So it occurred to me today that the LDS church, as an organization, would not expend resources or effort into a cause that didn’t in some way benefit itself. I’m still thinking about some possibilities, but what do you think they would get out of passing the Proposition in California (or any other state, as they have in the past) to add the traditional definition of marriage to the state constitution?
Oh, look! A juicy issue to bring me out of retirement!
First, a brief history:
In 2000, California voted on a similar proposition that added a regular statute to the California Family Code defining marriage as only between a man an a woman (Proposition 22). After San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom began marrying same-sex couples in February 2004, an action was filed for the courts to stop the issuance of unauthorized marriage licences (which the court refused to do). After that, other petitions came into the courts requesting a mandate that the city cease its unlawful actions. These were upheld by the Supreme Court and it was determined that the actions were unlawful, but that the city could challenge the constitutionality of the marriage laws. Long story short, on May 15 of 2008 in a 4-3 vote, Proposition 22 was deemed unconstitutional and overturned. Below are the resolutions of the court:
(1) Gay men and Lesbians are commonly subject to biased treatment that has no basis upon their ability to be a contributing member of society. Therefore, sexual orientation, like race, religion, or gender, is a suspect class for purposes of the Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution. This suspect classification requires that the highest level of scrutiny be applied to laws potentially infringing upon the rights of these persons.
(2) Under the above standard the statutory denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples is unconstitutional.
The State of California was ordered to begin issuing licenses on June 17, 2008, and any further appeals against the ruling would be turned away, and the initiative for an amendment to the State Constitution was set in motion. If passed, Proposition 8 would add a section to the Constitution that reads: Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. On the voting ballot, the description for the proposition is as follows:
ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal Impact: Over next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments.
I know the arguments of the opponents, so I thought I’d go to Protectmarriage.com and see what they were saying about why Proposition 8 should be passed:
News articles on the site indicate that some straight people are feeling like their rights are being violated, now that the marriage license no longer has the sacred words “bride” and “groom” on them - now they have the gender-neutral “Party A” and “Party B.” Other arguments are that since the beginning of time, and across all cultures, marriage has been understood to be between men and women only, and that it is best for the children if they are raised by both of their biological parents. That the inherent differences between men and women are sacred and necessary to the successful raising of healthy children.
Current polls suggest that approximately 55% of voters are opposed to Proposition 8 with between 38% and 41% in favor of it (the remainder undecided). My hope is that this will be a victory for equal rights, as it was in Massachusetts several years ago. The decision also affects me a lot because I am planning on getting married soon, in California, sometime after the election. 
Marriage is one of those things that has changed so much since the beginning that I think people’s perceptions of what it used to be are skewed. I the past, marriage was primarily a way of connecting property and power within a community, and a legal device for dividing the wealth of that property upon the death of the parents. Eventually it evolved into less of a political structure and more into the loving structure we have today. I don’t see how allowing another group of responsible people into the secret society of marriage is going to hurt, destroy, or dismember it, especially when all the rights and privileges are being given to that group under another name already! I can see nothing but good coming from broadening our understanding of the human condition by broadening the definition of marriage. I think that the only reason the question of gay marriage has not come up sooner is that the world has historically been a dangerous place for queers (as in life-threatening), and only now is American culture starting to view homosexuality as a quirky diversity rather than an outright abomination.
And perhaps I shouldn’t be so worried about marriage being called marriage, but it’s such a pinnacle moment in the lives of a committed couple, that they publicly and legally vow their lives, for better or for worse, to their partner. Just as I used to feel indignant over those who showed a lesser commitment by choosing a civil wedding over an eternal temple marriage, so do I feel strongly about not being allowed to make the greatest kind of commitment I can make to the person who means the most to me!
And I won’t even go into the LDS Church’s efforts to help pass the amendment, but if you don’t know, a letter was read to all Californian congregations encouraging them to donate to the cause. They have since raised and donated over $5 million according to the Wikipedia article. I just feel like the centralized influence of Church leadership should not be directly involved in the legislative process. I even read a rumor on postmormon.org that Utah bishops are to send vocal opponents to Proposition 8 to see their Stake Presidents.
Okay, that’s enough about the LDS Church involvement.
What shows in those who wish this amendment to pass is that they do not see GLBT people as equals. If they did, I think they would have much less fervor for eliminating the rights for us to marry. They have lived in their privileged status for so long, they don’t want to give it up to the misfits.
My point is, I guess, that I believe in equality, and I think that it’s only fair for everybody to have the same access to the kind of lifestyle they want to pursue. If that lifestyle includes marriage for gays and lesbians, then let them pursue it! Don’t condemn us to a menu of lifestyle choices that we aren’t satisfied with.
Apparently I do other things besides work and blog, for this has appeared on YouTube:
While traditionally associated with Christmas music, English handbell ringing has been trying to inch its way into the year-round music scene for years. Musicians tend to classify handbells outside of traditional music groups - strings, brass, and woodwinds, among others - and dismiss them as a fad instrument.
Having played them for coming on ten years now, I have been amazed at the variety of sound you can pull out of a bell. However, this type of cheesy theatrics isn’t my idea of helping handbells look like an instrument that qualifies for the recognition the community is striving for. Fortunately for us, our director doesn’t subscribe to the same musical snobbery as the general handbell community. Perhaps it’s because she didn’t spend her school years learning music. She encourages us to have a good time! Sometimes to the point that we go all out for costumes to liven up our performance.
But like I said. I enjoy playing handbells, even if I think the handbell world isn’t a place I want to live. Enjoy the video!
Nothing gets me incensed more than when someone’s freedoms are stifled. So you can imagine the color of my anger when a course of events hinders the freedom of millions of people.
Yes, I’ve been reading again. But this has to do directly with two men: Peter Danzig and Jeffrey Nielsen.
A couple years ago I wrote about how I felt Jeffrey Nielsen had been unjustly punished for writing his opinion to the newspaper. Yesterday I found out that something similar happened to Peter Danzig.
This is what he wrote on June 14, 2006:
As a member of the LDS Church, returned missionary and member of the Orchestra at Temple Square, I am appalled at the intellectual tyranny that our leadership has exercised through the summary dismissal of Jeffrey Nielsen from his teaching position at Brigham Young University for speaking his mind in an op-ed published June 4 in The Tribune. I was troubled that my church requested that I violate my own conscience to write in support of an amendment (marriage) I feel is contrary to the Constitution and to the gospel of Christ.
I am even more discouraged to see how they deal with an honest difference of opinion.
I wish to express to Jeffrey Nielsen that I admire his courage and that I stand with him. I hope that rank-and-file members of the church as well as members of the lay clergy who also find this troubling will have the courage to step forward and let themselves be known. To do anything else would be to hide in the shadow of an injustice.
After that, he went through an ordeal that led him to lose some of the things he cared about most: initially playing in the Orchestra at Temple Square, and eventually, his membership in the Church. Please read his account.
I think I’ve made my opinion pretty clear on this kind of reaction to public contrary opinion. It feels like “intellectual tyranny” where those in power silence their dissenters. It sounds very conspiracy theory, but I think it has some weight to it. I believe they are cultivating an attitude of silence among the members by punishing the outspoken. If the questions are never expressed, perhaps they will disappear?
What I find offensive today about all of this, is the Church felt the need to address Peter’s situation specifically in their newswroom. Some excerpts:
Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are encouraged to study, learn and ask questions in their quest for knowledge. Gordon B. Hinckley, 15th president of the Church said: “This Church came about as a result of intellectual curiosity. We believe in education … we expect them (Church members) to think. We expect them to investigate. We expect them to use their minds and dig deeply for knowledge in all fields.�
However, it is not acceptable when their digging and questioning leads to public opposition against doctrine Church leaders are obliged to uphold. That doesn’t mean that Church leaders don’t listen and consider opposing views. Quite the contrary. Local bishops and stake presidents (congregational leaders) love and are concerned about all members of the flock. This is the purpose of counseling provided by local Church leaders who know and care for each individual in their congregations.
Honest disagreements are not the same as public advocacy of positions contrary to those of the Church. When disagreements arise, the principle of the Church is that local leaders discuss these matters with members with love and concern. This was the case with Peter Danzig.
In his Tribune letter-to-the-editor, Mr. Danzig said he “was troubled that my church requested I violate my own conscience to write in support of an amendment I feel is contrary to the constitution and to the gospel of Christ.” In reality Church leaders had asked members to write to their senators with their personal views regarding the federal amendment opposing same gender marriage, and did not request support or opposition to the amendment.
The Church normally keeps this type of communication confidential. However, the Church felt compelled to defend its position when Mr. Danzig made this information public and because of the blatant, inappropriate editorializing by the Salt Lake Tribune in what was purported to be a news story.
Okay, Church, I have a few things to say to you. Your claim to have encouraged members to express their personal views regarding the amendment requires some scrutiny. Yes, you worded your letter so that it didn’t explicitly encourage any one position, but the implication was to take the same position as the Brethren, which was for the amendment. Members and newspapers alike understood this implication, and it was to be read from the pulpit in every ward meeting. The full text of the letter follows below. The composition of this letter is important to understanding the implicit message:
Letter from First Presidency of the Church to Church Leaders in the United States
We are informed that the United States Senate will on June 6, 2006, vote on an amendment to the Federal constitution designed to protect the traditional institution of marriage.
1. This letter is about the Federal Marriage Amendment.
We, as the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, have repeatedly set forth our position that the marriage of a man and a woman is the only acceptable marriage relationship.
2. The Federal Marriage Amendment happens to be a proposal for a Constitutional amendment which would define marriage in the United States as a union of one man and one woman. That the highest authority in the Church comes out and repeats this stance in regard to the FMA indicates their support for such an amendment.
In 1995 we issued a Proclamation to the World on this matter, and have repeatedly reaffirmed that position.
In that proclamation we said: “We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.”
3. The Proclamation also defines marriage as between a man and a woman in the first sentence, reaffirming the idea that men and women are the only God-sanctioned couple intended for marriage. However, they point out that it is prudent for responsible citizens to promote measures to strengthen the family, pre-defined as man plus woman only in the same document.
We urge our members to express themselves on this urgent matter to their elected representatives in the Senate.
I really find it hard to believe that this letter, for the members or otherwise meant anything other than this: write to your legislators in support of the Amendment in order to strengthen the institution of marriage. It was, however crafted with wording that could be used to their advantage, as they did not outright tell anybody to support the amendment.
So, in reality, Church, you are sneaking around the issue here. Also, you glibly escape culpability for Peter’s experience by claiming that you never said that members should support or reject the amendment. I think your intention was clear as crystal.
Yes, Peter decided to leave of his own accord. He was not excommunicated or officially disciplined. He was, however, labeled as an apostate and threatened with excommunication if he did not change his views. He repeatedly tried to find out what could be done to resolve the problem, but received no concrete answer. Eventually, he was requested to write an apology letter to the Brethren. His letters were rejected. When he finally came up with one that was accepted, upon review he realized that it did not reflect his true feelings, so he chose not to send it. In his account, he said, “Had I written a hateful letter condemning individuals with a Homosexual orientation I would not be in the predicament I am now.”
Unfortunately, I believe that Jeffrey and Peter are not alone in their experience. I think it is more common that we realize, and I think the effects reach farther than anyone realizes in terms of negative reinforcement. In the Church, it does not pay to be outspoken, especially about differences in opinion between you and the leaders. It does, however, pay to be silent and obedient.
That’s how many unanswered e-mails I have in my inbox right now, and most of them want something done immediately. Sometimes it’s overwhelming, like today, which causes me to get even less done.
This is how my brain feels like it’s functioning:
foxxAtWork{
stressLevel=numEmail*hoursSinceLastMeal;
productivity=100/stressLevel;
};
After we finished with our tasty Italian meal, we were about 45 minutes late for the doors to open, but we decided to head down to In The Venue anyway. I had purchased the tickets from a friend of a friend. Melinda thought instantly of Matt and me when the offer came up, and she scored me a good deal on the pair.
Matt owns the Mika album, and we listened to it a lot for a period of time. We both like his music, it’s fun, it’s high, and sometimes it’s just outrageous. I wanted to do something nice for him, something special, so I took him to Mika’s live concert in Salt Lake City.
While we drove to find a parking spot, we saw the line. It wrapped around the corner and halfway up the next block. We had recently been hit with a wave of snowstorms, so there was still ice and snow on the sidewalk. Excited, we finally took our place in line.
Nearly two hours later, we had moved a total of about 10 feet. I could no longer feel my toes, although I tried a little tap dancing to restore blood flow. That didn’t really work, but it made me feel better about being cold. Matt and I were miserable, and he wasn’t nearly as excited for the prospect of seeing an artist in concert as I hoped he would be. He hadn’t ever been to a live concert, and he admitted freely that he was comfortable staying or leaving. It was up to me. I didn’t like us both being miserable, so I decided we should leave.
Then I heard a commotion coming our way. Someone from the club was walking down the line of people yelling something. “If you don’t have a ticket, you need to go home!” he was shouting. There had been some rumors going down the line that Mika didn’t have his sound equipment, so we were unsure if they were cancelling the gig or what was going on. The announcement from the club gave me some hope that there would, in fact be a concert to attend, even though my ticket said the concert was to start over two hours ago. So I changed my mind and decided to stay.
Shortly thereafter, the line started moving, slowly at first, and then it became quite steady. We were headed into the warmth! After being frisked, I was handed a ten dollar bill, and shoved into the mash of bodies that was already packing the place. We perched ourselves on the staircase to the upper floor and waited some more. The sea of people kept growing, and the din became deafening.
When Mika took the stage, the cheers made my ears bleed. Not literally. I love hearing the sound of loud cheering.
The music was fun! What we found out had happened is they were missing their sound equipment. Mika decided to do the entire show acoustic, and it worked out really well. A live concert has such a different energy from an album, and Matt’s ambivelance evloved into excitement.
Seriously. Check out his album.
A lot of effort goes into creating a system of belief that works. Sometimes that effort includes learning to read archaic English at a young age, and studying that text on a daily basis. Sometimes it involves learning and memorizing a lot of rules, devotions, and rituals that you are meant to live by. In many cases, it requires looking at the world around you through the lens of that belief. Almost always, part of the belief system is believing that you are using no lens at all.
However, if the lens is too narrow, or too small, or too brittle, or tinted too darkly, it can become obvious that the world around you is different from the world you thought you could see. Sometimes, the lens shatters, leaving the user with painful pricks in his eye. He may frantically try to repair the glass out of a great sense of loss or discomfort, remembering that life behind the lens was simpler and more comfortable, and certainly not as painful.
The pain, however, is directly caused from the worldview that does not accept or allow for the reality of experience. Often, that pain is transferred to others.
I guess what I’m trying to illustrate here, is that I understand bitterness. There was a lens that I trusted and loved; one that I had worked on creating and strengthening for decades; one that I had fought for and endured hardships for; and it failed me. Not only did it fail me, but when I looked through the glass at myself, I saw a person I was unfamiliar with. I saw someone who fit into a classification that I did not want to be in. Had it been any other person, I would have been able to conjure up some reason for how they came to be the kind of pervert they were, and I would have smugly smiled at myself for not being him; or, perhaps, to put it more forcefully, for being better than him. For knowing better than him.
And you know what? The lens wasn’t showing me the man that I saw from within, and I was faced with a choice: stay where the worldview is familiar and comfortable, or trust my own vision.
Now, to be fair, my vision is nothing to brag about. Even with my glasses, I get uncomfortable when I can’t read the same line with my left eye as I can with my right on that blasted chart.
Humor aside, the choice to trust myself or trust the institution I subscribed to was not an easy one. Despite the hurt it had caused me when it cracked, there were a lot of influences encouraging me to repair it. The thought of leaving it behind would only make it hurt more. I faced the prospect that I had wasted the last 20-odd years of my life believing, teaching, and practicing a truth that possibly meant nothing. I went to BYU, where enrollment hinged upon an ecclesiastical endorsement. I still lived with my family - I didn’t want to think about the hurt I would cause them if they found out. So I worked hard to repair my lens. And the harder I worked on it, the more I noticed the cracks. Perhaps they were getting bigger. And finally, it shattered, and poked me in the eye.
Not a painless experience.
So yes, I was bitter. I still am bitter toward the pain “they” caused me, and when certain subjects come up, that acute anger is ready to come out. But you have to realize that it’s nobody’s fault. Everybody was just trying to do their best, to give me the best that they knew how. I could blame a thousand people for the pain I went through, but I choose to give them the benefit of the doubt. They honestly believed they were doing what was best for me.
Ultimately, it came down to a question of what I cared about most. The answer was truth. I realize that no viewpoint is completely objective, but by having a worldview that is inclusive, understanding, and changeable, not only does it lessen the pain of trying to fit things into a mold, it allows me to search for the truth, which is one of the things I care about the most.
Thus sayeth the Lord unto My servants the Prophets. It is My will and commandment that ye remove the following individuals in order that My work might go forward. For they have truly become obstacles in My path and I will not allow My work to be stopped. First thy brother’s wife Brenda and her baby, then Cloe Low, then Richard Stowe. And it is My will that they be removed in rapid succession and that an example be made of them in order that others might see the fate of those who fight against the true Saints of God.
This revelation, given in the Spring of 1984 to Ron Lafferty, and the tragic events that followed, are the subject of John Krakauer’s 2003 book, Under the Banner of Heaven. Krakauer interviewed Ron’s brother, Dan, in the Utah State Prison:
“After tying the vacuum cord around Brenda’s neck, Dan says, ‘I went into the front room and picked up the knife, then I walked down the hall, being led by the spirit, because I didn’t know the layout of the house, or which room was the baby’s. The first door I opened was where the baby was. She was standing there in the corner of her crib. I walked in. I closed the door behind me for privacy…
“‘I spoke to her for a minute. I told her, ‘I’m not sure what this is all about, but apparently it’s God’s will that you leave this world; perhaps we can talk about it later.’ And then I set my hand on her head, put the knife under her chin like this, and I just…’ Pausing in his monologue, Lafferty uses his manacled hands to matter-of-factly doemonstrate how he pulled the razor-sharp butcher’s knife so forcefully across Erica’s neck that he very nearly decapitated her; afterward, all that held the baby’s had to her tiny body were a few thin shreds of skin and tendon.
“‘Then I walked down the hall into the bathroom and washed the blood off the knife. I didn’t feel anything…
“‘Anyway, I washed the knife off. And when the knife was clean I walked into the kitchen and stood over Brenda. Straddling her, I untied the cord and took it off her neck. I grabbed her by the hair, placed the knife against the side of her neck, and drew it across her throat.’”
While this incident seems brutal and random, this is only an example of taking a certain belief system, in this case, Mormonism, to its logical extreme. There are many precedents in Mormon history, as late as the 1990s, that tie in to these murders, which would later result in Ron’s execution by firing squad. The author presents these stories in detail, but I’ll just mention a few of them briefly: Nephi of the Book of Mormon, the doctrine of blood atonement, the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and several instances of “disappearances” within Utah’s territory at the suspected hands of Church authorities.
Certainly it would be inaccurate to say that the Lafferty brothers outline a sort of inevitability among your average religious people. It is, however, interesting to point out that the beliefs that led these men to do what they did on July 24, 1984, are easily identifiable with the core beliefs of Mormonism, which are still taught today, and bring many millions of people peace and comfort.
The question the author raises is whether Ron and Dan Lafferty can be considered mentally ill. The conundrum is that we all, on some level or another, believe in unverifiable “truths.” Can you categorize them as insane for believing that God was speaking to them? If so, how do you draw the line between their beliefs and your own? Have you not felt willing to die for the things you believe? I know I have.
I think these questions are worth some ponder time. I’m not trying to imply that all believers are crackpots. It is, in fact, quite the opposite. I think it’s desirable and necessary for most people to believe in things that cannot be proven, or, if you like, to have faith in something - to find order in the chaos. The crackpots take those beliefs to the extreme.
You’d think that the ever-increasing number of spam comments, and the e-mail that accompanies each one would be sufficient reminder for me to at least log in to my blog, or view it, or type in the address. I blame the pirates. And Rock Band. And probably a hundred other things.
Biographical Update:
Since Thanksgiving, a lot has gone on. Christmas was a moderate success, I would say. My brilliant gift-giving intuition failed me on several fronts, but overall I think everybody was pleased. I think this was the first year I did Christmas on Credit, too. Not my favorite milestone, surely, but it warrants mention. Matt and I held Christmas on his birthday, which is only a few days before Christmas, and we spent Christmas with our separate families.
While it was sad spending the holiday away from him, I didn’t regret the time I spent with my family. If possible, it was one of the first times I felt like myself in my parents’ home for a long while, and that’s saying a lot for me. I tend to revert to my live-at-home personality, which comes off as quiet, recluse, and unhappy. Those who know me well don’t recognize that personality, for I much prefer when I feel alive, when there are lots of people around me, and when I am optimistic and vocal. So it was a good time. I noticed how when I would mention Matt in front of them, they seemed to take it as a matter of course, even if they seemed to conceal their feelings of unease. Perhaps it’s just a colored perception. Positive.
In fact, one of my brothers-in-law has been trying to invite me out to their house in Who-Knows-Where Utah for dinner, and when I asked if Matt were invited, I found out that he was. There were, of course, some caveats because they don’t want to have to explain difficult things to their kids before they’re ready.
The days between Christmas and New Years were filled with the aforementioned pirates and rock band. I had a new addiction, and time to spend on it, so that’s exactly what I did. I think Matt was disappointed that I wanted to spend my holiday being a puzzling pirate instead of playing with the new toys, but it was what I wanted to do. And still is, most days. Highly recommended. Highly.
Somewhere around New Years, I got a new roommate
They lived somewhere in the walls, under the carpet, in the bathroom, and/or in the air ducts. I had some anticide left over from my first summer in the apartment and we sprayed. Oh, how we sprayed. Instead of creepy-crawlies, we had dead bugs everywhere. I can’t decide which is better.
Soon, I realized that I was being extra lazy in addition to having headaches whenever I was at home. And so was Matt. After looking at our symptoms online, we believed that we had mild carbon monoxide poisoning. After all, for the first time since I moved in there, the furnace had been working. It had previously been limping along doing its darndest, but when the outside temperatures dropped below freezing, it just could not keep up, so we got a furnace man in to see it. But the house is old, and it’s a gas furnace. There was a good chance CO was seeping into our breathing air and damaging our brains with oxygen deprivation.
I think it was about 12:30 or later at night when we came to this realization, and we ran out and bought a CO detector (and a smoke detector finally). The meter read zero. And it still glows with a bright red zero, weeks later. But we were still feeling sick.
Eventually we decided it was the pesticide we used in the air vents that was polluting our air. A deep cleaning and airing out the house seemed to solve our woes, and life is back to good again.
I’m 27 now. Yay.
And for the birthday party, we smashed plates and angels. I should get some of the pictures to post - those were some interesting ceramic angels-now-shrapnel. The most interesting thing about this year’s party is that I couldn’t think of anything to break plates for, besides the ongoing gripes about life. On the one hand, this could be taken as a good sign, since there are so many good things in the forefront of my mind that they upstage everything else. On the other hand, perhaps I have grown so complacent that I have dulled my sense of self-awareness that I have prized so highly? Time will tell, but I’m going for the latter for now.
Don’t get me wrong, there’s very little to complain about last year. It was really good to me. My goal for 2008 is to make an effort to have some face time one day a week with one of my friends. I’ve neglected them of late, and they’ll give me the needed reality check my self-awareness has been lacking.
Okay, so I just came up with that goal today. But I think it’s as good as a resolution as I’ve come up with for a while.
Early last week I was feeling kind of…grumpy. On Tuesday, I couldn’t explain it, but as I thought about it, I realized I was anticipating Thanksgiving.
Admittedly, I think I would have had more reason for worry if Matt and I had gone to my parents’ for turkey dinner, but I had to confess on our drive down to St. George Wednesday that I was worried about what kind of welcome I would get. I knew that some of his family weren’t exactly keen about our relationship, but I also knew that they were more interested in me than my family appears to be about him. I was trying to be optimistic, but there’s something daunting about the Unknown (with a capital U), and it had me down.
I have only been away from home one other time on Thanksgiving. I spent 2003 in Minnesota with my friend Audrey. She and I were in the same district in the MTC and got along swimmingly. We even dated a bit back at the BYU in the Pre-gay Days. When she invited me to spend Thanksgiving with her family in Minnesota, I thought it would be a fun adventure, so I agreed. It was good memories, if not for the occasional looming sensation that people were wondering if I were going to pop the Question during my stay.
When we arrived at our hotel room, the plan was that Matt was going to go to his parents’ and play some games while I stayed in the room and watched TV so he could spend some time alone with them. Then we visited his friend Meg (and her mother who saw me in Peter Pan and keeps calling me Slightly Soiled) for a quick catch-up and some Rabbids. Since it was getting late, Matt asked if I wanted to go play games with his family. I said yes, hoping that a game would be a good way to show personality without having to engage in conversation, which can become awkward. I also wanted to get a feel for what the next day would be like.
As soon as I stepped in to his home, I was greeted warmly by several of his sisters. The oldest, who happens to remind me of my oldest sister, shook my hand and said, “We’re so glad you could both make it!” I had met the other two before, and they soon got back to talking about pregnancy, since they are both expecting. When the conversation moved to the size of the cervix, one of them turned to me and apologized for the impolite conversation. I told them it didn’t bother me one bit. I have four older sisters, so although they aren’t as open with their conversations around strangers and polite company, I think I’ve just about heard it all.
We played Phase 10 and had a great time teasing each other with Skips. Since it was going too long with seven players, we decided to name the next person to phase out the winner, and that happened to be me since I was the furthest behind - and consequentially on the easiest phase.
The next morning was a rush of moving the feast from the house to the building where everybody would gather to eat. I was given picture duty by Matt’s mom, so I sat and took videos and photos of the grandkids as much as I could. When people started to arrive, everybody in the family went out of their way to shake my hand and welcome me to their dinner. They included me at the table, in the gift exchange, and in the white elephant game. All in all, I felt right at home.
I’m thankful for Matt’s family, and the way they went out of their way to make me feel welcome even though it’s gotta be hard for them. In the very least, it makes me look forward to seeing them all again. I hope that my family will be able to welcome Matt someday.
