To Be Gay – And Mormon
Newsweek Magazine
May 8, 2000
Pages 38 & 39
By Mark Miller
As a pious churchgoer, Stuart Matis prayed and worked to change his sexual orientation. He died trying.
IT HAD BECOME AN ALL TOO FAMILIAR sound. Late on the night of Feb. 24, Stuart
Matis’s mother lay awake in bed, listening to her 32-year-old son pacing his
room unable to sleep. She worried that his depression was worsening. A year
earlier Matis had told his parents he was gay, and all three, devout Mormons,
had struggled to reconcile Matis’s homosexuality with the teachings of their
church. Matis found little comfort in Mormon doctrine, which regards
homosexuality as an ‘abominable’ sin. A church therapist instructed him to
suppress his sexuality or to undergo ‘reparative therapy’ to become a
heterosexual. Matis was especially frustrated by the church’s energetic
efforts to pass Proposition 22, California’s ballot measure banning same-sex
marriage. The YES ON PROP 22 signs dotted his Santa Clara neighborhood, many
placed there by church members, were a reminder of his failure to find
acceptance as a Mormon and gay man.
Matis concluded he could not be both. That night, his mother got out of bed and wrote a letter asking the church to reconsider its position on gay Mormons. Only later would she learn that her son had been up writing his own letter, to his family and friends, explaining why he couldn’t continue to live. Early the next morning, 11 days before voters would overwhelmingly approve Prop 22, Matis drove to the local Mormon headquarters, pinned a DO NOT RESUSCITATE note to his shirt and shot himself in the head.
.jpg)
Matis’s death galvanized gay activists, who accused PROP 22 supporters of
driving him to the grave. Friends and family agree that the church’s active
support of the measure contributed to his decision to end his life when – and
where – he did. Clearly, they say, he was trying to make a statement.
But that is only part of the story. Though gays and lesbians enjoy more rights and protections than ever before - last week Vermont approved same-sex partnerships akin to marriage - gays in search of spiritual support often find their church, synagogue or mosque to be far less accepting. The Mormons, who adhere to a strict moral code of conduct, disapproval by the church can be especially devastating. For Stuart Matis, it apparently was too much to bear. (The Mormon Church declined to comment about Matis. "Suicide is a tragedy of great personal loss for family and community," said a spokesman. "We express our sympathy and have respect for the privacy of the families.")
Even as a young boy, friends recall, Matis cherished his Mormon identity and the church’s moral demands. But at 7, Matis began harboring a terrifying secret: he realized he was attracted to boys. For the next twenty years he kept the secret from everyone he knew and prayed fervently for God to make him heterosexual. He tried to make up for what he considered his shortcoming by being perfect in other areas of his life. He studied hard in school and attended every church function he could. Though he deeply loved his family, he showed little outward affection, fearing he would blurt out his secret in an avalanche of emotion. "He would punish himself if he had a [homosexual] thought," said his childhood friend Jenifer Mouritsen. "He wouldn’t allow himself to go to a friend’s birthday party or [wouldn’t] watch his favorite TV program. " Instead, he would sit in his room, and read Scripture. He set goals and read scripture. He set goals for himself not to think about boys for a certain length of time.
In some ways, being a Mormon made it easy for Matis to conceal his homosexuality. The religion strictly forbids contact between men and women before marriage. As a teenager, Matis hung out with a group of boys and girls who went to parties and school dances together.
As he got older, it became more difficult to keep his feelings hidden. He enrolled at Brigham Young University in Utah, spending hours in the library looking for a technique for becoming straight. After graduation, he eventually landed a job at Andersen Consulting back in California in 1996. Handsome and single, he seemed a perfect catch. At church, he avoided well-meaning members who gently prodded him to settle down with a nice Mormon girl.
Finally, early last year, his agony spilled into the open. Depressed and desperate, he had begun for the first time to conclude that maybe the church was wrong. He thought about leaving it. He approached his local bishop, Russell Hancock, and told him he was gay and thought about killing himself. Hancock, who counseled Matis for several months, says he pleaded with Stuart. I said, "If this is a choice between life and the church", he should choose his life."
Hancock urged him to tell his parents he was gay. Matis had told only one person, his friend Clay Whitmer. The two had met in Italy, when both were serving their obligatory proselytizing mission for the church. Back in California years later, Whitmer and Matis confided to each other that they were gay. Matis’s brother, Bill, and sister Katherine began wondering aloud about their brother’s sexual orientation. Their mother went to Stuart’s room early last year and to settle the matter once and for all. "Stuart, are you gay?" she asked. "Yes, I am," he said.
To Matis’s surprise, his family accepted his homosexuality. They spent many
evenings talking and crying into the night. He was able to tell them how much he
loved them. Unburdening himself to his family was a relief; yet it did little to
lift his depression. He struggled to figure out how to live as a gay man without
disobeying the teachings of the church - which requires gays and lesbians to
remain forever celibate. He went to a few gay dance clubs and parties but didn’t
dare consider intimacy with men he met, and apparently remained celibate his
whole life.
Matis’s despair mixed with anger. He lashed out at the church’s teachings in a blistering 12-page letter to a cousin. "Straight members have absolutely no idea what it is like to grow up gay in this church," he wrote. "It is a life of constant torment, self-hatred and internalized homophobia." Matis stopped going to church altogether, but would not let go of his faith in the church. "He was able to [reject Mormon teachings on homosexuality] intellectually," says Alejandro Navarro, a gay friend, "but emotionally he couldn’t." Late last year, he told his parents he’d bought a gun, but warned them that if they put him in an institution he would never speak to them again. The last week of his life, in a final act of separation, he stopped wearing his "garments", the ritual shirt and shorts many Mormons wear under their clothes.
Matis’s parents found the suicide note on their son’s bed the morning of his death. They frantically called his friends, hoping they’d know where he went. One person did; Clay Whitmer. Matis told Whitmer of his plans to commit suicide. Whitmer planned to cheer up his old friend, but didn’t get there in time. A few weeks later, anguished at his friend’s death and tormented by his own long-term depression, Whitmer put a gun to his own head.
"Mother, Dad and family, I have committed suicide," Matis’s note began. "I engaged my mind in a false dilemma: either one was gay or one was Christian. As I believed I was Christian, I believed I could never be gay." Stuart Matis struggled his whole life to resolve that dilemma. The people who dressed him for burial were struck by the sight of his knees, deeply callused from praying for an answer that never came.
SF Examiner
By Carol Ness
OF THE EXAMINER STAFF
A gay Mormon man, whose anguish over the conflict between his homosexuality and his faith was intensified by his church's all-out push for Proposition 22, took his own life on the steps of a Mormon church in Los Altos.
Stuart Matis, who would have turned 33 Thursday, was remembered Wednesday night in a memorial held in a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Santa Clara, where he lived with his parents.
In his suicide note read at the memorial, Matis said he has been anguished about his homosexuality since he first realized he was different at age 7. He prayed that he would be changed, but eventually gave up hope.
"I am now free," Matis wrote. "I am no longer in pain and I no longer hate myself. As it turns out, God never intended for me to be straight. Perhaps my death might become the catalyst for some good."
Matis also urged his parents Marilyn and Fred Matis to use him as an example to teach other church members "the true nature of homosexuality."
Although his note didn't mention it, Matis' suicide prompted some Mormons who oppose Prop. 22 to blame their church's deep involvement in the issue.
One of them posted on the Internet a lengthy letter Matis had written recently, intended for a cousin, about the agony he and other gay and lesbian Mormons suffered because of church teachings against homosexuality. The letter talked of the added burden of his church's advocacy of Prop. 22.
"The church has no idea that as I type this letter, there are surely boys and girls on their calloused knees imploring God to free them from this pain," he wrote. "They hate themselves. They retire to bed with their finger pointed to their head in the form of a gun. The church's involvement in the Knight initiative will only add to the great pain suffered by these young gay Mormons."
Robert Rees, a Mormon Church leader who had counseled Matis, said the young man had given him a copy of that letter. But Rees cautioned against claims by some opponents of Prop. 22, the Knight initiative, that the suicide had been inspired by the political measure, which would strengthen California laws against gay marriage.
"Anyone's suicide is so complex and so personal that no one can attach any responsibility to any one person or event," Rees said. "To attach blame to the church or Prop. 22 is fruitless. No one can know the private deep inner workings of anyone's soul."
The Mormon Church has been a zealous campaigner for the measure, pressing its members from the pulpit and in private for almost a year to contribute their money and time to its passage.
Police found Matis dead, a gunshot wound to the head, at 7:36 a.m. Friday, outside a Mormon church on Grant Avenue that serves as the LDS center for the Los Altos area, according to the Santa Clara County coroner.
Matis' family disagreed that the death had any connection to the Mormon Church and Prop. 22.
"Our son's death had no relationship to Prop. 22 whatsoever," said a woman who answered the phone at Matis' home Wednesday but would not identify herself and refused further comment other than to add: "We feel invaded at a very private time of our life."
After Wednesday night's memorial, a family friend read a statement from the Matis family asking that their son's death not be used for political gain.
"Adding to the tragedy of the event, there are those who would create political ramifications from this," the statement said. "The family sincerely requests that the exemplar life of this good and well-respected young man not become fodder for anyone's campaign or forum."
But Jeanie Mortensen-Besamo, a Simi Valley Mormon who disagrees with her church's advocacy of Prop. 22 and had been corresponding with Matis by e-mail, said in an e-mail Wednesday, "Stuart Matis was indeed a casualty of Prop. 22."
Matis' letter was posted on the Internet by Mortensen-Besamo, who was thrown out of the church for living with the man who became her husband and is now on her way to rejoining.
Alan Hansen, who is part of the network of Mormons on the Internet who oppose Prop. 22, said he knew Matis and had spoken with him recently. He said Matis had "shared with me how devastating it was to himself and his mother that the church was promoting Prop. 22."
Hansen, who said he was disciplined by the church for opposing the church's position on Prop. 22, said Matis' father told him he hoped the church would come to realize that homosexuality is not a choice.
Rees, who spoke at Wednesday night's memorial, called Matis "one of the most outstanding men that I've met in my life. He was a person of unusual personal integrity and strength of character."
"I have been very despondent because it's such a loss," said Rees, who is also a professor of literature at UC-Santa Cruz.
He said Matis, until recently an employee of the Arthur Andersen business consulting firm, first spoke with him in November. Gay and lesbian Mormons often seek Rees out because of his experience leading a congregation of single Mormons in Los Angeles for five years.
"I think there's no question that he was deeply conflicted, as many people are, between his identity and his faith," Rees said. He said Matis remained faithful both to his identity and to his church's requirement that he not act on his sexual orientation.
He said Matis knew early on he was gay, but lived through the typical cycle of denial and repression before facing up to it in the last few years. He told his parents about a year ago, and they grew to support him, and he was becoming more comfortable with himself, Rees said. But still, his anguish over the conflict with his church grew.
"Any time somebody is in that much pain, there's always the possibility that they will choose the ultimate act," Rees said.
A second service for Matis was to be held Thursday in Orem, Utah, where he was to be buried.
I Ray Delgado of The Examiner staff contributed to this report.
Associate Press Article
ASSOCIATED PRESS
March 2, 2000
SAN FRANCISCO -- A troubled gay Mormon who killed himself at a Mormon church
in suburban Los Altos had recently written a letter expressing anguish over
his church's condemnation of homosexuality and its support of an anti-gay
marriage ballot measure, his friends say.
The body of Stuart Matis, 32, of Santa Clara, was found by an officer last
Friday on a covered walkway behind the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day
Saints building, said Sgt. Mark Macaulay, a police spokesman.
He said a gun was found beside the body.
A telephone call to the local church was not returned.
A suicide note was read Wednesday night at a memorial service in a Mormon
church in Santa Clara. The San Francisco Examiner said Matis wrote in the
note, found by his parents, that he had long prayed his sexual orientation
would change, but eventually gave up hope.
"I am now free," he wrote. "I am no longer in pain and I no
longer hate
myself. As it turns out, God never intended for me to be straight. Perhaps
my death might be the catalyst for some good."
The suicide note did not mention Proposition 22, the measure on next
Tuesday's ballot that would prohibit California from recognizing same-sex
marriages that were legally performed in any other state. The Mormon Church
supports the measure, and its members have been the campaign's leading
source of volunteers and money.
Matis' family, in a statement read at the service, asked that his death not
be used for political gain. In a telephone call to his parents' home earlier
in the day, his mother told The Associated Press that his death had nothing
to do with Proposition 22.
Stuart and Jeanie Besamo of Simi Valley, activists in the campaign against
the proposition, said they had been corresponding with Matis, and before his
death, posted on their group's Web site a letter they said Matis had written
to a young gay relative some time earlier.
The undated, 12-page letter, signed "Stuart," spoke of the writer's
agony
about the Mormon Church's positions on homosexuality and Proposition 22.
If the measure passes, the letter said, "thousands of frightened young gay
Mormons will dig deeper into the dreadful closet in panic that their parents
or friends may discover the truth about them."
"The Church has no idea that as I type this letter, there are surely boys
and girls on their calloused knees imploring God to free them from this
pain. They hate themselves. They retire to bed with their finger pointed to
their head in the form of a gun."
This is the letter that Stuart wrote to his cousin. (There is NO
editing done to this)
Ryan,
It was great to hear from you. I had been wondering whether you were
planning soon to put in your papers. The whole concept of Ryan going on
mission disturbs me - I suddenly feel real old. Actually I'm excited for
you. It's a tremendously scary time in your life right now because you are
facing into a void of so many unknowns. The second you step foot in the
MTC, however, it will all seem so natural.
So, you want to have my opinions regarding the Knight Initiative? At the
outset, I'll tell you that the events surrounding this initiative have been
painfully difficult for me to endure. Last July, I read online that the
Church had instructed the Bishops to read a letter imploring the members to
give of their time and money to support this initiative. I almost went
into
a panic attack. I cried for hours in my room, and I could do very little
to
console the grief of hearing this news.
Furthermore, I read that the Church had supported similar measures in Hawaii
and in Alaska. In Alaska, the supporters of the measure had raised
$600,000. Of this, $500,000 came from the Church. Ads were aired on
television describing the downfall of the Roman Empire and placing blame on
Rome's tolerance of homosexuality. Its message was that a similar fate
would occur to those who supported equality for gay Americans. Not only
was
this historical analysis completely fallacious , but this was a prejudicial
ad designed to invoke a visceral reaction of fear and hate among the Alaskan
citizens.
Apparently, the Church has raised $1 million in support of this initiative.
This is so disheartening because I feel that my own peers are attacking me.
Caesar's Brutes comes to mind. In July, I realized that I was going to
have
to endure viewing millions of dollars of television ads designed with one
intention in mind: raise fear against gay Californians. What's worse is
that this fear campaign has been orchestrated by my own friends.
My mom is completely distraught over the issue. She told me that she is
scared to read the papers or watch TV. When her bishop read another
pro-Knight letter last Sunday, she wanted to cry. My gay friend, Clay (I
met him on my mission), has implored me to never mention anything regarding
Knight in his presence. It causes him too much pain. He almost asked
that
his name be taken off the Church records (indeed many have done just that).
I was at a party several months ago with about fifteen gay men, and I
mentioned to one that I was Mormon. Immediately, the room became
deafeningly quiet. One guy looked at me and said, "Do you realize how
hateful and destructive your Church is?" The expression "By your
fruits ye
shall know them" is common in the Church. Among gay men and women,
the
Church's fruit is perceived as being hate. This is so unfortunate because
many gay men and women become atheist as they are only presented with a God
of hate.
Naturally, I have become very well versed in the Knight Initiative and the
Church's involvement. This is my world after all. I have met with my
bishop to discuss the matter. He too disagrees with the Church's
involvement in anti-gay politics. It's very disheartening for him as well,
but his concurrence still does nothing to ease my pain.
Be forewarned; I'm going to deluge you with all my thoughts and feelings on
the issue. Within the Church, there is such a knee-jerk reaction on this
issue that many never engage in a healthy dialectic debate. They also
never
realize the consequences of their actions. Without even engaging in a
cursory analysis of the logic behind the Church's argument, most believe
that their response is proper, and thus they don't give it much thought.
My
hope is that I could enlighten you on how we gay members feel about it.
Before I begin, I want you to know that my arguments are not an attack on
the Church. Rather they are a logical analysis of the arguments the Church
and others give to support the Knight Initiative. My feelings will come
across as extremely strong, because I believe the Church's arguments are
extremely weak. Furthermore, as I will explain, the Church's actions are
actually harmful to families and gay members and directly contrary to the
central message of Christ's gospel. Therefore, I feel compelled to
strongly
speak my mind on this issue. In the end, if you believe that I have
vindictively attacked the Church, then I have failed in the intent of this
letter, and I apologize beforehand.
THE AUTHOR
I'll begin with the author of this initiative, William "Pete" Knight.
To
say that he is homophobic doesn't even begin to underscore his hatred of
homosexuals. His own brother is gay as well as his son. His son was
his
pride when he returned home with honors from the Gulf War. That soon fell
apart when his son came out, and his son quickly fell out of favor with his
dad. So much for family values. In a Los Angeles Times op-ed piece,
the
younger Knight said his father's measure is "a blind, uncaring, uninformed,
knee-jerk reaction to a subject about which he knows nothing." Knight
consistently produces legislation to strip away any gay rights including
basic necessities such as employment non-discrimination. He is also
notoriously racist. He's written racist poetry that he has passed out to
his conservative peers in Sacramento. His world is white, male, straight,
Christian and conservative. All others be damned!
Frustrated with his inability to pass any of his legislation within the
deliberative body of the state legislature, he has decided to focus on the
more prejudicially swayed California electorate. The reason, Ryan, is that
bumper sticker politics works best with the voters rather than in a state
legislature.
Certainly, the lack of integrity of the messenger does not automatically
mean the message is flawed. However, I just wanted you to understand the
force behind this legislation and with whom the Church is now sleeping.
It'
s greatly disturbing to me.
"TRADITIONAL" MARRIAGE
Next, it's important to discuss what this issue is supposed to be about:
marriage. Anti-gay advocates love to use the word "tradition"
because it is
emotionally prejudicial as it plays into people's inherent fear of change.
However, this is not a legal argument nor is it a valid argument for denying
rights to a group of individuals. Neither is it a tenable argument, for it
relies on the faulty premise that history has provided us with a consistency
in the foundation of marriage. Marriage as is commonly known today is
actually a relatively novel concept in the history of mankind. Depending
upon the culture, religion, politics, and period of history, one may find a
myriad of formations. Even among Christian people, marriage has undergone
a
metamorphosis contingent upon the needs of the people.
When anti-gay advocates use the term "traditional", I always wonder
what
tradition and what time. Do we support early 19th century traditional
marriages when married women had no legal standing, could not own property,
sign contracts, or legally control any earned wages? When the minimum age
of consent for sexual intercourse in most states was 10 years old and in
Delaware seven? When some states allowed boys as young as 14 and girls as
young as 12 to marry with parental consent? Or do we support mid-1900
traditional marriages when in 12 states a woman could still not make legal
contracts? When it was illegal to sell contraceptives? When in 13
states
interracial marriage was forbidden and punishable by prison? Or do we
support 1977 marriages when no states outlawed rape in marriage? Or in
1990, when only 10 states outlawed rape in marriages? I also find it
somewhat hypocritical for the Church to appeal to people's emotions and use
the "tradition" argument when it was on the receiving end of such
abuse
during its polygamy era. The Church more than anyone in this country
should
know how persecution feels .
There are actually two kinds of marriages that people in America maintain: a
legal marriage and a ceremonial marriage. Legal marriage is a relationship
between three parties - the two individuals plus the state. Ceremonial
marriage, often called a "wedding," is quite distinct from legal
marriage
and is a relationship, not with the state, but between the couple, their
religion and usually their familial and social circle. While many straight
couples engage in both legal and ceremonial marriage, these two forms of
marriage are entirely distinct - legally and functionally - under the United
States' Constitutional separation of church and state.
The word "marriage" is so emotionally charged that people fail to
recognize
the difference between legal and ceremonial marriage. To them it's one and
the same. The Knight Initiative, however, actually only precludes
same-gender legal marriages not ceremonial marriages. Currently, many gay
couples receive ceremonial marriages (weddings) each year by gay-friendly
churches. If Knight passes, gay couples will continue to manifest their
love in front of their friends and family by getting married in these
churches. However, their marriage will not be legally recognized by the
state of California (incidentally, they are already not recognized in
California or in any state - the Knight Initiative merely codifies into law
the status quo). They will be denied legal protection and benefits that
are
accrued to all straight marriages. In sum, they will be treated as unequal
members of our society.
On the other hand, if same-gender marriages were legally recognized, the
state could never force any church or institution to offer same-gender
ceremonial marriages. The separation of church and state completely allows
this. Mormons, Catholics and Southern Baptists could continue to deny
ceremonial marriages to gay couples.
The state-enforced prohibition on same-gender marriages is nothing but the
result of mob rule. There is no valid moral argument to deny equal rights
to people simply because you dislike or fear them. As Oscar Wilde wrote,
"Morality is simply the attitude we adopt towards people whom we personally
dislike." The same can be said of the Knight Initiative.
Many claim that the state should forbid same-gender marriages on moral
principles (read: Biblically interpreted laws). These arguments are worn
and tired. Biblical laws were used to validate slave ownership in America.
They were used to deny women's rights. They were used to forbid
interracial
marriages. The arguments are always the same; it's the persecuted group
that changes. Hate, fear and prejudice have always been traditional human
values but why should be uphold them? It's time we change this tradition!
MARRIAGE, FAMILY, HOMOSEXUALITY AND REALITY
The Church has a right to be concerned about families. The divorce rate is
rising . Spousal and child abuse continues unabated. Adultery
remains a
persistent part of the marriage landscape. These are all afflictions that
have weakened families. The problem is that the Church has picked the
wrong
culprit. I understand that it is far easier to point the finger outward
than inward, but it requires a great leap of faith to conclude that somehow
homosexuals and their desire to marry is somehow responsible for these
calamities or will make these calamities worse.
If there is anything consistent in any anti-gay debate, it is the
superfluous use of platitudes and bumper sticker slogans. The debate in
support of the Knight Initiative is no different. The slogan that is
repeatedly used is that the Knight Initiative is needed to protect families
(the Church uses "defend the institution of the family").
I'm curious how exactly families will be defended. I will probably never
know because the Church and other supporters never substantiate their
argument. They leave the slogan to speak for itself. The problem is
that
it says nothing. Instead it relies on people's fears to fill in the
blanks.
In order for their arguments to work, anti-gay advocates must convince
people that homosexuals are in some way anti-family. As this is so
completely fallacious, the arguments that rely on this premise crumble.
This is precisely why you will never read a full-blown argument in defense
of the anti-family argument. In the end, a casual observer will quickly
ascertain that anti-gay arguments are nothing but a patchwork of
indefensible slogans and prejudicial sound bites. It makes for extremely
effective politics, but lousy logic.
Let's analyze the anti-family argument. How exactly are homosexuals
anti-family? Homosexuality is not a choice; instead it is an indelible
part
of a person's identity. The choice debate may still rage in the far right
fringe of our society, but among those medical professionals who work daily
with homosexuals, the overwhelming consensus is that homosexuality is a
permanent identity. The American Psychological Association, American
Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, and American
Association of Social Workers have all declared that homosexuality is not a
choice. Even the Church (very reluctantly) is beginning to admit this.
Since the Church now recognizes the indelible aspects of one's sexuality, it
actually dissuades homosexuals from getting married; they realize that
marriage is not a cure for one's sexuality. A same-gender marriage can
only
be "anti-family" if a person chooses a same-gender marriage over a
straight
marriage. As this simply is NOT the case, the entire issue of a homosexual
being anti-family is moot.
A homosexual can only choose one of two avenues: being celibate or being
sexually active. Neither of these choices will allow a homosexual to
participate in the traditional family of a husband, wife and kids. Thus
regardless of whether a homosexual gets married or not, the net effect on
the family or on marriage is zero. The Church desires that homosexuals
remain celibate, but how will this choice affect families any differently
than if a homosexual nurtures a relationship? Once again, it's a moot
issue.
The problem is that this issue has been framed as a false dilemma and too
many members and supporters of Knight have been snookered into believing it.
The false dilemma is that one is either pro-homosexuality or pro-family.
This, of course, is false. I am gay. I hate to sound redundant, but
whether I remain celibate or find a partner, the net effect on families is
zero. The Church can certainly make whatever subjective moral argument for
or against homosexuality. However, if it desires to make an objective
argument, it must be logical, and in the case of the
homosexuality/anti-family connection, the argument is illogical and
fallacious.
Ironically, the Church's positions on homosexuality have actually been
anti-family. Several decades ago it was church policy to advocate marriage
as a cure for one's homosexuality. This inevitably resulted in many broken
marriages and families. The Church also once postulated that men became
gay
because of a doting mother and an absent father. This inevitably cast
blame
on the grieving parents. The Church's positions and outspoken frankness on
this issue has nurtured a climate that is hostile for young gay Mormons.
Kids have been thrown out of homes under the guise of Christian love.
Brothers and sisters have broken off contact from their gay brothers and
sisters. I recently read the letter of a brother in Salt Lake City who had
to send his son far away from home to a private high school because he was
constantly tormented in his Salt Lake high schools and by his neighbors.
Unfortunately, the promotion of the Knight Initiative will only worsen an
already polluted environment. Homophobia is a disease that destroys
families. Unfortunately, the Church's rhetoric and actions will only
continue to nurture this disease.
Straight members have absolutely no idea what it is like to grow up gay in
this Church. It is a life of constant torment, self-hatred and
internalized
homophobia. Imagine the young gay boy frightened to divulge his secret
pain
to his dad because he witnesses his dad tromping around the neighbor placing
up Knight signs. Imagine the young gay girl who listens to her mother
profess her love for her as she writes a check to oppose "those filthy
homosexuals". Imagine any young gay kid who is desperate to scrape
together
a sliver of self-esteem as he or she daily hears the pejorative
"faggot" and
the word "gay" used as a negative adjective (as in "that was such
a gay
movie").
The Church has no idea that as I type this letter, there are surely boys and
girls on their calloused knees imploring God to free them from this pain.
They hate themselves. They retire to bed with their finger pointed to
their
head in the form of a gun. Every waking moment of every day they must be
on
constant alert to not divulge any clues that will identify themselves to
their peers. "Was my glance at that boy too long? Does he think
I'm gay?
Will he now publicize my secret and beat me up?" They are afraid of
their
parents. They are afraid of their bishop. They are afraid of their
friends. They have nowhere to go but to lay on their floors curled in a
ball and weep themselves to sleep.
The Church's involvement in the Knight Initiative will only add to the great
pain suffered by these young gay Mormons. This is a fear-based, divisive,
galvanizing movement. Members who don't even vote in presidential
elections
now put signs on their laws and march around the neighborhood like precinct
workers. On the night of March 7th, many California couples will retire to
their beds thrilled that they helped pass the Knight Initiative. What they
don't realize is that in the next room, their son or daughter could be lying
in bed crying and could very well one day be a victim of society's
homophobia. The Knight Initiative will certainly save no family. It
is
codified hatred. It is anti-family, anti-love and it is wrong.
Another argument that is quite prevalent is that marriages are weakening and
must be defended. I always get a kick out of hearing this argument
particularly from politicians. Marriage certainly does need defending, and
we as a society are doing our best to defend it. Indeed, Newt Gingrich
will
soon be defending his third marriage. Bob Dole is defending his second.
Notoriously anti-gay Rep. Bob Barr is defending his third marriage. And
Bill Clinton is still defending his first marriage.
Seriously, once again I'm confused at how exactly the Knight Initiative will
defend marriages. What does it mean to defend marriages? I know of
no gay
activist who is calling for the dissolution of straight marriages, so who
exactly is trying to destroy it? Do young couples make a decision to get
married based on the actions of their gay neighbors? Will some couple
decide that they'll get a divorce because same-gender marriages are legally
recognized? I never knew that we gay people had so much power over the
decision making process in straight relationships. As is always the case
with the issue of homosexuality, truthful information is rare and misplaced
fear is high.
The issues that face marriages and families are real: divorce, spousal
abuse, child abuse, adultery, wages that are below the living requirements,
lack of health care for children. I could give a laundry list of proposals
and solutions to help families, but most of these are opposed by the very
same organizations and politicians that claim to be pro-family. Same-sex
marriage and homosexuals just make easier targets.a red herring.
Same-sex marriages already are not legal in the state of California. The
Knight Initiative just codifies the status quo into law. It is a worthless
endeavor. I would rather see the church ask its members to raise a million
dollars for battered women's shelters or for free marital counseling.
Instead of asking its members to engage in neighborhood campaigning, the
Church could ask all of its members to spend several Saturdays working with
Habitat for Humanity building homes for low-income families. If the intent
is to help families, why doesn't the Church engage in a campaign to actually
do something worthwhile for families? The Knight Initiative campaign is
just a frivolous use of time and money. The proponents are wasting their
resources on a vacuous shell. The opponents have to spend money to defend
love and stability. The Knight Initiate is maddening in its petty
benightedness.
It's maddening also because even if the hyperventilated fears of anti-gay
advocates come to fruition, the social impact will be negligible. For the
sake of argument, I'll assume that homosexuals constitute 5% of the
population. If the rate of marriage among gay men and women is
commensurate
to the rate among heterosexuals, about 1-2 of every 100 marriages will be
same-sex marriages. The end of marriage? Hardly. I once read
that on the
politics of homosexuality, the ratio of advance hysteria to actual social
change is as out of whack as most NASDAQ Internet company valuations.
Openly gay employees were supposed to disrupt the workplace. Gay school
teachers were supposed to terrorize our kids. Tolerance of homosexuality
was supposed to usher in an explosion of homosexuals (actual result: the
percentages of self-professed homosexuals have remained constant during the
past several decades ). Like our experience with books and movies, the
advance hysteria (book) is always far more interesting and eventful than the
actual results (movie). The frenzy in favor of the Knight Initiative is no
different.
THE SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENT
Many claim that if same-sex marriages were legalized, what would stop the
state from legalizing pedophilic marriages, bestiality marriages, or, heaven
forbid, polygamous marriages . I sound redundant, but this argument also
is
flawed and downright frivolous. Marriage is a conscious decision by two
adults to affirm their love for one another. Whether a couple constitutes
a
straight couple or a gay couple, the arrangement is between two consenting
adults. Both pedophilia and bestiality are relationships where only one
member is conscious and mature enough to consent. They are on an entirely
different plane than homosexuality.
Society and the government allow any two consenting adults to get married:
black and white, Christian and atheist, tall and short, deaf and blind, rich
and poor, Republican and Democrat. To deny a marriage to someone based on
gender is purely discriminatory. We as a Constitution-supporting and
freedom-loving people should be the first to support the equal rights of all
American citizens.
THE GREAT FALLACY
The argument against same-gender marriage is a classic zero sum game
argument: a gain for one side corresponds with a loss for another. I have
seen the ads produced by the proponents of the Knight Initiative. It
portrays a large family reunion as the announcer describes the beauty of
families. The voice over ends with the statement, "Marriage and
family.
That's what proposition 22 is all about." On the surface it appears
completely innocuous, but what is the implication behind the message? It
is
that if we allow homosexuals to get married, then straight marriages and
their families will suffer. It's a zero-sum game argument, and it is
deceitful and fallacious.
In order to be effective, the message MUST play on people's fears. My
parents oppose the Knight Initiative because they know that whether I get
married to a man or not, my family and my parent's marriage will remain
sound and healthy. They have no fear, and so they oppose it. Those
who
support it do it solely out of fear. Why else should one support it?
The
arguments made by the proponents prove it's all about fear. "We need
to
protect the family". From WHOM? "We need to protect
marriage." From WHOM?
The whom is, of course, me, your gay neighbor, family member, friend and
coworker. The message is that if I, Stuart, get married to a man, your
family will suffer. You know that is wrong, and so is the Knight
Initiative.
SECOND-CLASS REALITY FOR GAY COUPLES
I don't think that people in this country realize just how many laws are
written dealing with marriages and how many benefits are accrued to married
couples. These are just a few of the more than 1,000 federal and state
benefits that married people automatically enjoy :
· Assumption of Spouse's Pension
· Automatic Inheritance
· Automatic Housing Lease Transfer
· Bereavement Leave
· Burial Determination
· Crime Victim's Recovery Benefits
· Divorce Protections
· Domestic Violence Protection
· Exemption from Property Tax on Partner's Death
· Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse
· Insurance Breaks
· Joint Bankruptcy
· Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
· Certain Property Rights
· Reduced Rate Memberships
· Sick Leave to Care for Partner
· Visitation of Partner's Children
· Visitation of Partner in Hospital
· Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits
· Assumption of Spouse's Pension
· Social Security Survivor Benefits
Perhaps Mormons believe that it is better to deny us filthy and disgusting
gay people any benefits. Perhaps they believe that it is divine that a gay
man is refused entrance into his partner's hospital room while he dies
because he has no legal connection to him. Perhaps they believe that it is
divine that a lesbian is unable to afford insurance and cannot receive
discounted insurance through her partner's company's program. Well, I
believe in a loving God. I believe in a God who sacrificed His own son for
all of us. Therefore, I simply refuse to acknowledge that God in any way
desires that his gay children are marginalized, treated as second-class
citizens and denied equal benefits simply because of a society-believed
character flaw. I also can't imagine a Mormon who professes to love both
God and his neighbor will allow himself or herself to believe that
homosexuals should be treated as second-class citizens.
THE AFTERMATH
An issue I have with Christian culture is its use of military metaphors:
"war in heaven", "onward Christian soldiers",
"Armageddon". In order for
these metaphors to be validated, churches must create enemies: communists in
the fifties, hippies in the sixties, feminists in the seventies and now
homosexuals. A desire to understand and to engage in an open dialogue is
jettisoned in favor of sound bite rhetoric.
When the Columbine massacre occurred, people were quick to point fingers.
The targets were the usual suspects: Hollywood, video games, politicians,
rock singer Marilyn Manson. No one stopped, however, to ask the critical
questions: Why were these killers hated in school? Why were they taunted?
Why did they endure daily name calling? Why were they ostracized? If these
killers had been fully embraced with love and support by their fellow
students, I postulate that all the video games, rock music and movies couldn
't have turned them into killers. These boys had to be nourished with
hate.
They had to be treated as an enemy.
Ryan, there is far too much hate and division in our society. Our society
is becoming Balkanized as we segregate people into groups. The parallels
between our society now and that of the Nephites/Lamanites at the end of the
Book of Mormon are frightening.
I understand that the world is seemingly chaotic. It is innate in each of
us to apply order to this chaos (our inner Aristotle). We thirst after a
clean delineation between good and bad, black and white. We also have an
insatiable desire to divide up people into two camps: "us" friends
versus
"them" enemies. Perhaps when we are confused at the chaos, it is
easier for
us to scapegoat others to give reasons for our fears. I too suffer from
these human weaknesses, and I am trying to rid myself of them. The reason
is that, ultimately, I see no good in pitting one group against another.
It
seems so contrary to the principles laid out by Jesus in the Parable of the
Good Samaritan.
After the millions of dollars have been spent on television ads promoting
the Knight Initiative, homophobia will be inflamed and our gay youth will
intensify their self-destruction by internalizing society's homophobia.
The
disquieting results already :
· 22% of gay and lesbian youth skip school each month because they fear for
their safety.
· Gay students are seven times more likely than others to have been
threatened or injured with a weapon
· 18% of Bay Area college men said they had physically assaulted or
threatened someone they thought was gay or lesbian and 32% admitted to
verbal harassment.
· Gay and lesbian teenagers are three times more likely to attempt suicide
than their heterosexual peers. 53% of gay youth served by the Los Angeles
Youth Services Department had attempted suicide at least once, 47% more than
once.
· About 25% of all homeless youth in the United States are gay or lesbian
· 90% of gay students suffer from verbal and physical harassment in school
(half indicate that they suffer from verbal harassment on a daily basis)
· More than 25% of gay students drop out of school because of discomfort in
the environment.
Do the members not even care about these statistics? Their lives are
validated by their peers, society, church, and government. I, on the other
hand, have to claw my way into social acceptance. I am the one who will
have to live in the wake of the Knight Initiative. Most members never know
what it feels to be marginalized. They are Christian and mostly white and
middle class. They never know what it's like to live in fear.
Imagine for a moment that the Knight Initiative was a proposition to ban
Mormon marriages. The proponents believed that Mormon marriages would
destroy families and destroy marriages. Imagine seeing your neighbors
place
anti-Mormon marriage placards on their lawn or seeing your neighbors march
around the neighbor in support of this initiative. Imagine having to watch
over $5 million in TV ads designed to raise fears about you. Then imagine
the proponents of this initiative having the audacity to claim that they are
not bigoted and that this initiative is not about prejudice. Rather they
simply want to affirm what everyone knows: Mormon marriages are immoral and
not healthy for society. The shoe doesn't feel so good, does it?
My world is so vastly different than that of my straight friends. For
every
person I meet, I am forced to quickly ascertain whether or not he or she is
a friend or foe. I have to keep quiet at work about something that is so
integral to my identity for fear of the repercussions. Most of my gay
friends and I were suicidal at one time in our lives. I have friends who
have swallowed pills, cut their wrists, burned their arms, placed bags over
their heads. I have friends who have taken anti-depressant pills as if
they
were candy. Years of internalized homophobia have deeply scared my friends
and me. It is only after we began to accept our identity that we have been
able to heal our minds.
Straight people have no idea what it is like to turn on the television and
watch some angry demagogue spew hateful rhetoric and cast the blame for
society's problems at our feet. They have no idea what it is like to have
the Bible shoved in our faces and hear the love that stirs in our souls
described as "repugnant", "disgusting", "immoral",
"unnatural". They have
no idea what it is like to live in a society that treats us like a
second-class citizen and fights to keep us from having the same rights that
all other citizens enjoy. They have no idea what it is like to hear people
truly believe that we desire to terrorize children and that our mere
existence is evident of the eventual decline of our civilization.
Do I blame the Church for society's homophobia? I know that I am quick to
cast blame at the feet of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and Gary Bauer.
However is the Church any different? Did you know that Russell Hendersen,
one of the two boys convicted of killing Matthew Shepard, was raised by his
Mormon grandparents ? The Church does not operate in a vacuum, and its
message does plant seeds in people's hearts.
I realize that the Church is quick to point out that we should love gay
people. However, this is usually a short caveat after a lengthy
condemnation of our behavior. Our "behavior" is such an integral
part of
our identity that it's difficult for people to separate the two. To most
members, the two are not mutually exclusive; they are joined at the hip.
After spending several weekends knocking on doors supporting the Knight
Initiative, could anyone feel closer and more love towards gay people?
Despite what the Church says, the energy level devoted in the attack is
significantly greater than the few sentences thrown in a talk to appease the
Church's critics.
Can any of the Brethren really say without equivocation that the hatred of
the California members towards homosexuals has not increased in the past
several months? What is the Church doing to diminish the animosity and
fear
directed at gay people? A position based on fear could never grow into an
understanding based on love. Fear is never a solid foundation for love.
I
wish that one day the members could realize that this sort of fear has no
business in a Church of Love.
NOT DIVINE REVELATION
When all is said and done (and believe me, I have talked to many members on
this subject), the membership of this Church will invariably support the
initiative. I have discussed this issue with my friends of over two
decades, and while they agree with me in substance, they inevitably tell me
that they will support the initiative anyway. Their sole reason is that
the
Brethren have requested it. Because President Hinckley referred to it in a
Priesthood session of General Conference and because the letters read over
the pulpit were on official stationary, many members feel that the Church's
support of this initiative is divinely inspired, that God Himself had
decreed to President Hinckley that he and the Church should pursue this
course of action. This is entirely not true; God has not spoken to
President Hinckley regarding this initiative. This is purely a temporal and
administrative decision.
If this were indeed divinely inspired, then why does the Church repeatedly
tell reporters that the church members are not compelled to support the
initiative? A member can actually publicly donate money to and conduct
fieldwork for the "No on Knight" campaign and still take the sacrament
and
go to the temple. How could this be if the Church's support for the
measure
was "divinely inspired"?
I know many active and devoted members of the Church who do not support the
Knight Initiative and plan to vote no. Are they sinners? No, because
the
proposition has nothing to do with divine gospel. It is solely a triumph
of
the rule of law over the rule of love. Indeed, if the Church's support
were
divinely inspired, then one would conclude that God's law is illogical, He
speaks in fallacious sound bites, and He has no concern for the fears racing
in the hearts and minds of His gay children.
SPIRITUAL ANALOGY
In Luke 10:25, a lawyer asks Jesus, "What shall I do to inherit eternal
life?" Jesus replies, "What is written in the law? How
readest thou?" The
lawyer responds, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God will all thy heart, and
with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and will all thy mind; and thy
neighbor as thyself." Jesus tells him that he had answered correctly,
but
the lawyer wants to know more. He asks, "Who is my neighbour?"
The answer is, of course, the Parable of the Good Samaritan. It is a
simple
response to a simple question, yet the response underscores what Christ
believes it means to be a Christian: no law is as important as the law of
love. It transcends all other laws.
That the traveler was left "half dead" is no small significance.
According
to Biblical Law, the holy men among the Jews were forbidden to touch the
dead. As the man was "half dead", the priest or the Levite would
have had
to touch the man to ascertain whether or not he was truly dead. Instead of
unintentionally breaking the laws, the priest and the Levite decided to
ignore him entirely. By this parable, Jesus underscored the Samaritan's
love as superior to that of the rulebook mentality.
The Samaritans were extremely despised by the Jewish people and particularly
around the time of Christ. Near Christ's birth, some Samaritans had
defiled
the court of the Jerusalem temple by strewing dead men's bones around the
place. Therefore, the reaction by the Jews upon hearing that Jesus had
suggested to a Judean lawyer that a Samaritan might attain external life,
while a priest or a Levite would not, would be analogous to the reaction by
a Mormon upon hearing the suggestion that a homosexual is a better Christian
than a Mormon Apostle.
The Parable of the Good Samaritan has been discussed so many times that it
has become trite. Lost in our familiarization with the story is the
knowledge that, at the time, it was truly a revolutionary message. Jesus
was definitely iconoclastic for his times, and his message required a
dramatic leap of understanding. If a Christian were to utter a familiar
message today using a modern-day Samaritan (say, a homosexual), it might be
perceived as a quaint lesson on a Christian theme, but the modern-day
Christian listener surely would still believe that the Samaritan would be
condemned to hell.
Our modern day minds are not different from those of the ancient Jews.
Like
the Jews, we would fail to realize that the thrust of the story is that in
Jesus' eyes, the Samaritan was a Christian. He wasn't baptized a
Christian.
He didn't go to church. He didn't profess any Christian affiliation,
however, he is still is a Christian. The reason is that he loves his
neighbor. In the Samaritan's eyes, his neighbors are not his friends, or
church members, or those like him, or those who share his beliefs. A
neighbor is simply any human being regardless of his or her backgrounds or
characteristics. And what is more remarkable in this story is that the
Samaritan's neighbor happened to be his detractor, his chief enemy.
Did the priest or Levite not love the fallen Jew? Perhaps they did, but
they were compelled from touching him due to their law. Are the Church's
actions any different? Would they actually "touch" me, a gay man
- would
they try to know me and understand me? Would they attempt to stop their
harmful rhetoric? Would they stop supporting divisive initiatives?
Would
they support my equality regardless of whether I was their "enemy" or
not?
Unfortunately, Jesus' message is still needed in our day. The parable is a
mighty challenge to us not just to say that we love all but to actually act
with love towards all. We must do not talk. This message is
particularly
relevant for us when dealing with those who belong to oppressed, despised or
disenfranchised groups (the metaphoric Samaritan). In sum, love in action
is the only kind of love there is, and it is at the core of what it means to
be a follower of Christ.
In what way is the effort by the Church to campaign for the Knight
Initiative in concert with the message found in the Parable of the Good
Samaritan? Are their actions based on love or on fear? Are they
intended
to unify us as a people or divide us? Will the campaign result in the
vilification of a perceived enemy? I think that you know the answers.
This
is precisely why I am so deeply troubled by the Church's involvement in this
wretched initiative.
CONCLUSION
The successful passage of the Knight Initiative will do absolutely nothing
(repeat: absolutely NOTHING) to protect marriages. Wives will still be
battered. Children will still be abused. Spouses will still commit
adultery. Marriages will still break up. Meanwhile the Church will
have
raised and spent a million dollars and the members will have volunteered
thousands of hours to support nothing.
Unfortunately, as the members retire to their beds on the night of March 7th
and fall asleep in relief that their marriages are once again safe, what
could ensue the next day? A gay man will not be able to see his partner of
thirty years die in a hospital bed because he had no legally recognized
relation. A gay woman will have depleted all of her savings fighting
breast
cancer because she couldn't afford insurance and her partner's company
refused to grant domestic partner benefits. A gay man will be denied
permission to take sick leave from work to care for his dying partner (a
benefit readily available to his straight peers). A gay kid will be beaten
to a pulp in high school because he dared to tell the truth. Thousands of
frightened young gay Mormons will dig deeper into the dreadful closet in
panic that their parents or friends may discover the truth about them.
Homophobia in California will have been nurtured and inflamed and ready to
engulf its next victim. The Church's actions are completely contrary to
the
message found in the Parable of the Good Samaritan. The rule of law has
transcended the rule of love. Fear has transcended compassion and
understanding. It's a travesty, Ryan. It's a travesty. And
it's one that
has caused (and will continue to cause) me immeasurable pain.
In the end, remember, Ryan, that we gay people are your family. We are
your
brothers and sisters. We are your sons and daughters. In your case,
I am
your cousin. You know from your 18-year life that I adore my family.
I
respect my family, I look up to them, and I love them. I would lose my
life
in order to protect them.
The entire premise of the Church's argument, however, is that if I were to
fulfill the measure of my creation, fall in love with a man, and desire to
commit my love to him through marriage, then suddenly I become anti-family.
My union somehow will weaken families. Which family, Ryan? My
family?
Your family? Whose family am I supposed to destroy? When placed in
this
context, it seems so absurdly silly. However, this is exactly the intent
behind the Knight Initiative.
This is precisely why you will not see a church member who has a gay son or
daughter placing signs on his or her lawn. These members will not be
walking around their neighborhoods. These members will ache every time a
gay debate ensues in the chapel halls. These members know the intent of
their children's hearts. They know the goodness of their spirit.
They see
the goodness in their children's gay friends. They see and experience
homophobia on a personal basis, and they collectively mourn the Church's
involvement in the Knight Initiative. I wish that I could shout this
message from the rooftops, but alas, I sit alone in my room typing and
wondering what will happen next.
Well, Ryan, my fingers are blistered. By asking me your question, your
poured water on my electrical wounds. Thus I apologize if my words were a
bit strong. I hope that these words, however, give you a substantial
alternative point of view and help you in your report.
On a more upbeat note, good luck preparing for your mission. I'll see you
in the spring. Take care.
Warmly,
Stuart
There is no editing done to this. It is posted as it was sent to me.
(This is an account of the memorial service on 1 March 2000 for
Stuart
Matis, who died on 25 February 2000. Any mistakes in quoting the
speakers and musicians are unintentional and are my fault, as I was
taking notes with one hand and wiping away tears with the other.-)
Marilyn Matis was in her bedroom last Friday writing a letter to Elder
Thomas Monson of the First Presidency of the LDS Church, asking that the
church help her distraught gay son. At the same time, her son Stuart
was in his own bedroom, writing a suicide note to his family. He
wrote
that he loved and adored his family members too much to bear telling
them goodbye. Then he drove to a stake center in Los Altos,
California,
and shot himself in the head, one week before his 33rd birthday.
In his note to his family, he requested that they not hold a funeral;
but in the days following his death, the outpouring of affection for
Stuart was so immense that his family held a memorial service at another
chapel.
The meeting started not with comforting organ prelude music, but rather
with a haunting instrumental solo composed and performed by Paul Sayer.
As hundreds of mourners filled the chapel and overflowed into the
recreation hall, they were hushed by the quiet meandering of the
instrument’s sole voice. It was music not often heard in a Mormon
chapel, and one sensed that just as the music was unusual and
remarkable, so also was Stuart.
Many in the congregation sang the opening hymn, “Redeemer of
Israel,”and
the closing hymn, “Where Can I Turn for Peace?” through tears.
Throughout the service, many arms went around a companion’s shoulders,
and many friends and family leaned their heads together for comfort.
Stuart’s bishop, his mother, his father, a spiritual counselor, and a
family friend spoke.
As the service began, Stuart’s sister Katharine sang a solo:
A window to his love, a doorway to the truth,
A bearer of the message he’d have me bring to
you...
In a clear soprano voice that broke a few times, she continued:
And with each passing year, I want to
disappear...
...and I’ve become a window to his love.
Stuart’s mother had learned on 29 January 1999—just a little more than
a
year before his death—that he was gay. Other family members hinted
at
it until she asked him for herself. When he confirmed that he was
gay,
her first question was, “Who taught it to you?” No one had
taught him;
it was something about himself that he had learned.
Then she stood in his doorway for two hours as he explained that since
he had been a young boy of seven, he had been tormented with an
awareness of his sexual orientation. He kept hoping that God would
change him. He thought that when he received the priesthood, God
would
change him. Then, when he got his patriarchal blessing, or when he
first went to the temple, or went on a mission, or was called as
president of his elder’s quorum, that God would change him. His
mother
recounted that he told her, “Maybe Heavenly Father will approve of me,
and I’ll change.” Stuart tried to be perfect so that God would
find him
worthy and would change him.
But the change never happened. Rather, Stuart’s self-hatred and
self-loathing “became so intense that it was more than he could bear,
and he could endure life no longer,” his mother recalled. He
hated
himself his entire life, she said. Curiously, though, he extended to
many others a love and compassion he did not feel for himself. After
word of his death began to spread, people from all over the United
States called to tell Stuart’s family that Stuart had helped them in
times of need. Those who initially called to comfort Stuart’s
family
sometimes ended up sobbing, and Marilyn Matis provided a comfort for
them that they could not provide for her.
She learned three things about Stuart through those numerous phone
calls. First, she learned that he was passionate about everything in
life that mattered to him, including missionary work, friendship, and
hobbies. Second, people repeatedly told her that Stuart was the
kindest
person they had ever met. And third, they said they marveled at his
perfection.
“Stuart strove for perfection constantly,” his mother noted at
Stuart’s
memorial service. “And because he did, it was his undoing.”
She and others spoke of his lifelong struggle for righteousness, and
explained that he had chosen a life of celibacy. They emphasized
that
he had died morally clean, and that he would be buried in ceremonial
Mormon clothing indicating that he had kept his sacred covenants with
God. This belief brought them comfort, since they had known concern
for
his eternal salvation because of what his mother termed his “orientation
problem.” Stuart’s father also expressed his belief that in the
eternities, Stuart will no longer be gay.
Mouritsen, a family friend and fulltime employee of the LDS Church
Educational System, gave brief recollections of Stuart, recalling how as a
child, Stuart had become popular among Mouritsen's own children.
Mouritsen announced that all of the positive things said about Stuart were
accurate, and he declared that Stuart will enjoy the eternal blessings of his
exemplary life.
In Stuart’s suicide letter, he wrote that throughout his life, despite
his pain, he had trusted in God. But he had become convinced that
his
anxieties would never be resolved in his lifetime, and so he had decided
to end them in the only way he knew would work. He told his family
that
he didn’t believe in the blessing he had been given indicating that he
would would marry a woman. He believed that he had learned that his
desire to change his sexual orientation was not divinely inspired, and
that the dichotomy of being gay vs. being Christian was a false
dilemma. Similarly, he came to believe that the dichotomy between
life
and death was a false dilemma.
“My life was actually killed long ago,” he wrote his family. He
encouraged them to be strengthened in their resolve to teach members and
leaders of the church about homosexuality. He chose not to
“bother” his
family with his feelings for the few weeks prior to his suicide. He
told them that he could not have had better or more loving parents or
siblings, but he “couldn’t live another day choking on my own feelings
of inferiority.”
Stuart’s mother explained that both Stuart’s bishop and Stuart’s
father
had given him priesthood blessings in which he was told that he was and
would remain gay. He struggled for years to accept himself as gay
and
finally found solace in comforting others and seeking enhanced
understanding. “We are your sons and daughters, brothers and
sisters,
neighbors, coworkers, and friends,” he wrote in a letter to the editor
of the BYU student newspaper, in response to anti-gay comments it had
published. He added, gay persons are “children of God.”
“I implore you as a mother of a gay child,” Marilyn Matis pleaded with
those attending the memorial service, “love them. Make them feel
there
is a place at the table for them.”
Stuart’s father echoed his wife’s praise of their son, noting that he
had charity and focus. Stuart felt love for everyone he encountered,
Fred Matis recalled of his son. “Although he was troubled, he
would
continually reach out to people about their problems, trials and
difficulties.” Stuart’s motto had been, “If I don’t do it,
who will?”
Characteristically, Stuart spent the last two week of his life focusing
not on his own needs, but rather on those of his family. “He was
reaching out to us to help us understand,” Fred Matis recalled.
“He
masked it so that his parents could be comforted.”
The year that Fred and Marilyn Matis were aware of their son’s sexual
orientation was not an easy or comfortable one. “He took us to an
area
that we didn’t want to go,” Fred Matis explained. “He took us
to a life
that we didn’t want to understand.” Stuart “walked us through
the faith
of his life,” Stuart’s father recalled,” and he taught us so much
about
something that we knew very little about and had little compassion
for.” Among the things they learned were that one’s sexual
orientation
and one’s actions are two quite separate things. Now, as
they
encounter the detritus of Stuart’s life—the socks he left in the
house,
a favorite chair he sat in—they have learned that they feel honored just
to have been his parents.
“We’ve been the students, and he’s been the mentor,” his father
said.
Stuart’s own spiritual mentor of some eight months, Robert Rees of Santa
Cruz, California, had known many gay Mormons through his work as bishop
of a Los Angeles ward. When Rees first met Stuart, he sensed that
Stuart was a man of fine character and deep conflicts. He was aware
of
Stuart’s potential for suicide, as he was aware of the depression and
alienation felt by many gay Mormons.
Rees told those attending the memorial service that he was in Utah on a
speaking assignment at the time that Stuart died. Rees was
addressing
the Family Fellowship, whose participants have lost gay family members
and friends to suicide and AIDS. When he learned of Stuart’s
death, he
could not sleep and felt despondent. In those first days of coping
with
Stuart’s death, he drew comfort from solemn masterworks by Beethoven and
Brahms. He looked to literature and scripture to gain deeper
comprehension. From the ending of Shakespeare’s _King
Lear_ he drew
the message that when we extend the suffering of those already being
tortured, we do not show love. He quoted: “Vex not his
ghost: O, let
him pass! He hates him much / That would upon the rack of this tough
world / Stretch him out longer.”
Speaking at the memorial service, Rees challenged the audience to apply
the Savior’s teachings about charity specifically to homosexuals.
Those
who are baptized are challenged in scriptural passages to take upon
themselves others’ burdens, he reminded the audience. “Those who
revile, persecute, or hate homosexuals cannot partake in their
suffering, to be asked to emotionally erase ourselves, to hate our
bodies, to be denied normal fellowship within Christ's kingdom, to be
able to imagine a world in which they do not suffer indignities."
With a “Christ-inspired imagination,” Rees explained, one would not
tell
jokes about gays or hold antipathy toward them. “Each of us
glorifies
God in our own way,” he said, adding that he sensed glorification in
Stuart.
Rees had offered to Stuart that he would stand beside him at the judgment
bar of God, so strong was his belief in Stuart's goodness. Rees reminded
those attending that God alone is the judge of humankind. He quoted a
Book of Mormon scripture: "The keeper of the gate is the Holy One of
Israel;
and he employeth no servant there" (2 Nephi 9:41). Rees reiterated
that
God alone would be Stuart's judge.
Rees also quoted poet Gerard Manley Hopkins:
[T]he just man...
Acts in God’s eye what in God’s eye he is—
Christ—for Christ plays in ten thousand places,
Lovely in limbs, and lovely in eyes not his
To the Father through the features of men’s
faces.
He cast Stuart’s death as a sacrifice, not merely as a tragedy.
“No
sacrifice is worth a thing if it does not have meaning,” Rees said.
He
expressed hope that those at the memorial service would “take that
sacrifice as one of the most powerful teaching experiences that we will
have.” Then Rees gave an account from the Midrash, in which Moses
is
reluctant to die, but finally God himself comes down to Moses, kisses
Moses, and lovingly draws him toward death.
Rees concluded: “I like to think that’s how God will take all of
us
home.”
Janet Brigham
Mountain View, CA