I found the citations they used to justify their homophobic restrictions intriguing, and I thought I’d take a look at their statements here.

First, Oaks:

God’s plan, founded on eternal truth, requires that exaltation can be attained only through faithfulness to the covenants of an eternal marriage between a man and a woman in the holy temple

Then Nelson:

The Lord has clearly taught that only men and women who are sealed as husband and wife in the temple, and who keep their covenants, will be together throughout the eternities.

It’s interesting how strong the language is in both quotes. Oaks says that God’s plan requires that exaltation comes only to a man and a woman who are married in the temple (through their faithfulness). Nelson claims that the Lord clearly taught that “together forever” only comes to a husband and a wife sealed in the temple.

Requires.

Clearly taught.

Those are confident choices.

The problem, however, is that there is absolutely no scriptural evidence for these claims. And the scriptural sources they cite don’t support their argument.

Oaks, for example, cites two scriptures: 1 Corinthians 11:11 and Doctrine and Covenants 132:19–20.

Here’s 1 Cor. 11:11:

Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

Paul is not talking about eternal marriage in this passage. Let’s look at the surround verses for context:

3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.

9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

You see, this passage isn’t talking about eternal marriage or exaltation in the celestial kingdom. Rather, it’s discussing the interdependence of men and woman in a relationship. I mean, technically, he’s not even saying “husband” and ”wife”.

Now, let’s look at D&C 132:19–20

19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.

This passage only says that if a man marries a wife they shall receive exaltation and glory in all things. Granted, it has a few prequisites:

• The marriage has to be done by the Lord’s law
• The marriage has to be done by the new and everlasting covenant
• The marriage has to be sealed the Holy Spirit of promise
• The man can’t commit murder through shedding innocent blood

Regardless, the point being is that it’s speaking about any given man: “if a man marry a wife”. It doesn’t say that a man must marry a wife to “pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things”.

I mean, if I eat take a shower, my body will get wet, but that doesn’t mean I can only get wet by taking a shower. I could go swimming, for example. Or someone could spray me with a hose. Or I could fall into a puddle.

Now let’s look at the scripture that Nelson used to justify is exclusionary claim, which was also found in D&C 132, but this time in verse 7:

And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.

This isn’t even talking about marriage specifically. It’s just saying that earthly contracts have no effect in heaven unless they are “made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise”. I guess you could make the argument that it implies that marriages performed outside of the temple won’t last into the eternities.

Here’s the thing though. While Oaks and Nelson are suggesting that same-sex couples (and even opposite sex couples, where one of them is trans, if we’re being honest here) are restricted from exaltation (although they don’t explicitly say tha—it is pretty strongly implied), it’s only because the church won’t let them get sealed.

If exaltation of a couple depends on a sealing by the Holy Spirit of promise and that sealing takes place only in the temple (which D&C 132 doesn’t state, but let’s say that current practice is condoned by God), the only reason these couples can’t be exalted together is that church policy prevents them from being sealed in the temple.

We see similar wording in the previous section of the Doctrine and Covenants:

1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;

2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];

3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.

4 He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.

D&C 131:1–4

Once again, a man must enter in the new and everlasting covenant of marriage to received the highest degree of celestial glory. it doesn’t even say that he needs to marry a woman in this case. Nor does it say anything about women having the same requirements.

Even so, if the so-called “new and everlasting covenant of marriage” refers to temple sealing, then any policy that stops a man from obtaining a temple sealing is also preventing him from attaining the highest degree. of celestial glory.

For decades, the church prohibited Black men from getting sealed in the temple. Had the church not cancelled that racist policy, Black men around the world would continue to be restricted from attaining the highest degree of celestial glory, not because of their own failings, but because of the policies the church itself implemented.

(And, of course, so would all Black people, not just men.)

The current practice to prohibit some queer couples from being sealed is based in policy, not scripture. Just as was the case for the prohibition based on skin colour.

And policies can change.

Oh, and one last thing. Have Oaks and Nelson forgotten that the section they cited—Doctrine and Covenants 132—is outlining the practice of plural marriage? Seems a tad ironic.

As soon as I saw the article, I knew it’d focus on defending heteronormative marriage as the norm and then outline why other marriages are abnormal.

And I was right.

While he certainly highlights the tired clichés used by “traditional marriage“ defenders, such as marriage being ordained of God, he uses a new strategy to justify the homophobic opposition of right-wing Mormons to such initiatives as marriage equality.

Bednar positions heteronormative marriage as innately self-sacrificing, that those within such marriages “los[e] [their] life in service to family or in self-sacrifice for spouse and children.”

In contrast, he frames the “modern secular concept of marriage” as one that is a “a purely private, contractual model”, one that is “easily entered and easily broken, with a focus on the needs of individuals” and “is based on extreme conceptions of personal autonomy and individual rights that elevate one’s own will over God’s will, that opt for personal choice over personal responsibility, and that prioritize the desires of individuals over the needs of spouses and children.”

He then uses this to lead the reader to this conclusion:

Given this trend, many in our culture could not long resist the call to redefine marriage from the union of man and woman to the union of any two people, regardless of gender. After all, if marriage is little more than a vehicle for advancing personal autonomy and individual rights—rather than a sacred and enduring union between man and woman centered on self-sacrifice and raising a family—then it becomes very hard to deny marriage—any type of marriage—to any couple or group of people that seek it.

You see, to him, gay marriages (or any marriage that isn’t between a straight and cis man and woman) are—to use the wording of one his colleagues—counterfeit, because the only reason anyone would enter into them is a selfish one.

To Bednar, two gay people advance in their relationship toward marriage not because their love for each other grows but because their desire for personal autonomy and individual rights intensifies.

But there’s one major flaw in Bednar’s argument: one of his premises is wrong.

Here’s the crux of his argument

• Premise A: Heteronormative marriages are selfless and self-sacrificing.
• Premise B: Non-heteronormative marriages are selfish and self-serving.
• Premise C: Peace and joy come from sacrifice to family.
• Conclusion: Those in non-heteronormative marriages have no peace and joy.

I agree with premise C; however, there is no proof that the other two premises are true. Marriages—straight, gay, or otherwise—are neither inherently selfless nor inherently selfish. Whether a marriage is selfless or selfish depends on the partners in that marriage. Regardless of sexual orientation, if the partners are selfless, they may find peace and joy; if they’re selfish, they may not.

I don’t know whether Bednar has ever met people in non-heteronormative marriages, but there are plenty of such marriages in which the partners are focused on sacrificing themselves for their loved ones. In addition, plenty of these marriages involve the raising of children.

Certainly, there are plenty of gay marriages where there are no children, but there are plenty of straight marriages with no children. Certainly, there are plenty of gay marriages that “lead to divorce as people bounce from one relationship to another”, but there are plenty of straight marriages that experience the same thing.

The main problem with Bednar’s argument is that he never establishes that gay marriages are indeed naturally selfish. He never presents evidence for the assumption: he merely gives the assumption as fact. And without providing meaningful justification for this premise, it threatens the stability of his argument.

Let’s review some examples from his text.

Men and women too often pursue relationships and marriage focused on their own needs and desires rather than on building stable marital and family relationships.

This is true, but it’s independent of sexual orientation. People of all gender identities and sexual orientations pursue relationships focused on their own needs and desires. Conversely, however, people of all gender identities and sexual orientations also pursue relationships focused on building stable marital and family relationships.

If marriage is little more than a vehicle for advancing personal autonomy and individual rights—rather than a sacred and enduring union between man and woman centered on self-sacrifice and raising a family—then it becomes very hard to deny marriage—any type of marriage—to any couple or group of people that seek it.

Well, that’s just my point. Bednar doesn’t provide compelling evidence that gay marriages are nothing more than a vehicle for advancing personal autonomy and individual rights. He also fails to prove that non-heteronormative marriages aren’t enduring unions centred on self-sacrifice and raising a family. Bednar fails to establish the if at the beginning of this statement, the if that his argument hangs on.

The man and the woman contribute differently but equally to a oneness and a unity that can be achieved in no other way. The man completes and perfects the woman and the woman completes and perfects the man as they learn from and mutually strengthen and bless each other.

This is not inherent to just heterosexual couples. Queer couples can easily come into their relationship with complementary qualities, talents, and abilities, creating a more whole relationship. This is not something straight people have a monopoly on.

A home with a loving and loyal husband and wife is the supreme setting in which children can be reared in love and righteousness and in which the spiritual and physical needs of children can be met.

Nothing hinders a gay couple from being loving and loyal or rearing children in love and righteousness any more than it would a straight couple.

Bednar tries to paint a picture for the reader where all the benefits of marriage and parenthood are, for some reason, exclusive to straight couples, but he—like I said—never provides evidence for this assumption. And as someone who knows several queer people in long-term marriages, and even raising children, I can assure you that queer couples can have marriages and raise children.

I’m one of them.

You see, my marriage isn’t really based on my sexual orientation. It’s based on my love for my spouse. Similarly, our family isn’t based on my sexual orientation. It’s based on the love my spouse and I have for our children. I didn’t have children because I’m queer. I had children because my love for my spouse led me to want to create and raise children with her. It never had to do with my oritentation.

And if—for whatever reason, after over 25 years—we end up no longer married to each other and I find myself in another relationship, that relationship would also be based on love, not selfishness.

And on that note, there’s one more thing from Bednar’s article I wanted to address:

This view inevitably leaves in its wake traumatized children who needed the rich and committed soil of selfless and dedicated parents in which to sink their roots, abandoned because a father or mother has determined that he or she just is not being “true to himself or herself” by remaining in a marriage that he or she selfishly perceives is no longer serving his or her own interests or orientation. Ironically—and tragically—the freedom and personal autonomy they seek will, in the end, leave them bound by chains of isolation, loneliness, and deep regret.

This paragraph is the most damaging of all the commentary Bednar provides in his article.

Here, he’s referring to queer people who entered a heteronormative marriage but then later left it. Often, people in these circumstances either deny their queerness and are attempting to be straight (as I did) or they repress their queerness on purpose and think performing as straight can help them overcome the disease labelled “same-sex attraction”.

For the longest time, people who were ecclesiastical leaders when Bednar was bishop and stake president would counsel their congregants who approached them with their struggles trying to be queer and Mormon by telling them to perform as straight: date the “opposite“ sex, go on a mission, marry the “opposite” sex, and have children.

They pathologized queerness, and assumed that since it was a disease, it could be cured. And the best cure was heteronomative performance: the straighter they acted, the less queer they’d be.

People who enter a marriage “as a straight person” do so because they’ve been taught—explicitly or implicitly—that queerness is wrong. They’ve been taught that straightness is the ideal and that they must fit this ideal. It’s exaggerated in the church through things like temple marriage, where it’s required for the highest salvation but only those in heteronormative relationships can access it.

And all that creates pressure.

Queer people who enter straight marriages do so because of pressure: pressure to deny or repress their queerness. That pressure doesn’t diminish over time, and for some people, it actually intensifies, leading to mental and emotional struggle.

The fact that Bednar thinks leaving a marriage you felt forced to enter will end up in “isolation, loneliness, and deep regret” is the epitome of irony. Staying in a relationship with someone you aren’t sexually attracted to will, itself, lead to isolation, loneliness, and regret.

The fact that Bednar thinks that persons who leave such marriages do so out of simply a perception (let along a selfish one) is a testament to his own homophobic bigotry.

You see, the marriage never “served their orientation”. They didn’t marry because it “served their orientation”. They married because of pressure of expectations: expectations forced on them by society, family, and church. They don’t leave because the marriage “no longer” serves their orientation. They leave because it never did; they leave because it damages their orientation.

Would Bednar ever insist that a straight woman stay married to another woman? Or a straight man stay married to another man? All in an effort to provide children with “the rich and committed soil of selfless and dedicated parents in which to sink their roots”?

If the answer is no—that he wouldn’t force straight members to stay in a gay marriage—then he shouldn’t be advocating for gay members to stay in straight marriages.

Instead of telling gay members that they should suck it up and live the rest of their lives in mental and emotional pain, he should be using his energy to changing the rhetoric—both explicit and implicit—within the church that convinces queer members in the first place that they even need to be in a straight marriage at all.

But then again, this is the same person who thinks gay Mormons don’t exist. So, I’m not going to hold my breath.

Well, I’ve been thinking about that.

See, straight people like this don’t actually care if LGBTQ people march in parades. Here in Lethbridge, for example, our annual summer fair kicks off with a parade, and I bet there are a few LGBTQ people in that parade. And these straight people don’t care.

These straight people don’t actually care if LGBTQ folk march. It’s not the marching that’s the big deal.

These straight people don’t like knowing that LGBTQ people aren’t straight when they’re marching.

They want to assume everyone is straight. They want to assume everyone is like them. Because if everyone is the same, then it’s easier to justify their rhetoric of hate.

That’s why they don’t have a problem when other straight people shove their sexuality in their face with handholding, kissing, or hugging.

Because it’s not the public nature of the sexuality that’s the problem. It’s that the public sexuality isn’t the same as their sexuality.

And if everyone isn’t the same—if there are gay people, and bisexual people, and trans people, and intersex people, and asexual people, and all sorts of identities that aren’t straight and cisgender—that challenges their rhetoric of hate.

Actually, for that matter, when you hear people complain that there are too many letters in the LGBTTQQIAAP acronym or that there are too many sexual orientations and gender identities, it’s the same thing.

“There are too many initials” or “I can’t keep track of all these new identities” is just a coded way to say “I’m uncomfortable that you’re not like me and it delegitimizes what I was taught.”

But that’s good. It’s good these straight people are uncomfortable.

Imagine what it must be like to grow up in a society where you think everyone else isn’t like you, where you’re the only one like you. Where society is designed for everyone but you. “Discomfort” seems to be inadequate to describe that experience.

Maybe it’s time straight, cisgender people accept discomfort. Getting rid of prejudice and hate is impossible without discomfort.

I’ve been contemplating that position recently. I’m still doing this, trying to expose myself to different viewpoints and trying to not dismiss viewpoints contrary to my own.

However.

I recognize that my ability to do this is because of the immense privilege I enjoy. I can do this because differing opinions will only ever affect me as opinions. They will never be a threat to my existence.

Because I’m white and live in a predominantly white society, race-based commentary will never be a threat to me.

Because I’m straight and live in a predominantly straight society, commentary regarding sexual orientation will never be a threat to me.

Because I’m cisgender and live in a predominantly cis society, gender-based commentary will never be a threat to me.

Because I’m male and live in a society designed for males, sex-based commentary will never be a threat to me.

Because I’m middle class in a society designed for the middle and upper classes, class-based commentary will never be a threat to me.

Because I’m generally able-bodied in a society designed for able bodied people, commentary about disabilities will never be a threat to me.

Because I’m Christian in a predominantly Christian society, religious commentary will never be a threat to me.

And because none of this will threaten my existence, I can afford to not turn my Facebook feed into a silo.

Not everyone has that privilege. Commentary that affects me only as a disagreement can affect others as a direct threat to their existence. Where I might get frustrated with someone arguing with me, others might get anxious, worried, or scared.

So, while I can still keep my feed unrestricted, I realize not everyone can. And I need to not judge them for it.

That article was shared a lot. Thousands of times, in fact. Even by conservative Mormons. They saw Greg’s retelling of the story and his subsequent pondering as support for their belief that you can be gay and LDS. And they shared the heck out of it. Because there’s nothing quite like slacktivism to bring about change in a church you don’t think should actually change.

Right wing Mormons completely ignore the experiences of LGBTQ Mormons. Until their buddy Greg Trimble comes along and shares a story of an anonymous gay man whose story matches their worldview. Then all of a sudden, they’re quick to share gay Mormon experiences. But no sharing stories of suicide, no stories of rejection, no stories of abandonment and loneliness.

They’re quick to embrace their leaders who say that LGBTQ Mormons don’t exist or that their relationships are counterfeit. But they don’t walk in Pride parades, they don’t serve in outreach organizations, and they don’t do anything but lip service to make LGBTQ Mormons feel like there actually is a place for them.

But let’s share Greg Trimble’s article to appease our consciences.

A friend of mine at the time commented on a Facebook post I wrote on the topic, trying to position himself as a neutral party, explaining his understanding of the viewpoints of “both sides” debating on my post and encouraging each to come together “to share ideas respectfully and calmly”.

In his comment, he used language that was problematic—phrases such as “homosexual behaviour”, “people with same-sex attraction”, “they have an uphill climb”—so I responded with the following.

This is part of the problem. The way you’ve described the “sides” shows a lack of understanding.

Take the phrase “homosexual behaviour”, for example. What does that even mean? How gay people behave in a restaurant? How they perform in their job? How they treat their children?

Or is “homosexual behaviour” a code word for gay sex, as if that’s the only behaviour of LGBTQ people?

And the idea of “people with same-sex attraction”. Phrasing like that pathologizes. It’s saying they have a condition, just like people with diabetes or people with cancer. And if it’s a condition, it can be overcome. Hence we get things like “pray the gay away” and electric shock therapy.

Yes, they have an uphill battle, but it’s not because of this so-called condition; it’s because they have to deal with prejudice from their family, their friends, their society, and their church. Prejudice that overwhelms them, ostracizes them, depresses them, and kills them. Again, it’s not their attraction that creates the uphill battle.

Also, by generalizing with “same-sex attraction”, we silence all the other LGBTQ people who aren’t gay. It ignores trans issues, asexual issues, pansexual issues, intersex issues, and so on. It ignores the diversity within the LGBTQ community.

Liberals (or others on the left) aren’t trying to show compassion simply because of risk. They’re also trying to show compassion because someone needs to and many members aren’t doing it. They’re trying to be inclusive because it’s the right thing to do, and not just because someone might be more likely to kill themselves.

They’re also not just asking for leaders to accommodate LGBTQ members; they’re asking for love. They’re asking for equality. The church is not just not accommodating LGBTQ members; they’re specifically accommodating cishet members.

The idea that we don’t help reach out because we don’t agree with “components of the movement” (whatever that means) is ridiculous. That’s telling our LGBTQ fellow members that our feelings are more important than theirs, that it’s more important that we be comfortable than it is to reach out in the love that our brothers and sisters have lost from their families, ward members, and leaders.

Half of our children now are estranged from the church. Each of them is trans. I don’t consider this a coincidence.

The church’s rhetoric pushes LGBTQ members out. Our 10yo told us that they don’t feel spiritually safe at church, that it’s not a spiritually safe place.

The church opposes same sex marriage. They don’t agree that gender isn’t binary. They see queer identity as abnormal, as a trial or burden one must overcome.

And these perspectives are reflected in the rhetoric we hear over the pulpit, in our classrooms, and from each other.

And when we use homophobic and transphobic rhetoric—even if we think we are supportive and open minded—because we think church is a safe place to say such comments, we forget that there are members in these meetings who hear us, who those comments personally apply to, who are hurt by them.

And over time, those hurt feelings build up, convincing them that they’re not wanted, that there’s no place for them.

Furthermore, because the church teaches and emphasizes the idea that we have all truth; that if Joseph Smith is a false prophet, it’s all wrong; that if the church is wrong, God must not exist, then it shouldn’t be surprising when people estranged from the church abandon religion entirely.

Not only does our rhetoric push LGBTQ people out of the church but it encourages them to burn it all on their way out.

It’s important to remember that in every large gathering of LDS members, there will be members attending who are also part of the LGBTQ community. I think it would be good for each of us, when addressing the saints in large numbers, to reflect on how the language we use around LGBTQ issues is received by LGBTQ members, even if the language is subtle and coded.

When we talk about how much things have changed over the last 23.5 years since the Proclamation was issued, and we frame the Proclamation as inspired in that context but don’t highlight any of the advancements in equal rights, we should wonder how those members who aren’t the gender they were assigned at birth or who couldn’t marry their loved one 20 years ago interpret our words.

Do they agree with us, seeing it as an inspired document? Or do they disagree with us, seeing it as a document opposed to (and perhaps even attacking) their own constitutional rights?

As well, we should wonder how non-LGTBQ members interpret our rhetoric when speaking about the inspiration of the Proclamation.

Do they agree with us that it is inspired? Do they take our comments as justification for their existing prejudices toward the LGBTQ community? Do our words support their erasure of trans members, or their delegitimization of marriage equality, or their unwavering support of recently rescinded mandatory church courts for fellow members who happen to be living in legal, loving, monogamous relationships?

If they don’t support their LGBTQ children when they come out, will they use the Proclamation as the basis for their exclusion of their children? Will the way we talk about the Proclamation give them ammunition to ostracize their loved ones? Or will our words encourage them to be inclusive, to be loving, to be advocates?

Our words influence those who hear them. And I think it is incumbent on those of who speak to be aware of that influence.

If our child is born with a penis, for example, the doctor tells us it’s a boy. We believe that doctor and raise that child as a boy. We assign him gendered pronouns and give him a gendered name. We envision him growing into a man one day. We dream of him falling in love with a woman and providing us with grandchildren one day.

But we never imagine him being gay. Not until he comes out to us or his behaviour makes us think he’s not straight.

Likewise, we never imagine him as a girl. Not until he comes out to us or his behaviour make us think he’s not cis.

And it’s the same with our daughters. We assume they’re straight and cis.

The doctor never says, “You’re child is neither a boy nor a girl. They’re somewhere in between, or both at the same time.” So we don’t either.

We see queerness as the other. No matter how many rainbow pins we wear or pride parades we attend, we will always see queerness as the exception to—even an abomination of—the norm. If we truly see queerness as normal, then why do we assign cisgender and heterosexual identities to our children by default when they’re born?

It’s why we’re shocked when our children come out to us. Why we cry when they reveal their true selves. Why we question everything we’ve said or done that may have ignorantly worsened their mental health.

Anti queerness is not just a problem found only in churches. Our society, and even our own families, are built on a foundation of homophobia and transphobia.

Video

This person isn’t alone in this sentiment; I’ve seen plenty of people express something similar. Except they’re wrong: they do care when someone is gay. In fact, that’s the only time people like this complain about sexuality being shoved in their face.

You never see straight people complaining about sexuality being shoved in their face when they see a man and woman holding hands in public, or putting arms around each other in public, or kissing in public.

You never see straight people complaining about sexuality being shoved in their face when a man in a movie or TV show pursues a woman romantically.

You never see straight people complaining about sexuality being shoved in their face when couples are portrayed in advertisements as a man and a woman.

You never see straight people complaining about sexuality being shoved in their face when a family with a mother and father is portrayed as the norm.

They don’t complain because they don’t see it as sexuality. Because heteronormative sexuality is normal to them. And it’s what they perceive as abnormal that they have a problem with.

It has nothing to do with sexuality. It has everything to do with gayness. They think by prefacing their statement with an apathetic declaration that it portrays themselves as objective and tolerant; they just don’t realize that it actually underscores their homophobia.

Why were libertarians not calling for the government to stay out of marriage prior to gay people demanding the right to marry?

Because couching homophobia in blanket declarations of freedom from state control is a way to appear open minded while remaining homophobic. It’s coded homophobia.

Just like when the Lethbridge right showed up to the school board meeting in 2016 in response to a school board policy respecting trans students’ right to use the washroom that best matches their gender. The right was asking that all students be treated equally, that no student should receive special treatment. They tried to hide their transphobia in blanket declarations of equality. But it’s coded transphobia. They try to appear open minded and progressive, but everyone else on the right knows what they’re talking about.

Coded bigotry is the foundation of dog whistle politics.