How to Achieve True Freedoms

I'd like to invite you to an open discussion about gay rights and religious freedoms. I've found these topics are often difficult to discuss, as they have been so politically charged. All you have to do is say one small thing that someone doesn't like at all, and then the walls go up, rational thought goes out the window, nothing gets settled, and you are vilified just for trying to have a discussion.

Yet, I believe an open discussion is possible, and I invite you (gay people and religious people alike) for this short period of time to drop the politics, let your defenses down, and consider the following. I invite you to try and understand the opposing viewpoint and join me in trying to find solutions beneficial to all. I will explain the concepts of Type I and Type II errors, borrow from the 7 Habits books, and finally present materials from the LDS Church leaders. I hope you find at least one new thing in this article to be enlightening.

First, imagine you are a passenger riding in the front seat. The driver is being kind of crazy. You're on a mountain road, and the driver is riding dangerously close to the edge. As you look out the passenger window, all you see is the steep drop below.

You say, “Hey! Could you move over to the left? You’re scaring me to death.” After all, if the car falls, you’d be the first to die.

The driver answers, “It’s okay. I’m in perfect control. Stop worrying about it.”

As your heart won't stop pounding, you ultimately decide to grab the wheel and turn it to the left. But how far do you turn it? If you go too far, you'd be in danger of running into traffic. The driver may die first, but you, too, would be in big trouble.

Ideally, you'd want to work together to keep the car in the center of the lane, far away from either of the dangers previously mentioned.

If you were to take control of the wheel and push too far to the left, this would be an example of a Type I error. That is when you take action and end up hurting someone--in this case, the driver.

On the other hand, if you were to do nothing, that would be example of a Type II error. You would allow yourself to get hurt.

If you haven't figured it out already, in the current discussion, the driver represents the status quo, that is the legal environment over the past several centuries in which homosexuality was illegal, marriage was between man and woman, and so on. The passenger represents those who choose to stand up for gay rights, basically working to change the law in the name of equality and so on.

Before continuing on, it's important here to review some basic human nature, as discussed in in Stephen Covey's famous book, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People.

Each of us have fundamental needs. If we ever feel one of these needs to be threatened, we go into fight mode, which can often be seen as being irrational to another party.

For example, someone who is gay may fundamentally believe, "I can't change the way I am, but I believe I need the same benefits and protections that other people enjoy." If one were to say to him that gay marriage should be illegal, he would most likely feel threatened and go immediately to saying, "No. You're completely wrong. You're an idiot," ... and this is most important: "... and I don't care what you believe. I will fight you until we win and get what we want."

Now let's turn this around. Most religionists fundamentally believe: "I have the freedom to believe whatever I want. No one can force me to believe a certain way, or force me to do what I don't want to do." If one were to say to this guy that all churches need to perform gay marriages, he would feel threatened and say, "No. We can't let that happen. This isn't 1984," ... and this is most important: "... and I don't care about gay rights. I will fight them. I'm not going to give up my rights to make them happy."

What Stephen Covey points out is that when two opposing parties feel that their fundamental needs are threatened, they will often stop listening to each other and go into full defensive mode. This is exactly what I witness whenever someone brings up religious freedoms and/or gay rights.

Religionists will often say, "If we let gay people have any rights, they won't stop until they're performing gay marriages in our churches. We must stop them now while we still can." 

Gay rights proponents will often say, "Full equality is nonnegotiable. Churches will need to change their doctrine until we win all rights we deserve."

Unfortunately, this often goes nowhere and one of two things usually happen.

#1) Gay rights prevail at the expense of religious freedoms. Religionists lose out (Type I error), and are forced to do things they don't want to do. They suffer because their fundamental needs are not met. An example would be a photographer who is forced to photograph a gay marriage against her wishes.

Or #2) The status quo remains in place, and gay people lose out (Type II error). Their fundamental needs aren't met, and they suffer. An example would be a gay couple not being able to marry because there doesn't exist a clerk who is willing to provide a license.

The good news is that there exists a middle ground. As Stephen Covey suggests, two opposing parties can get somewhere if they first strive to understand their opponents. What are their fundamental needs? Once this is understood, the two parties can engage in open discussion. Covey says this isn't a "compromise," where each party gives up a little, but rather a "synergistic" solution in which they both come up with a solution beneficial to both parties.

Now comes the question: is there a way to provide gay people the rights they seek while at the same time maintaining religious freedoms? I believe the answer is yes. Up until 2008-ish, the environment favored the status quo traditional views. Then up until a few months ago, the environment shifted so as to favor gay rights at the expense of religious freedoms. Now with Trump as president, we live in uncertain times where there exists the real possibility of gay rights being repealed. Perhaps now is the best time to have that open discussion so we can find more permanent solutions that are beneficial to all.

Finally, I would like to focus on the LDS Church and where they currently stand on this whole topic. Up until 2008-ish, the Church did everything they could to promote the traditional idea of marriage being between husband and wife. But then after the backlash after California Proposition 8, the Church seems to have shifted gears. Though no doctrine was changed, the Church started reaching out for certain gay rights.

In 2009, the Church gave its support in Salt Lake City to protect housing and employment rights for gay people.

In 2012, several members of the LDS Church formed a grassroots organization known as Mormons Building Bridges, which is famous for reaching out to LGBT people and for marching in gay pride parades.

In Dec. 2012, the Church launched the website mormonsandgays.com, which attempts to clarify the Church’s position that gay people are human, too, and need to be treated with love and support. It is also the first time the Church officially acknowledged the concept that being gay is not a choice.

In Jan. 2015, the Church announced a pledge to support LGBT rights as long as the laws also protect the rights of religious groups.

In Mar. 2015, Elder D. Todd Christofferson, of the LDS Church Presidency, clarified that Mormons are free to support gay marriage without fear of retaliation, as long as they don’t support organizations that promote opposition or positions in opposition to the church’s.

And finally, the Church has launched an effort to defend religious freedoms while at the same time respecting other people's differences. Here is one of their videos, which I highly recommend. Though it gets a little churchy at one point, keep going till the end, where it reiterates many of the concepts I presented above.

In conclusion, we're all human beings with our own needs and desires. As we learn to respect each others' needs, we can have open discussions and find solutions that benefit all parties.

So, where would you like to begin?