in the LDS Church and the option of a homosexual relationship became at least theoretically possible, it became increasingly difficult for me to convince myself that I could be happy without pursuing that option. I spent more time convincing myself that I should stay married than I did simply being married, even before I left the LDS faith.
   
3. When I considered ending the marriage, I couldn't bear the thought of hurting FoxyJ, S-Boogie, and Little Dude, but nor could I bear the thought of hurting them over the coming years as I continued in the pattern of silent discontent, expressed doubt, and guilt-induced recommitment to stay. Looking into the future, it became clear to me that the marriage was not sustainable, and as much as it hurts everyone now, divorce would only hurt more after we have invested even more of our lives into the marriage and the children are older.
4. I will not say that I prayed about it and felt that divorce was the right thing to do. I will not blame God for this decision--the responsibility is mine. Choosing to get married and later stay married not because I really wanted to but because it was the right thing to do did not lead to my happiness or to FoxyJ's. I will say, though, that I have prayed about this decision a lot, and I feel at peace with it.
   

Reasons Ending the Marriage Hurts

1. She is an amazing person. If you have any doubts, consider the fact that she and I took a week-long road trip together after the plans for divorce had been set in motion, after I had hurt her so profoundly. We visited family and friends--some who knew and some who didn't--and we had a lot of fun together. FoxyJ has every reason to be angry at me, and I'm sure she is to some degree or another (depending on the day, I imagine), but she treats me with the same love and concern that she always has.
   
2. In doing this I am making a significant break from the LDS faith I grew up with and that many of the people I love still hold. I am also breaking a serious commitment I made to someone I love dearly, and I fear the consequences for everyone affected by this decision.
3. I cannot bear the thought of hurting FoxyJ, S-Boogie, or Little Dude, and yet here I am doing it. I will do everything I can to ease that pain and especially to ensure that my children always know that they have two parents who love them, but I do not fool myself into believing that anything I do will make this completely right for them.
4. The peace I mentioned above has come only after a lot of internal anguish and frustration. I have felt angry at myself for the decisions I've made, angry at the LDS Church for the role it's played in my decisions, and angry at God by association. My relationship with the Church is best left alone for now, I think, and I'm at peace with it to that extent, but healing my self-image and my relationship with God is a work in progress and I imagine it will be for some time.

A note on comments:

You may notice that I've removed the option of commenting anonymously. If you're going to comment, I want to know at least your chosen pseudonym.

Comments expressing empathy, love, kindness, encouragement, or anything along those lines are welcome.

Comments expressing judgment, contempt, mockery, self-righteousness, or anything along those lines are not welcome. As FoxyJ said this morning, the decision has been made. You will not succeed in convincing me to change my mind. You will not succeed in proving to anyone that you are a better person than I. You will not succeed in showing the world what a clever person you are. You will only succeed in hurting me, and if your intention is to hurt people then perhaps you should stop for a moment and ask yourself why no one likes to talk to you at parties. I will not delete comments that hurt me because by that point the damage will have been done. I will delete comments that may potentially hurt FoxyJ or our children.

And, lest I end on that note, thank you to all the people who have already shown love and support and an advance thank you to all who will.

WWJD?

He'd vote Republican, according to James Dobson and his minister friends.

Yes, I know, this isn't news. It annoys me, though, to see people taking something as personal and meaningful as religion and turning it into a political tool. The Religious Right discourages good Christians from voting for a Democrat even when the Democratic candidate might be the one who most closely matches that individual's values, and they discourage good thinking people from voting for a Republican even when the Republican candidate might be the better choice, because who in their right mind wants to be associated with the Religious Right?

I respect the LDS church for refraining from endorsing specific candidates or parties--I've never heard anyone cross that line over the pulpit, and I've had some pretty politically-biased bishops. I'm perplexed by Mormons who align themselves with the Religious Right, ignoring the fact that James Dobson, George W., and their ilk would no sooner sit down to dinner with a Mormon than with a homosexual.

I'm embarrassed to say that the first time I voted was in 2004, and even more embarrassed to admit that I didn't do my research before hitting the polls--in many cases, I didn't know anything about the candidates, so I blindly voted for the Democrat, which makes me no better than the BYU student who was quoted in the New York Times as saying that she only voted for Bush because he seemed like a good, religious person, not because she knew anything about the issues. Foxy and I sent in our voter registration forms earlier this week, and I've vowed to repent of my lazy ways. I don't know if my vote will make a difference, but at least if I read up on all the people and things I'm voting on, I can feel morally superior to those who don't.