"It literally tore my soul into pieces growing up, because I knew the Church was true but I knew that a core piece of who I was was in direct opposition of my belief," Courtney shares of the years of secrecy she experienced as a lesbian Mormon. After leaving the Church and finding a woman she fell in love with and later married, Courtney and her wife Rachelle felt a pull toward the gospel that later caused them to divorce and join the Church.
"It'd be nice to please everyone but I thought it would be more interesting to have a point of view." -- Oscar Levant
Originally Posted by mUUser
This is a fascinating juxtaposition. Again the message is, 'we are ok for you to BE gay, just don't DO anything that could be construed to be gay...'. Subtext:"you are still an apostate if you are in a same-sex marriage and a disciplinary council is mandatory. Expect to be sent for."
Also, there is quite a strong undercurrent of sociopathy at play in that video. The woman's father refused for five years to meet her WIFE? Good thing her grandmother effectively shamed the family into accepting her wife by bringing the wife into the wedding picture. It seems a special kind of evil to refuse to allow a child's spouse to be part of the family, unless that spouse is a criminal or otherwise dangerous.
And I am glad they are happy in the video. I hope they remain happy long into the future.
That's a super weird video. Very interesting story that offers a different perspective. I appreciate the comments towards the end that this is their story and it isn't going to work for everyone, but it should have been a much stronger message. These stories get isolated and used as weapons by people like this woman's father. "It worked out for these two, it should work out the same for my son/daughter. Just more faith. More prayer. More service." That seems very wrong to me.
The biggest tragedy for both of these women, is that if they end up in heterosexual marriages, they can enter into the House of the Lord to be sealed for time and all eternity but their children wouldn't be able to get baptized until they were 18. That policy still blows my mind.
Uh . . . what?
"It'd be nice to please everyone but I thought it would be more interesting to have a point of view." -- Oscar Levant
The new policy could be interpreted the way he's describing......boggles the mind to think that it would be.....but, the way it's written it could leave a smidgen of wiggle room. There's four paragraphs in the policy to consider:
1. "A.......child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship.....may be baptized.....only as follows:"
2. ".....request approval from the OFP.....for a child of a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship when.....both of the following requirements are met:"
3. "The child......disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation...." and,
4. "The child is of legal age and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation...."
I would assume a child born in the covenant trumps all, but, honestly don't know for certain. Those with a pay grade much higher than me can hash that out.
But, I will agree with him on this point -- the policy created more problems than it proposed to solve. To treat children of gay parents the same as children of hetero parents would've made too much sense -- in most cases, this includes receiving permission from both parents, gay or hetero.
“Children and dogs are as necessary to the welfare of the country as Wall Street and the railroads.” -- Harry S. Truman
"You never soar so high as when you stoop down to help a child or an animal." -- Jewish Proverb
"Three-time Pro Bowler Eric Weddle the most versatile, and maybe most intelligent, safety in the game." -- SI, 9/7/15, p. 107.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote