Introduction and Context for Today's Episode

John Dehlin [00:00:07] Hello, everyone, and welcome to another edition of Mormon Stories podcast. I am your host for today, John Dehlin. It's November 19, 2022, and we are covering some breaking news this week. Recently in all the major newspapers, including the New York Times, the revered New York Times headlines are breaking out that the Mormon Church is all of a sudden in love with lgbt. I'm being a little bit sarcastic. In love with LGBT people and is now supporting LGBT people and same sex marriage. And this long historical nightmare of the Mormon Church being bigoted against LGBT people is over. That's kind of how it's being portrayed on social media and in many newspapers, including the Salt Lake Tribune and even apparently the New York Times.

John Dehlin [00:00:56] And so you. You know, we've been watching progressive Mormons and even post Mormons expressing gratitude and excitement all over social media. Wow. Finally, the church is. Is loving and being kind to LGBTQ people. And there are many of my LGBTQ friends that are concerned and that are frustrated that this is not in any way a genuine act of goodwill, nor is it really a change in doctrine or theology or even policy towards LGBT people.

John Dehlin [00:01:32] But instead, it's being likened to, you know, some say a Trojan horse, where the Mormon Church is actually making a PR move to improve its image, but then also codifying protections to continue discriminating and to protect its tax exempt status while it appears to the world as if it's becoming more friendly when it's actually not. So that's kind of what we're here to talk about today.

John Dehlin [00:02:03] What has happened in the US Congress? What is about to happen potentially with the Supreme Court? What exactly is the LDS Church doing and not doing? What are its potential motives? And what does this all mean for the Mormon Church, but also for LGBTQ people in Utah and in the United States? And joining me today is my partner, one of my partners in righteousness, Gerardo Simano. Hey, Gerardo.

Gerardo Sumano [00:02:30] Hey, John.

John Dehlin [00:02:31] Thanks for. Thanks for making this happen.

Gerardo Sumano [00:02:32] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:02:33] How you doing?

Gerardo Sumano [00:02:34] I'm good.

John Dehlin [00:02:36] Are you dancing in the streets at this amazing news story, or is it more complex for you think is more complex?

Gerardo Sumano [00:02:43] A bit frustrated, but I'm glad we're. We're covering it.

Brenton Erickson [00:02:45] Yeah.

Welcoming the Guests and LDS LGBT History

John Dehlin [00:02:46] Okay. All right, well, thanks for making this happen. Her art is producing this episode. And we have back with us today, Utah attorney Brenton Erickson. He's joining us again on Mormon Stories. Hey, Brenton.

Brenton Erickson [00:02:58] Hi, John. How you doing?

John Dehlin [00:02:59] Good. Are you dancing in the streets?

Gerardo Sumano [00:03:01] No.

John Dehlin [00:03:03] Okay.

Brenton Erickson [00:03:04] Nope.

John Dehlin [00:03:05] All right, well, we're excited to. To understand why, and of course, we're Grateful to have back with us on Mormon Stories podcast. Recent graduate of University of Virginia Law School. She just passed the bar in D.C. and this is not her first rodeo. On Mormon Stories podcast, Hannah Comeau. Hey, Hannah.

Hannah Comeau [00:03:25] Hi. How are you?

John Dehlin [00:03:27] Good. Welcome back.

Hannah Comeau [00:03:28] Good, thank you.

John Dehlin [00:03:30] Are you dancing in the streets?

Hannah Comeau [00:03:32] Yes, but not for this. Not for this reason.

John Dehlin [00:03:35] Okay. For other reasons.

Hannah Comeau [00:03:36] For other reasons.

John Dehlin [00:03:37] For passing the bar.

Hannah Comeau [00:03:39] There you go. Exactly.

John Dehlin [00:03:40] Congratulations on. Did you graduate from. From uva?

Hannah Comeau [00:03:45] I did, yeah. I just graduated in May.

John Dehlin [00:03:47] Oh, yeah. Well, we're super excited for you and looking forward to all the good things you're going to be doing. Thanks for joining us today.

Hannah Comeau [00:03:53] Of course. Yeah. Thanks for having me.

John Dehlin [00:03:55] Yeah. Okay. All right, so we've got a few slides today, but I wonder if there's for. For those who are kind of, you know, new to this whole story, who aren't really following Mormonism in the LGBT stuff. I wonder if there's a way to give like a two or three minute backstory that kind of helps frame all this. Do you want to try and do that, Brenton?

Brenton Erickson [00:04:21] A backstory of the church and LGBT issues?

John Dehlin [00:04:23] Yeah, just really, really, really brief. Like, if you had to summarize it,

Brenton Erickson [00:04:27] I think the church has generally followed American mainstream. So back in the 60s and 70s, they were kind of pro criminalization of. Of homosexuality. And then as the, the fight shifted towards gay marriage and other rights, they were kind of. They were pushing against it for as long as possible. And then as public opinion has shifted, they have kind of stopped litigating to make gay marriage and other things illegal and are kind of trying to find their footing in religious exemption compromises. And they really try to stay in the conversation. But doctrinally, homosexuality is still not permitted, really, to any extent.

John Dehlin [00:05:04] It's viewed as evil and an excommunicable offense. Like if, if one thing that people just need to know right off the bat in 2022, as of today, if two men or two women or, you know, a trans person, you know, gets married to the wrong gender, what happens in the Mormon Church?

Brenton Erickson [00:05:22] They're likely going to be excommunicated.

John Dehlin [00:05:23] Yeah, yeah, yeah. So I mean, still very bigoted theology and doctrine. Nothing has changed there, right? Correct.

Brenton Erickson [00:05:30] Right.

John Dehlin [00:05:31] Yeah. Okay, so we know that the church, you know, supported Proposition 8 in California to take away same sex marriage from Californians. That ended up causing backlash that led to eventually the Supreme Court making same sex marriage legal across the country. And then tell us about the exclusion policy for those who don't know.

From Obergefell to the 2015 Exclusion Policy

Brenton Erickson [00:05:52] So very soon after Obergefell the LDS Church came out with a policy that, you guys can correct me on the details, but it did not allow the children of gay parents, especially parents in homosexual marriages, to be baptized until they were 18. And it required them to disavow the relationship of their gay parent once they were 18 in order to be baptized. And that policy, I think, lasted a little over a year.

John Dehlin [00:06:18] Four years.

Brenton Erickson [00:06:19] Four years. Oh, wow. So, you see, I'd already left the church by that point, so it all became, like, very mixed. But it was. When it was instituted, it was revelation, and when it was taken away, it was revelation. But there was a lot of. There was a lot of hurt, I mean, because it seemed like the church had been at least becoming less hostile. And so for them to accept the gay marriage ruling, but then immediately turn around and say, we're going to not baptize your children was really painful, right?

John Dehlin [00:06:44] Yeah. Yeah. And so the church kind of got. I don't. It's a rude word, but kind of bitch slapped in its reaction to Obergefell with the exclusion policy, and it had to eat its own words and reverse it. And that kind of leads to the strategy shift that, Hannah, you've been involved with discussing, because Elder Oaks recently came to University of Virginia, your own law school, and tried to really lay out the church's evolving strategy as it relates to LGBT people. Do you. Do you feel comfortable summarizing that, Hannah, kind of what happened in. At UVA with Elder Oaks?

Hannah Comeau [00:07:20] Sure. Yeah. So we. If. It was about a year ago today, actually, that we sat down and had a discussion about this when this happened. So last November, I was in my third year of law school at uva, and Elder Oaks was coming to the law school to speak about compromises between religious liberty and the LGBT community.

Hannah Comeau [00:07:48] And a classmate of mine, Chloe, who was on that discussion with all of us on Mormon stories last year, she and I helped organize a protest against that because the school was essentially painting him as a figure that was friendly to LGBT people, someone really trying to compromise. I had had a lot of friends unfamiliar with the LDS Church come up to me and say how great it was that the Mormon Church was really changing its tone on these issues. And Chloe and I. Chloe is also ex Mormon from Utah. And we.

Hannah Comeau [00:08:33] We had some weird feelings about it. We realized very quickly that people did not know a lot about his background and some of the things he has said and done in the past and to private and in private settings toward members of the church regarding LGBT issues. So our goal was to bring Light to his background, bring light to what he has said and done in the past in the context of the LDS Church. And we just had an interesting, interesting discussion about that. Some of the highlights from the actual.

Hannah Comeau [00:09:10] His actual discussion at the law school was that we had planted some questions for a Q and A session that was going to happen after he. After Elder Oaks spoke to us. And one of the questions that we were able to ask him was centered around his time at.

Hannah Comeau [00:09:35] As a. As president of BYU and the electroshock therapy, conversion therapy that happened during his tenure as president. He explicitly denied that that ever happened while he was president, that it had discontinued before he became president. Which is demonstrably false. Demonstrably a lie. He made some distinctions in there that what he says to a public audience is different than what he says to a private audience. He said something about don't judge a sermon. Sermon. Yeah, yeah. A religious sermon by public matters.

Hannah Comeau [00:10:21] So essentially admitting to the fact that he says different things in public than he does in private. And then I believe it was the. Maybe the next conference session. I can't remember exactly, but it was sometime after that he gave a talk about how, as Mormons, as members of the church, we really need to fight against policies and politics that help and strengthen rights for LGBT people. So it's just this interesting dichotomy of what they are trying to portray publicly versus privately.

John Dehlin [00:10:58] And then. Thank you, Hannah. And then he, you know, the church has shifted from publicly trying to attack and take away the rights of same sex marriage and adoption and other sorts of things. The church has shifted its language to be in favor of religious freedom. And when. And so that, you know, when Oaks kind of gave his talk at University of Virginia, he shrouded it in rhetoric around, quote, religious freedom. And. And what was he basically doing and saying there? Who wants to. Who wants to take that question? I can take it. Okay. Gerardo.

Gerardo Sumano [00:11:32] I think he was pretty explicit on his talk because he said, you know, that outsiders, the ones that don't like religious freedom, call it a license to discriminate. So we say, you know, he painted us as saying that we are saying that the church is looking for a license to discriminate. And he said, we need to, you know, you guys need to be more nuanced with you, how you. How you interpret what we're trying to do, but basically that's what it is. And he. He said if they're looking for the right to discriminate against LGBT people or transgender people, discrimination based on gender, whatever the religion tells Them including.

Gerardo Sumano [00:12:15] And he also said this on the Q and A when they're receiving federal funds for, you know, secular endeavors. Someone asked him specifically about religious universities and Bob Jones and he said the government should get like, he said, kind of like, in my opinion, the government should give us federal funds for secular endeavors, no matter if we are discriminating or not. And so you can tell that this is a real issue that the church is conscious about, that they know it's being highly contested in the courts. They know they are really active in these types of cases.

John Dehlin [00:12:53] And so, yeah, yeah, so, so all of you, this is my attempt to summarize where we are and what is informing this recent decision. So one framing is what, like Peggy Fletcher Stack or, you know, originally Taylor Petrie or many of even the, the secular media and even some LGBT advocates. One framing is, oh, this is amazing. The LDS Church is all of a sudden gay friendly and in favor of same sex marriage and loves gay people, and that's why they're supporting this bill. So that's one framing. Let me give my framing and then I want you guys. Well, we'll dig into it as soon as I give the framing.

Church Membership Losses and the Marriage Equality Bill

John Dehlin [00:13:34] But tell me if this framing might be more accurate, that the Mormon Church is hemorrhaging its members, particularly its young members, because the church is being perceived as bigoted against LGBT people, is getting really bad PR over how it's handled LGBT people at the various BYUs and IT. And also outside of Mormonism, it's just generally viewed as a bigoted anti LGBTQ church.

John Dehlin [00:14:07] So it's got that problem, kind of a image problem and a PR problem. In addition, just recently, David Archuleta comes out publicly as gay and leaves the church. And he's on Good Morning America and he's doing the tour now. And that's like a disaster because since the Osmonds, we probably haven't had a more well known globally public figure and as Mormon than David Archuleta, and now he's coming out as gay and leaving the church. So the church has a image and a PR disaster on its hands that's leading to probably the worst hemorrhaging of membership and of support and of its image that it's ever experienced.

John Dehlin [00:14:50] Add to that the fact that it wants to continue discriminating against LGBTQ people, both in terms of employment in the church, BYU professors and faculty, church employees, and then also BYU students. It wants to make sure we desperately need to continue discriminating against LGBT students to be able to kick them out of BYU or punish them if they act in any way that we don't want them to act. And it needs to do. It needs to preserve its anti LGBTQ doctrines because the church is still excommunicating gay people. It still says that same sex marriage is evil and bad.

John Dehlin [00:15:33] And, and it wants to preserve its ability to have discriminatory LGBTQ doctrines and theology while protecting and securing its tax exempt status and its access to federal funds. So how can it make a move that, on the one hand, improves its image while also protecting its rights to discriminate, its tax exempt status and its access to federal funds? Now, is that cynical? Is that realistic? Brenton, I'll have you go first and then Hannah and her.

Brenton Erickson [00:16:07] No, I think a lot of that is accurate. I think a lot of it can be both. As in, the church definitely has these more selfish motives for doing this PR stunt of really inserting itself into the conversation around the Respect for Marriage Act. And from my view, the passage of that act was essentially inevitable. I don't think the Mormon Church impacted the passage of that act at all. I think the work the Mormon Church has done in Utah was a lot more influential because it has so much influence here. So I think. Yeah, no, I, I.

John Dehlin [00:16:45] And we'll talk about the act.

Brenton Erickson [00:16:47] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:16:47] But, yeah, it's just more right now in terms of motives. Like what, what do you think the motives are for what it did? If you had to guess?

Brenton Erickson [00:16:58] I think those PR disasters, the recent PR disasters, there's definitely an, an eagerness to smooth those over. And what a great stage, what a great national stage to smooth those PR disasters over by supporting this bill. And then I also just think, in general, the LDS Church has an obsession with appearing reasonable, like relatively mainstream. And so if 70% of the public now supports gay marriage, it's just not tenable anymore to, to be openly taking the opposite position. And in order to smooth over the PR crisis, rather than stay quiet, you know, they're publicly saying, hey, we'll let this happen. That's what's. I don't know if that makes sense. In my mind, they had nothing to do with this federal bill. They just, they just got a lot of PR out of it.

John Dehlin [00:17:39] Yeah. And we'll jump into that. Okay. Hannah, anything you want to say about motives?

Hannah Comeau [00:17:44] Sure. Yeah. I largely agree with what Brenton just said. I think there's this interesting dynamic that the church is trying to balance right now between. John, what you mentioned, hemorrhaging its own younger members by failing to support the LGBT community in the past. But Then I think it's difficult for them because as we know, they're a church built on unchanging doctrine.

Hannah Comeau [00:18:13] And so they're. I think they're kind of realizing that if they are going to change their stance on this, they have to do it very strategically in order to not change its doctrine. Because if it appears that it's changing its doctrine fully, then it's going to hemorrhage other members, I believe. So it's kind of facing this battle right now where society is moving in one direction, but if they move too closely with it, they're going to lose some of their older members, I think.

Hannah Comeau [00:18:42] But they have the other problem going the other way. And so I think, again, this was a perfect opportunity to have to succeed on every level they want. They had great, great PR from this, as was mentioned. But then also, as we get into the substantive issues of what this, what the Respect for Marriage act actually does, including the recent amendments that were passed in the Senate, protection protecting increased religious exemptions, the church, from a doctrinal standpoint, actually actually gets a lot out of this.

Hannah Comeau [00:19:22] I agree that it doesn't have. The church didn't have anything to do with this bill passing the House and advancing in the Senate. It didn't. But coming out in support of it really did a lot to enhance its public image, especially for the younger generation, I believe, because on its face, if you don't read into it too much or read the text of the actual statute or the actual legislation in context of existing law, then it does look very favorable. So.

John Dehlin [00:19:56] Yeah.

Hannah Comeau [00:19:57] Yeah. I just think it's interesting.

John Dehlin [00:19:58] Okay.

Brenton Erickson [00:19:59] And I. I agree with that last part of your assessment, especially John, that they are being calculated about shoring up their legal protections, their own legal protections. And we can discuss later. I think the, the protections they got are largely unnecessary, but they are helpful and they're being proactive about looking to the future.

John Dehlin [00:20:15] Okay. Gerardo, anything you want to add about motives or do you think we got it?

Gerardo Sumano [00:20:19] I think you got it.

John Dehlin [00:20:19] Okay.

Gerardo Sumano [00:20:20] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:20:20] All right. So should we dive into the substance now?

Brenton Erickson [00:20:23] Sure.

John Dehlin [00:20:23] I think is the. Is the best place to start with the, the state. Kind of. The Defense of Marriage act, kind of what the law was before Obergefell?

Brenton Erickson [00:20:34] Sure.

John Dehlin [00:20:34] Is that the best place to start?

Brenton Erickson [00:20:35] Sure.

Legal Landscape of Federal Same-Sex Marriage Protections

John Dehlin [00:20:36] Do you want to. Do you want to start with that? Britain?

Brenton Erickson [00:20:37] Yeah. So in the 90s, there was conversations beginning in states like Hawaii about potentially legalizing gay marriage. I think there was actually a court case in Hawaii that brought up that risk. And conservatives generally, and it was the mainstream position back then.

Brenton Erickson [00:20:52] They wanted to do something federally to kind of stall that movement and to reduce national impact. And so they passed the Defense of Marriage Act. And the main thing the Defense of Marriage act did was explicitly state that all the different states had no requirement to acknowledge same sex marriages performed in other states because Congress, under the Constitution has authority to decide how states have to give full faith and credit to the official acts of other states. So Defense of Marriage act just said states are not required to give full faith and credit to the same sex marriages of other states. And. And it also allowed the federal government to not fully recognize those marriages in areas like tax exemptions and benefits, Social Security, immigration.

Gerardo Sumano [00:21:43] So the federal government didn't have to recognize same sex marriage.

John Dehlin [00:21:47] So, yeah, I've been working with Gerardo on an analogy. It would almost be like some states want to make interracial marriage illegal, others want to accept interracial marriage. And the Defense of Marriage act would basically say, hey, state, if you're a more bigoted state that wants to make interracial marriage illegal and not recognize it, you still can. In other words, if you're a state that doesn't ever want to accept the legitimacy of a same sex marriage, we're going to protect your right to discriminate against same sex married couples. Is that right?

Brenton Erickson [00:22:21] Yes, yes, that is what the Defensive Marriage act did.

John Dehlin [00:22:23] Yeah. So I mean, that's in. In 2022, that's kind of ridiculous, the fact that it would be viewed as magnanimous to sort of say, well, you know, okay, we've got tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of same sex marriages that have now been legalized and solemnized over the past several decades. We're going to do something really magnanimous, which is to say we're going to continue honoring these existing same sex marriages.

Brenton Erickson [00:22:55] Right, Right.

Gerardo Sumano [00:22:57] So

Brenton Erickson [00:22:59] looks like not that big of a deal. But you have to remember that there's a changed legal landscape. So DOMA happened in the 90s, but since then you had Lawrence v. Texas that struck down the remaining anti sodomy statutes. Then in 2013, you had Windsor, where the Supreme Court held that the Defense of Marriage act was essentially unconstitutional. So the Defense of Marriage act has been legally unenforceable, basically dead since 2013, even though it's still on the books. And then in 2015, you get Obergefell. So if you.

John Dehlin [00:23:27] If so, how would Obergefeld have impacted?

Brenton Erickson [00:23:30] So the major change recently is Dobbs before Dobbs, before we got the actual death knell case against Roe v. Wade against abortion rights. After Obergefell, a lot of people, I think, had a tendency to say, oh, great, this issue is solved. We can all live happily ever after. And Dobbs was this stark reminder that the court changes, the court changes, and you cannot just rely on the Court to maintain fundamental rights. And so the push for the Respect for Marriage act has been. Because justices like Thomas have been openly saying that Obergefell might be in question. It's irresponsible for Congress to not do everything it can. And so even though Obergefell is still the law of the land, the Respect for Marriage act sets up a legislative basis for, for same sex marriages to be respected and recognized. Even if the Supreme Court really overturns, Oberg fell in the future.

John Dehlin [00:24:18] So. So just as the US Supreme Court, because of Trump's appointments to the Supreme Court, was able to strike down Roe versus Wade, there's a chance that the, that the future Supreme Court could also strike down Obergefeld, which is the Supreme Court's support of nationwide same sex marriage.

Brenton Erickson [00:24:38] Right.

John Dehlin [00:24:39] And if that were the case, then we would go back to the 90s, basically. Yeah. Where states were allowed to not accept as legitimate same sex marriages. And this law is basically just saying, no, no, no, hey, states, all of you need to support existing same sex marriages in all the important ways.

Brenton Erickson [00:25:01] Right. And you saw that, that it's trying to fix that potential nightmare. And you saw that actual nightmare after Dobbs in a lot of states that aren't even that conservative. You saw that nightmare in, in Michigan and Arizona and a lot of swing states, they had really old laws on the books banning abortion that suddenly were feasibly enforceable once Dobbs came out. And so they were suddenly having to deal with those very quickly. And so the Respect for Marriage act takes away that nightmare scenario for a gay marriage.

John Dehlin [00:25:27] Yeah, but it's, but it's basically just.

Gerardo Sumano [00:25:30] Would it be, would it be fair to say that the Supreme Court would have to overturn Obergefell and also Windsor?

Brenton Erickson [00:25:37] Yes. Although I think it's safe to say that. I don't know, I mean, those cases are not. There's, there's going to be distinctions, but if they're going all the way to overturning Obergefell, I don't really see why they don't overturn Windsor.

Hannah Comeau [00:25:49] Yeah. Yeah. Can I just add a little bit onto that too? Okay. So I think one important aspect of the Defense of Marriage act that should be noted is that Section 3 specifically defines marriage, meaning only a legal union between one man and One woman as husband and wife. And the word spouse refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. I'm reading that straight out of the Defense of Marriage act and just to clarify a couple things. So when, as far as I understand at least, and I, I mean I could be wrong on this, but my understanding is that Windsor itself overturned section three, which defines marriage of doma, and it was Obergefell that actually overturned section two of doma, which is the full faith and credit portion of, of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Hannah Comeau [00:26:47] So through those two cases collectively, as Brenton mentioned, they, the Defense of Marriage act, while it still exists, is very, is legally unenforceable after these two cases. And I think with this Dobbs discussion, what's relevant here is that the Supreme Court, the current composition of the Supreme Court is really attacking the right to privacy right now and the case reasoning, reasoning along those lines. That's how Roe versus Wade was overturned. And Obergefell unfortunately was largely reasoned on similar grounds on right to privacy. And so that's part of the reason that we're concerned that Oberge, Obergefell is at risk right now.

Hannah Comeau [00:27:41] So what is happening, so what's happening with the Respect for Marriage Act? As was said, they're basically saying, hey, what we said in as far as full faith and credit, which section two of DOMA gets, got rid of initially, that's, that's completely unenforceable and we're legislating that right now. So it's as was, Yeah, I think as was said, it's protecting the worst case scenario. I think if both of those cases are overturned.

Brenton Erickson [00:28:13] And just to summarize quickly, that's because I, I'm not, I said earlier, I'm not dancing the street, I'm not dancing the street about the LDS Church's support of the Respect for Marriage Act. The Respect for Marriage act though is a fantastic thing for the rights of queer people in this country.

John Dehlin [00:28:26] Because it does what?

Brenton Erickson [00:28:27] Because the summary would be if Obergefell is overturned in the future, I and my partner who are not yet married could go get married in Nevada or Colorado or California, come right back to Utah and our marriage has to be fully recognized like any other marriage, even though Utah doesn't under the Respect for Marriage Act, Utah would have to give us a same sex marriage license. We can get married elsewhere, move back here, and our marriage is as valid as anyone else's.

John Dehlin [00:28:49] Okay, so, so in the end, this is a, this is an overall step forward in the United States for LGBTQ rights. Is that true?

Hannah Comeau [00:29:01] The issue I have with that framing is that these are, these are. The right to do that is already enforced through case law. And I, I think it's just interesting that we have to worry about those cases being overturned. And so this is a step we have to take in order to keep protections that already exist. So it's not necessarily a step forward, in my opinion. It's just protecting something that already exists because we have certain people in the Supreme Court who will very likely overturn existing rights. And. Yeah, so I, I think it's a little bit more nuanced than that.

Brenton Erickson [00:29:43] Right. It's sad that this step is necessary, but it also represents a big sea change in public opinion. I mean, the fact that you can go from the 90s, an overwhelming majority supporting Defense of Marriage act to today, where you can actually get enough Republican senators to support this bill to get it through the filibuster. It, it's sad that this step is necessary, but it does reflect a change in public opinion about gay marriage. Well, we can talk later about civil rights issues and exemptions.

Gerardo Sumano [00:30:10] I do want to say, like a comparison because I think a lot of people don't understand that while it's important and it's a, it's a good step, the Obergefell, the case, the Supreme Court case, I compared it to a Ferrari because he forces states to provide marriage licenses to same sex marriage, even though they might have it in their books that that's illegal. They're. They're forcing states to do it even

John Dehlin [00:30:36] if they don't want to do it.

Gerardo Sumano [00:30:37] Yeah, even if they don't want to do it. Right. But this thing that was, this bill that was passed by, by Congress and the Senate won't do that.

Brenton Erickson [00:30:48] It won't. And the two reasons real quick. I think the Democrats were being strategic and knew that they were more likely to get Republican support in the Senate with this more limited, safer bill. And second, as a matter of constitutional law, it is not perfectly clear whether Congress has the authority to force states to hand out same sex marriage licenses, but it is perfectly clear that it has the authority to require them to recognize marriages from other states. So they went with like, even the most conservative court, even a court more conservative than this Supreme Court could not overturn that aspect of their. So I think they went with the safest possible route.

Gerardo Sumano [00:31:21] Right?

John Dehlin [00:31:22] Yeah.

Gerardo Sumano [00:31:22] Right.

John Dehlin [00:31:22] Yeah. This is a really bad analogy and it's not a good fit. But, but for me, it would, it would almost be like slavery still being on the books. In some states and, and sort of Congress saying, whoa, we're worried that one of the, you know, the 22nd Amendment or whatever is going to be overturned, which is going to make slavery legal again. So we're going to pass a law making it sure, you know, magnanimously that slavery doesn't kick back into the public consciousness. You know what I mean? Like, should we. Would we. Would any of us celebrate if, like, some sort of move were made in that direction when. When we've all. We all should now agree it's a basic civil right to get married?

Brenton Erickson [00:32:04] Oh, no. I think it is ridiculous. Most people view it now as a basic civil right. The major difference there is that slavery is explicitly abolished in the 13th Amendment. So you would have to have a change to the Constitution here. We're talking about a court that has shown itself very willing to just burn precedence. So it would take a lot to change the Constitution. But this court could very easily change its interpretation of something that's not clear in the Constitution. And that's. So it's more meaningful in that sense than protecting, than making sure that slavery remains abolished. You'd have to change the Constitution to undo that.

John Dehlin [00:32:36] Yeah. Okay, so the political climate for what led to this bill, obviously Democrats are leading it. It's not Republican led, but they were able to get some Republican support. So who can kind of share it? Wasn't the Mormon Church lobbying for this bill? Right.

How the Respect for Marriage Act Passed Congress

Brenton Erickson [00:32:51] No. And in fact, in the House, Democrats brought this bill to the floor, not expecting much out of it. They thought it might be more of a messaging bill post Dobbs, to show their base, hey, we're not going to be irresponsible anymore because honestly, a lot of Democrat leading voters feel that the party was irresponsible with respect to abortion by letting the court just take care of it all this time. But they brought it to the floor. The two most interesting things are Republican leaders. Kevin McCarthy in the House, he did not ask his members to vote against it. He just stayed quiet. That itself was a big change from, you know, seven years ago.

Brenton Erickson [00:33:24] And then they got, I think, 47 House Republicans voluntarily supported it. And so that was the first sign of, Whoa. Like, this was unexpected. And then it took a little while in the Senate because I think religious groups got involved and convinced enough senators to wait till they could add on, I think, unnecessary amendments. But yeah. And so the Mormon Church did not push this in the House. Like, we knew that it was inevitably going to pass long before the Mormon. I mean, their announcement that the articles came out just a few hours before it got through the filibuster. It didn't. They didn't even need Mitt Romney. It was 12. It was 12 Republicans. They could have gotten without. Without Mitt Romney.

John Dehlin [00:34:01] Yeah, yeah, yeah. Like. Oh, go ahead, Hannah.

Hannah Comeau [00:34:05] Oh, sorry. I just had a question. Did the church's official statement come out before the Senate amendment passed or was it after?

Brenton Erickson [00:34:13] That's a good question. I didn't look at the timing.

John Dehlin [00:34:17] Gerardo might be able to investigate that.

Brenton Erickson [00:34:18] Yeah, I didn't even find the text of the amendment. Gerardo did. So legal scholar over here.

John Dehlin [00:34:22] Yeah. Will you say something, Hannah?

Hannah Comeau [00:34:28] Oh, sorry. Yeah. Because I'm just wondering what the timing is on that. Because what my theory is is that the church voices support of this, of this act because of the amendments protecting their religious freedom. So I just, I just want to get clarification on the timing of that because I think that would be interesting.

Brenton Erickson [00:34:49] I think that's a fair assumption.

John Dehlin [00:34:51] Yeah. Yeah. Well, you know, as I. We just had the midterm elections here in the United States in 2022, and there were kind of two outcomes that seemed really clear. One was that election deniers weren't Republican. Election deniers generally didn't do well in states where that issue was important to people. But the second is in states where people felt like abortion was potentially really at risk of being made fully illegal, Republicans or conservatives didn't do well there either. And so it wouldn't surprise me at all if the Republicans are realizing, you know, these social issues can be the death of us. And since support for same sex marriage, even within Mormonism, I saw a quote that like 65% of believing active Mormons are in favor of same sex marriage.

John Dehlin [00:35:42] Now that's religious. But just politically, I'm guessing Republicans are reading the tea leaves that if they get too strident on the wrong social issues, they're going to have no chance of winning future elections.

Brenton Erickson [00:35:55] Which is why it's so strange. While the 47 Republicans in the House and the 12 Republicans in the Senate is positive, all the ones who voted against it is still shocking because it's like, just like active Mormons, I think it's like 58% of self identified Republicans support gay marriage. That is way more than have positive views on abortion. And I don't know that comparison makes sense. The Republican Party has made abortion such a central issue for such a long time. Its own members don't seem to care about gay marriage anymore. And yet an overwhelming majority of its party still voted against, you know, it's just.

John Dehlin [00:36:29] But you are saying that. That LGBT issues are probably more radioactive for Republicans than abortion issues, potentially or not. In terms of. In terms of broad Republican support?

Brenton Erickson [00:36:41] It depends on the issue. I think the Republican Party is clearly shifting towards demonizing of trans people as a new culture war issue. But I think gay marriage as an isolated issue doesn't really concern Republican members. And so that. It's just. I don't understand why 37 Republican senators voted against it when most Republicans don't care. It's just. It's so unnecessary.

John Dehlin [00:37:01] Okay.

Brenton Erickson [00:37:01] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:37:02] Okay. So, Gerardo, you got some slides you've put together. The first one is just the New York Times article. Do you want to. Do you want to kind of talk us through a little bit each of these slides and kind of.

Gerardo Sumano [00:37:12] Yeah. I think this goes back to what we were talking about, how. How the Mormon Church is being portrayed in the media as supportive. You know, the New York Times wrote, mormon Church backs bill supporting same sex marriage. You know, and this seem. Puts in a little bit of a positive light.

John Dehlin [00:37:29] You know, can I just say that that almost feels like an irresponsible headline. Like. Like, isn't the New York Times sophisticated enough to kind of dig under the surface a little bit and. And see that this is not. The headline should not just be Mormon church loves gay people. Which is kind of what anyone who reads that New York Times article is going to conclude, at the very least

Brenton Erickson [00:37:53] should have said Mormon Church supports federal same sex bill. Because the. The article by itself allows people to just run away with it, to be like, oh, yay. I mean, it's uninformed people to be like, they've changed everything. Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:38:04] Like that they support same sex marriage theologically.

Brenton Erickson [00:38:06] Exactly. Generally.

John Dehlin [00:38:07] And it doesn't. It's still ex. Like, it's. The Mormon Church is still excommunicating gay Mormons who. Who enter into same sex marriages. So the church does not support same sex marriage. The church views same sex marriage as one of the most sinful, awful things a human can do, short of murder. Am I. Is that. Am I exaggerating?

Brenton Erickson [00:38:28] No, sadly, you're not exaggerating.

John Dehlin [00:38:30] I'm not exaggerating. So that's a huge faux pas, in my view, on the part of the New York Times.

Gerardo Sumano [00:38:37] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:38:38] Okay. All right, Gerardo, keep going.

Reading and Analyzing the Church's Official Statement

Gerardo Sumano [00:38:40] So I thought it would be interesting if we actually read the, you know, the church's statement. The church's statement, which is a couple paragraphs. And this is what they came out. You know, like Brenton said, really, really soon before the Senate was actually going to vote on, on the filibuster on this. But so is it.

John Dehlin [00:39:01] Do you want me to read it?

Gerardo Sumano [00:39:02] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:39:02] Okay, so this is statement on the United States Congress Respect for Marriage act. It is November 15, 2022, and it reads, the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints related to marriage between a man and a woman is well known and will remain unchanged. Okay, so let's just pause there. So what's the church? It starts with this sentence. Can we all explain what the Church is saying here? Brenton, you want to go first?

Brenton Erickson [00:39:36] The. Its doctrine is well known. Marriage is only between a man and a woman, and homosexual activity is sinful. And now they're, you know, they're also getting more clear on their stance with gender identity. And it's going to remain unchanged. So what's interesting is their statement doesn't try to hide that ball, but they know that most people aren't going to read their statement. They're going to read the headlines of these articles.

John Dehlin [00:39:54] Yeah. So doctrinally and theologically, the Church still is anti lgbtq, correct?

Brenton Erickson [00:40:00] Yes. Not. They wouldn't say anti. They would say God. God loves them and we love them. We just. We have to do it this way.

John Dehlin [00:40:06] Right. Hannah, would you want to add anything to that first sentence?

Hannah Comeau [00:40:10] Let's see. I mean, I think, I think it's actually interesting because, I mean, it does say that the Church's doctrine will remain unchanged and that it is well known. But I, maybe I'm reading too far into this, but I think it's interesting that they don't expressly state what that doctrine is. So maybe people who don't necessarily know wouldn't dig into it anymore. Usually they're very overt about. About stating it. I don't know, maybe that's something I

Brenton Erickson [00:40:38] like to call it strategic ambiguity.

John Dehlin [00:40:39] Yeah. Because they definitely could go, hey, the Church still con. Considers any, any expression of physical expression of same sex love as being a sin next to murder. And we're going to continue excommunicating anyone who enters into a same sex marriage. That would have been a 100% accurate in good faith interpretation of the Church's view on LGBTQ people and same sex marriage. Correct?

Brenton Erickson [00:41:02] Correct. But they, I think they take advantage of. There is ambiguity. Like you mentioned physical expressions depending on your bishop. I think some people might try to say the Church allows hand holding now or allows. And I think in reality the Church doesn't, but it likes to leave that ambiguous and only step in whenever so, yeah, I do think they're. They're not really clarifying their whole position.

John Dehlin [00:41:21] It's a sin of omission, in my view. The church taught me to be completely honest. You don't. You don't share partial truths. And this, to me, this is the church hiding what. Where it really. Where its heart really lies. It's. It's intentionally hiding that to not take away from the goodwill that a headline like this will engender. Is that fair, Gerardo?

Gerardo Sumano [00:41:42] That's fair.

John Dehlin [00:41:43] Okay. All right. Okay, so let's go back to the statement to continue the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ. Oh, no, sorry. We are grateful for the continuing efforts of those who work to ensure the Respect for Marriage act includes appropriate religious freedom protections while respecting the law and preserving the rights of our LGBTQ brothers and sisters. Now, for me, it's telling what they lead with, because they don't lead with, oh, my gosh, we're so grateful that same sex marriages that currently exist are going to be honored. What do they lead with, Brenton?

Brenton Erickson [00:42:24] They lead with their own personal concern. And I think, you know, Hannah was bringing up the timeline. We don't know the timeline, but I think that statement shows even if the amendment hadn't been secured yet, this statement was an expectation that all these things would be included in the bill. Like that. And that's the only reason.

John Dehlin [00:42:41] Yeah, Hannah.

Hannah Comeau [00:42:43] Yeah, I think that's fair. Definitely fair to say, especially because with this bill, religious organizations like the LDS Church are getting a lot more out of this than they do with just the case law that stands in place right now. So they have a lot to gain from this becoming codified.

John Dehlin [00:43:04] Okay, all right. So they lead with their self interest, but then they also say preserving the rights of our LGBTQ brothers and sisters. So they are saying, I guess that isn't. We have to be fair. That is an acknowledgment that they're glad at some level that some LGBTQ rights are being.

Gerardo Sumano [00:43:26] Well, they're saying preserving the rights. I mean, the Supreme Court has already ruled that same sex marriage is a constitutional right. So, you know, they're saying, yeah, let's preserve, because, you know, part of their doctrine is to support the law of the land. So if lgbtq, if the Supreme Court has said that this is a constitutional right for LGBT people, they're saying, oh, it's good that it's being preserved.

John Dehlin [00:43:56] So at best, they're saying, we're no longer going to be overtly attacking same sex marriage.

Brenton Erickson [00:44:01] Yeah, because they still. I mean, There are really conservative denominations in the U.S. the LDS Church, in theory, could still be trying to. It could be like those random county clerks out there trying to overturn Obergefell. And by supporting this bill, the LDS Church is at least saying, hey, even if the Supreme Court overturns Obergefell, we don't. We don't mind gay marriages being honored. I mean, that. That is a change from 2008.

John Dehlin [00:44:22] But. But how do we know, like, just like evangelicals and maybe even Mormons were instrumental in the overturning of Roe? Do we even. How do we know that the Mormon Church wouldn't behind the scenes, be not only in support of, but actively lobbying the eventual overturn of Obergefell?

Brenton Erickson [00:44:42] This is. That's a really great question. And I'm thinking right now not so much about directly overturning Obergefell. I'm thinking more about broad religious exemptions, exemptions that are even broader than the ones that exist right now. As in, I do think we can talk about this later, but in this bill, the LDS Church seems to just reaffirm protections that it already has and kind of proactively protect them. But with this current court, I think the LDS Church could, in the future work to get really broad exemptions, like exemptions that are even more broad than. Than what exists in the Equality act in Utah. Like that.

Brenton Erickson [00:45:17] We'll have to wait and see. How they love to wait and see if they're going to act in good faith like they did with the Equality act here in Utah, or if they're going to. Yes. Or if they're going to take advantage of the changing legal landscape and get as much out of it as they can. Like, we'll have to see.

John Dehlin [00:45:29] But if Oaks and Nelson had a magic wand, what's your. What's your thought? Would they waive it and. And get rid of Obergerfeld if they had a magic wand? Brenton, what's your vote?

Brenton Erickson [00:45:40] Yes.

John Dehlin [00:45:41] You say yes, I think.

Brenton Erickson [00:45:42] Just like Thomas. Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:45:43] Okay. Hannah, is that a yes or no? Would they wave away Obergefell if they could?

Hannah Comeau [00:45:49] I think they will try to, yeah. So, yes, I vote yes. Because we've seen in so many past court cases that the church has drafted amicus briefs in support of the party that is opposing LGBT rights. That's just happened so many times throughout history, and then even in. In situations like just as an example, when Title 9 was passed, which prevents universities and schools from discriminating against their students based on, as is now interpreted, based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Elder Oaks in particular, actually wrote a letter to the Department of Education saying why that that shouldn't be the case and why they shouldn't have to prove their religious doctrine in order to gain exemptions from that. So I think, just based on history, with how much they have intervened in both cases and government regulations in the past, I think that they will try to do something here.

John Dehlin [00:47:04] And Gerardo Oakes and Nelson have a magic wand. Do they wave away Obergefeld, what's your vote?

Gerardo Sumano [00:47:09] I would say yes. Yeah, it would make. It would. It would make their life so much easier.

John Dehlin [00:47:13] Yeah.

Brenton Erickson [00:47:14] For a gay moment, that Cher, if you could turn back time. Absolutely. They didn't support it at the time, and if they could undo it, they'd rather not be in the situation.

Hannah Comeau [00:47:22] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:47:22] But evangelicals are trying to turn back time with Roe, so why wouldn't they? I. I just have to think they're trying to turn back time with Oberger Fell.

Brenton Erickson [00:47:30] I think we'll have to wait and see.

John Dehlin [00:47:31] We'll see.

Hannah Comeau [00:47:31] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:47:32] Okay. All right, let's keep going with the statement. We believe this approach is the way forward now. That's. That's okay. So that might be why you're hedging a little bit, Brenton, because they're. They're now explicitly saying this is the way to quote not Boba Fett, but the other guy. Mandalorians, the way.

Hannah Comeau [00:47:53] Yes.

John Dehlin [00:47:54] So. So go ahead, Britain. You want to comment on that?

Brenton Erickson [00:47:56] Yeah. So I've been hedging because I think it's hard to see how much of the church's current approach is based on just accepting reality, like accepting things that can't change and trying to make the best of the situation and how much of it is sincere. Because if the legal landscape changes in the future, if we have a Supreme Court, there's a case right now pending called 303, where the Supreme Court could grant really broad personal religious exemptions to Civil Rights act, to Title 7 to state's versions of civil rights acts. And if suddenly the legal landscape looks better for the church, are they going to shift their approach and reverse and try to get as much out of it as possible, or are they. Are they going to maintain this approach that. That's why I'm hedging? I don't know. I think we have to wait and see.

John Dehlin [00:48:37] Gerardo, are you encouraged by this is the Way?

Gerardo Sumano [00:48:41] No.

John Dehlin [00:48:42] Why not? Isn't that a change? Isn't that a change?

Gerardo Sumano [00:48:45] I think too many times we've seen, you know, that the, the phrase, you know who I was when you picked me up. I think we've seen so many examples of that throughout history, and we keep seeing it. So I don't trust.

John Dehlin [00:49:00] Okay, you don't trust it.

Gerardo Sumano [00:49:01] Yeah.

John Dehlin [00:49:01] You're saying the church leadership isn't trustworthy. That's what you're saying?

Gerardo Sumano [00:49:04] Yep, that's what I'm saying.

John Dehlin [00:49:05] So cynical. Gerardo.

Brenton Erickson [00:49:07] I do think part of. Part of their change isn't just the legal landscape. It's also the view of their own members.

Gerardo Sumano [00:49:12] Right.

Brenton Erickson [00:49:12] And I think the view of their own members is only going to continue to solidify in this direction. So that's why I say even if the legal landscape change changes, maybe the view of their members will have solidified so much that they can't. They feel like they can't go back, you know? So I. I think it's a question mark.

John Dehlin [00:49:27] Okay, Hannah, anything you want to add to that statement?

Hannah Comeau [00:49:31] I don't think so. I think that's a pretty fair assessment.

John Dehlin [00:49:34] Okay. Okay. Then just to kind of complete the statement of the church, as we work together to preserve the principles of religious freedom, together with the rights of LGBTQ individuals, much can be accomplished to heal relationships and foster greater understanding. Brenton is laughing. Brenton, why are you laughing?

What the Church's Support Actually Means for LGBT Members

Brenton Erickson [00:49:57] Okay, I guess I had this thought this morning, which was people have been focusing on how positive it is for LGBT people to see the church supporting this bill. And I just want to reiterate that at the end of the day, the. The greatest harm the church has always been able to inflict is on its own members. Yeah, that's the greatest harm it's always been able to inflict, and that's not changing here. So when it says, you know, healing relationships, there are still LGBT children and teenagers in the church who will go through the exact same trauma that I did because the church's doctrine has not changed.

Brenton Erickson [00:50:31] And when I knew I was gay, you know, at age, like 9, 10, 11, homosexuality by then was already legal. The church wasn't really actively trying to criminalize people like me anymore. It had changed. But that, like, that. That outside world legal position didn't help me. I was being raised in a super active Mormon family. Like, what impacted me was the LDS Church's doctrine, its position. And so in my. The healing relationship thing, the relationship you need to heal is with the people you've harmed in your own organization. And that. That has not changed at all.

John Dehlin [00:51:03] You're saying LGBTQ Mormons, youth, children, adults, are still getting depressed, still having incredible anxiety, still feeling shame, still feeling like they need to Suppress.

Brenton Erickson [00:51:15] Oh, yeah.

John Dehlin [00:51:15] Who they are. And that is. And they're still LGBTQ youth, suicidality and suicide. And the church has done nothing to fix that.

Brenton Erickson [00:51:25] Yeah, I feel like, you know, I went through my teenage years essentially just terrified on a daily basis of who I was. Constant, like, hyper vigilance, trying to avoid making mistakes. It was awful. And so I just. It feels so empty to me for the church to say, we want to heal relationships. I feel like the only relationships they're referring to is with organizations like Equality Utah and with it. Why don't you care about that, Deacon? Why don't you care about that beehive in your. Like, these are children and you are destroying their lives. That is the relationship you should care about. I don't care about your PR relationship with one of these, you know, advocacy groups. I don't care. I care about the people you're harming.

Gerardo Sumano [00:52:06] Yeah, that's my main issue with Equality Utah. You know, like, when they celebrate the amazing Fairness for All act, whatever they call it in Utah, you know, they're basically leaving those LGBT people in BYU schools in, you know, and just figure it out yourself, you know, because we're giving the church the ability to discriminate in housing. To discriminate in. In school.

John Dehlin [00:52:35] To kick them out.

Gerardo Sumano [00:52:35] To kick them out. Even if you're using federal funds to pay for your own school, we're granting the church all those rights to. To discriminate against you.

John Dehlin [00:52:44] So.

Gerardo Sumano [00:52:44] And how is this celebratory when Utah is a Mormon state?

John Dehlin [00:52:50] So that's what's confusing for many is that if Troy Williams of Equality Utah, who's no technical friend of the Mormon Church. Right. When he's exalting the virtues of this. Of this moment, or even when a US Senator, I think, from Wisconsin who's lesbian, is basically saying, hey, this is a great step forward. You know, what? Then? Then a straight white guy's conclusion is, why shouldn't we all be celebrating? But when we consider the Mormon angle, you know, the real problem is LGBT Mormon youth anxiety, depression, and suicidality and just the ability to flourish.

Gerardo Sumano [00:53:26] What.

John Dehlin [00:53:27] What Equality Utah or Troy are doing, or even what. What this does at a national level, you're saying, doesn't address the core epidemic.

Gerardo Sumano [00:53:35] And who's really discriminating? Right. Is it secular people or is it religious people?

John Dehlin [00:53:41] Yeah.

Gerardo Sumano [00:53:42] And then if the discrimination is happening in religion, why are we protecting religions from, you know, the anti discrimination laws?

John Dehlin [00:53:51] Yeah, because that's the part that should be outrageous. Right. Okay. A tepid yay. That. That we're gonna allow existing same sex marriages to continue.

Gerardo Sumano [00:54:01] But.

John Dehlin [00:54:02] But now the church is strengthening its ability to, to, to kick LGBTQ students out of byu, strengthening its ability to make, to get rich, to get, to draw federal funds, to get richer, to maintain its tax exempt status, and to basically protect its ability to continue overtly anti LGBTQ policies within its religion. That just got stronger. So why would anyone who loves LGBTQ people be applauding the fact that the church can now be even more protected in its harm than to its own LGBTQ members?

Gerardo Sumano [00:54:41] Right.

John Dehlin [00:54:41] Is that right?

Brenton Erickson [00:54:42] Yeah. And I think the discussion about whether the church should have these protections legally, it's kind of a separate issue. I don't care about whether they should be, you know, at some level. I don't care about whether they should be constitutionally protected. All these things from a standpoint of basic human decency.

Brenton Erickson [00:54:59] Why don't they care about these children in their church? Like, we talk a lot about the worst case scenarios, about extreme depression, about suicidality, even, you know, like, I don't know, even LGBT youth that end up having better mental health outcomes, that end up having better, you know, achievement.

Brenton Erickson [00:55:20] The church harms all of them. All of them. You know, I never had a suicide attempt. I never. But the church harms every single one of them permanently in their lives. The, the, the ones who have parents who, who act like it's the 80s. The ones who have parents who.

Brenton Erickson [00:55:35] Their child comes out to them and the parent still feels like being gay as a choice, even though the church stopped teaching that about 20 years ago. It's the church's fault that the parent feels that way. And it's the church's ambiguity on all of this that still leads to all of that harm over and over and over again.

John Dehlin [00:55:49] Hannah, let's get you in here.

Hannah Comeau [00:55:51] Okay. Yeah. I have so many thoughts on this. And let us have it. Okay. So, yeah, my, my first sentiment, I largely echo what relationships are, what healing is based on. Their statement is taking place here. And I think it's so important to recognize that.

Hannah Comeau [00:56:13] It's just, I think it's just fascinating that they're creating this dichotomy even further between how they look in the public and what their stance is in the political sphere versus how they treat, personally treat their members, and again, are failing to recognize that there are LGBT people in the church.

Hannah Comeau [00:56:34] Three of us on this panel have been. Have had that experience of growing up gay in the Mormon Church and have all been personally impacted by that. And I think it's just a Little bit ironic that there's, they're talking about healing relationships here where I have not seen any attempt for the church to reconcile what their doctrine is and what the doctrine continues to be for people like us. And you know, we're in situations now where we're, you know, we're adults, we're, you know, in relatively good positions. But I, my heart still aches for young people, young teenagers who are still, still dealing with this and still on a regular basis growing up in the church, being clear.

Hannah Comeau [00:57:25] And you know, I just, I, I think it's really problematic. I've had several people in my life who I really care about who are still active believing Mormons. And while they have been largely accepting of what they call my lifestyle, my lifestyle choice, they ask me a lot why me and other people who have left the church, you know, who are gay, continue to care about what, you know, what President Oaks says, for instance, or why we even care about the church backing the Respect for Marriage Act. Why do we continue to care? It's because this is the impact that it's had on, on us personally.

Hannah Comeau [00:58:13] This is, it's the impact that, you know, has really shaped a lot of the experiences that we have personally been through. And they say that this is the way forward. I think on that piece, I think from a legal standpoint, you know, I, I have differing opinions on that. I think it's accurate to an extent that this is something that needs to happen. This does need to be codified for sure.

Hannah Comeau [00:58:46] However, even if that's the case, we need to recognize that while this is technically a positive step forward, it's a very small positive step forward and a lot more needs to happen before, you know, rights are equally protected for LGBT people. So I think it's just problematic that I think this is like the church is viewing this as a huge PR step for them in the sense that they're saying we fully politically support the rights, preserving the rights, not, not enhancing the rights, but preserving the rights that already exist for LGBT people. So while it's actually a very, very small step which should be celebrated, I think because any positive step forward should be celebrated, it's something that ultimately needs a lot of work that they're not going to acknowledge.

John Dehlin [00:59:42] It's almost like it's a teeny step forward that the Mormon Church has nothing to do with and instead it's co opted. The Mormon Church is co opting this teeny step forward that it had nothing to do with to get massive, to take advantage of massive self interested motives. Which is to secure its own ability to discriminate while distorting the public perception that it still loves LGBTQ people. Is that fair? Not fair. Is that mean?

Hannah Comeau [01:00:10] Oh, yeah, I think it's fair. And, you know, a lot of religious liberty scholarship has centered around the fact that religious. Existing religious statutes, like, like rfra, for instance, which brings back the more strict compelling government interest test for religious. Religious liberty, can be used as a double edged sword. That's what happened in the Hobby Lobby case, where Hobby Lobby was granted an exemption from providing its employees with state mandated coverage for contraception. And a lot of people have said that while it does a lot to protect religious minorities, in some senses, there are cases like Hobby Lobby where it can actually be used to discriminate against women or people with different sexual orientations or gender identities. And so it's been this ongoing theme that it's a double edged sword.

John Dehlin [01:01:16] Yeah. Okay. All right, well, Gerardo, you've got, you've got another slide prepared for us. Tell us what this slide's about.

Media Coverage and Public Perception of the Bill

Gerardo Sumano [01:01:23] Yeah, so this one is the screenshots from the Salt Lake Tribune, their coverage on it. I was really frustrated with it.

John Dehlin [01:01:34] Now I'm confused because just like, you know, Troy Williams is, is viewed as a champion for LGBTQ people in Utah, Peggy Fletcher Stack is, is championed as a progressive Mormon. And you know, people like Taylor Petrie and Patrick Mason and others, they're assumedly pro lgbtq. So why would that article frustrate you?

Gerardo Sumano [01:01:58] First, it didn't explain really what the bill did. It didn't explained how narrow it is on LGBTQ rights. You know, like basically that Obergefell, how it currently standing does a lot more than this building. That's not explained in it. Basically what it does is just praising the church for, for supporting this bill and saying how amazing it is that the church came out in support of this bill. They interviewed Taylor Petrie, Patrick Mason. Well, some of them were a little bit more conservative than others. Like Patrick Mason was a little more conservative on his, on his opinions on

John Dehlin [01:02:38] that were quoted on conservative meaning cautious in praising the church. Is that what you mean?

Gerardo Sumano [01:02:42] Yes.

John Dehlin [01:02:44] Are you laughing?

Gerardo Sumano [01:02:45] No. Yeah, like others, like Taylor Petri. I mean, Taylor Petri was quoted on the sub headline saying that, you know, this was a dramatic reversal of previous teachings. You know, so.

John Dehlin [01:03:01] And again, Taylor Petrie is an LGBTQ ally.

Gerardo Sumano [01:03:04] Yeah.

John Dehlin [01:03:05] Yeah, but that's, that's misleading.

Hannah Comeau [01:03:07] Why?

Gerardo Sumano [01:03:08] Because there's no change in any teaching and stance. And you know, we've already talked, we already talked about this, but hey. Basically.

John Dehlin [01:03:18] Are you wanting to say something?

Brenton Erickson [01:03:20] Yeah, I, I just, I, I hadn't read this and the fact that he said a dramatic change in teachings, that's so misleading.

Gerardo Sumano [01:03:25] Yeah.

Brenton Erickson [01:03:26] At most is a big change from legal advocacy approach from Prop 8 to now. But that, that's not a doctrinal teaching, that that's how the church chooses to approach the legal system, you know.

Gerardo Sumano [01:03:36] Yeah, yeah. And the church has always divided those two.

Hannah Comeau [01:03:40] Yeah.

Gerardo Sumano [01:03:41] So.

John Dehlin [01:03:41] Okay. That's misleading. Super misleading.

Gerardo Sumano [01:03:44] Super misleading. I, I was, I was frustrated with it. I went to his Facebook, Taylor Petrie's Facebook, and I saw that on the post he made about it. A lot of people called him out of it. Of it, called him out on it, telling him like having you read the religious protections, this is about religious protections. They're, you know, they're strengthen, strengthening their right to discriminate. A lot of comments like that. And then he commented on his Facebook. Thanks all this has been super helpful information and I definitely see the Trojan horse worries more clearly.

John Dehlin [01:04:20] Yeah. And, and it's, and it's not just, I guess we're not just saying Taylor's statement was problematic. The Salt Lake Tribune and Peggy Fletcher stacks lift elevating of his statement is maybe even more problematic.

Gerardo Sumano [01:04:33] Right.

John Dehlin [01:04:33] Because they would have a more, maybe more of a journalistic responsibility to have better coverage. Is that what you're saying?

Gerardo Sumano [01:04:40] Yeah.

John Dehlin [01:04:40] Okay.

Gerardo Sumano [01:04:41] And my. I, I think the point here is that the church is benefiting from this coverage. Right. Making it sound to the general public that things have changed. When probably they're going to send bishops a letter to read in a couple the next Sunday or so that nothing has changed.

Brenton Erickson [01:04:58] Right.

Gerardo Sumano [01:04:59] Like there's going to be a reaffirmation that, that nothing has changed privately on the congregations. That's going to be definitely let to be known. But the general public, people that are not Mormon, are going to see the Mormon Church as more accepting.

John Dehlin [01:05:13] Got it. Okay. Anything else you want to say about. Oh, Hannah.

Hannah Comeau [01:05:17] Oh, sorry. Hi. This is just so interesting. It reminds me a lot of the Mass, the mass confusion that their honor code language changed a couple years back when they took out the language surrounding same sex relationships and how people started celebrating, coming out, holding hands, you know, showing public displays of affection at byu. But then the church had to come out and say, no, that's actually not the case. I think there's just been a pattern lately of the church openly doing things like this. Supporting the Respect for Marriage act, changing, changing the honor code, but not actually having anything change it. Changing so it just creates a lot of mass confusion and I think they know that they're doing that.

John Dehlin [01:06:11] Yeah. Okay. All right, Gerardo.

Gerardo Sumano [01:06:16] Yeah, agree. And I mean, we can go back to the slides. I, I had a screenshot of an article from Benjamin park which I thought was really well written. In the Washington Post is an opinion article called the LDS Church Support for LGBTQ Marriage Bill isn't shocking.

John Dehlin [01:06:34] That's a better headline.

Gerardo Sumano [01:06:35] Right, right.

John Dehlin [01:06:36] And what, what's he basically saying there?

Gerardo Sumano [01:06:38] Basically, he gives this history of the church with LGBT rights. Basically said, you know, is saying that this is. Has been the church's approach for a long time. You know, he mentions Elder Oaks going to the University of Virginia, I believe, and advocating for this kind of compromise. You know, this is a new and it's not shocking.

John Dehlin [01:06:59] That's a more responsible headline and it, it is less misleading. Right, Correct. Yeah.

Brenton Erickson [01:07:04] Because, you know, if not much has changed, then people aren't going to be sitting there assuming, oh my gosh, they're performing gay marriages in temples now. Amazing.

John Dehlin [01:07:10] Yeah.

Gerardo Sumano [01:07:10] Yeah.

John Dehlin [01:07:11] Because we don't expect journalistic entities to, you know, smear and attack the LDS Church. They want to be objective, but just don't play into their hands and create a false perceptions about the church's kindness and love and friendliness towards LGBTQ people.

Brenton Erickson [01:07:30] I think some news outlets probably got caught up in the moment. Look, so like the Respect for Marriage act, it is newsworthy. I think some news outlets made it seem more newsworthy than it is. And the same thing with the Mormon Church's statement. It's newsworthy, but I think they kind of got caught up in that. Like, wow, so much is changing. And really overplayed how newsworthy that was.

Gerardo Sumano [01:07:51] Yeah. Okay. And finally, I think it would be interesting if we read a few paragraphs from the amendment. So basically, I'll just explain really quickly. When the bill went through the House originally, it was really short. It was like two pages long. It was basically just saying same sex marriage should be recognized by the states and interact. Interracial marriage. The same. It was really short. But, you know, when it went through the Senate, in order to get it passed, they included this religious exemptions, which we already talked about is why the church came out and supported support of it. And so I thought it would be interesting to read a couple paragraphs of the exemptions.

Religious Exemptions Written Into the Marriage Amendment

Gerardo Sumano [01:08:34] First, it starts. The amendment starts this way, which I thought was really interesting. My, my friend Joe Baxter pointed this out to me, who's also a lawyer. He. He was, he's involved with The Religious Exemption Accountability Project. So it starts with this. It says, no union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family.

Gerardo Sumano [01:09:01] Then the second paragraph says diverse beliefs about the role of gender in marriage are held by reasonable and sincere people based on decent and honorable religious and philosophical premises. Therefore, Congress affirms that such people and their diverse beliefs are due proper respect.

Gerardo Sumano [01:09:23] Then the third paragraph is that problematic. I'll show why. The third paragraph says millions of people, including interracial and same sex couples, have entered into marriages and have enjoyed the rights and privileges associated with marriage. So basically it starts by explaining how important marriage is. And then they have a paragraph that is specific. Even though this bill is about both interracial and same sex marriages and it should be treating it the same. That's how originally it was written in this amendment. They're kind of making a divide or like, you know, they're splitting them and saying reasonable people can defer on same sex marriage. You know, same sex marriage can. People can have their beliefs on that.

John Dehlin [01:10:14] Yeah. What if you just swapped gender in that second right for race? What if it were to say, and, and the. In the United States did for what over a century and a half, diverse beliefs about the role of race in marriage are held by reasonable and sincere people. Like, you're laughing, right, Britain, Why are you laughing?

Brenton Erickson [01:10:33] Yeah, I, I guess the big difference here is that race is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. But it's. The main thing I see is that this bill was going to just be a bill about doing the bare minimum to protect gay marriages. And of course, religious groups had to insert themselves and be like, we want very clear acknowledgment here as well. It's just such a common theme. And this marriage, part of what this marriage, this language, part of what it's doing is avoiding any argument that this bill would change public policy because one of the ways you can lose tax exempt status is, is to violate fundamental public policy.

Brenton Erickson [01:11:09] And Bob Jones famously lost tax exempt status because it was still a segregated university. And the Supreme Court pointed to some, you know, the Civil Rights Act. It also pointed to the IRS's own regulation, saying that that was against public policy. So it's unnecessary because I don't think anyone's anywhere near trying to take away the tax exempt status of the church, for example, but they're very proactively preventing that by adding this kind of language by. So I don't know, it's unnecessary, but it is helpful to them. They're proactively trying to protect their future interests.

Gerardo Sumano [01:11:41] Yeah. Yeah, go ahead, Hannah.

Hannah Comeau [01:11:45] I think this is hard because I'm just looking at the language of these amendments and when you compare it, when you swap, it was mentioned when you swap out gender for race, I think it paints a very clear picture of how this is problematic. But I just want to make one distinction. I think that there are very reasonable and sincere people that hold this belief on gay marriage. And I don't think that's, you know, I think that where the issue actually comes in, where that these beliefs are based on honorable religious and philosophical, philosophical premises. So I just want to make sure we're, we're clear about that, that the people who do hold these beliefs, like many members of the Mormon Church, I think are reasonable and sincere people, but I think they're based on very dishonorable and unreasonable philosophical premises and religious premises. So that's just one distinction that I wanted to make there.

Gerardo Sumano [01:12:50] Isn't it like a little bit like the government giving preference to beliefs that have to, to religious beliefs that have different opinions on gender versus race? So they're basically giving a preference to, you know, religions that are against same sex marriage?

John Dehlin [01:13:09] Yeah, yeah. Like, I'm just thinking about the history of, of interracial marriage within Utah and the Mormon Church. Like Brigham Young said that it would be okay to, if you caught a black and a white person having sex, it would be okay to stick a javelin through them both. Like, as late as the 1960s and 70s, like, armed militias were starting to form in Utah to, to make sure there was no, you know, black people having sex with white people. Like, we have this horrible discriminatory past with, with opposing interracial marriage to the, that's embarrassing now in 2022. But just, you know, just as recently as a few years ago, the church still had codified doctrine discouraging interracial marriage.

John Dehlin [01:13:55] So it's like we've just gotten past that, that hurdle of being horrifically discriminatory regarding interracial marriage, and we're not gonna, it's like the Mormon Church isn't gonna learn anything from that and just saying, how about we just stop discriminating? Right, let's just stop discriminating. You know, Kim, Kim M. Writes, discrimination is discrimination, but instead of just going, all right, we'll learn the bigger lesson, which is discrimination is bad as it relates to marriage, and we're just going to stop discriminating. They're going to go, okay, all right. Interracial marriage is okay, but discrimination regarding sexual Orientation or gender where you're reasonable people still disagree on that front, right?

Brenton Erickson [01:14:38] Yep. I mean, it took them. Brown. Brownie board view. Oh, my gosh. Brown v. Board of Education came out early 1950s. The priesthood ban wasn't undone until 1978.

John Dehlin [01:14:48] Yeah.

Brenton Erickson [01:14:49] The church has never been on the cusp of, I think, just some pretty obvious moral issues. And. And again, in this situation, I think. I don't think our legal landscape is anywhere near taking Bob Jones University that. That holding and applying it to religious universities in regards to sexual orientation. But they're very proactively trying to prevent that, even. Even though we're not close to that. They're trying to really push it down the road.

John Dehlin [01:15:11] Yeah.

Brenton Erickson [01:15:11] Any possibility.

John Dehlin [01:15:12] Yeah.

Gerardo Sumano [01:15:15] Now there's a couple more paragraphs on a different slide, and this is just what the church got. You know, what are the exemptions? And it says, in general, nothing in this act or any amendments made by this act shall be construed to diminish or abrogate a religious liberty or. Or conscious protections otherwise available to an individual or organization under the Constitution of the United States or federal law. Goods or services consistent with the First Amendment to the Constitution. Nonprofit religious organizations, including churches, mosques, synagogues, templates, temples, non denomination ministries, interdominational and whatever, ecumenical organizations, mission organizations, faith based social agencies, religious education institutions, religious educational institutions, and nonprofit entities whose principal purpose is the study, practice or advancement of religion.

Gerardo Sumano [01:16:14] And any employee of such an organization shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges for dishonization or celebration to a marriage. Any refusal under this subsection to provide such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privilege privileges shall not create any civil claim or cause of action.

John Dehlin [01:16:40] So, I mean, that's just saying, you know, let us. Let us keep discriminate. What I just read is let us keep discriminating against LGBTQ people.

Gerardo Sumano [01:16:50] Yeah.

John Dehlin [01:16:50] When it comes to, you know, status in the church, employment in the church, or, you know, when it comes to our. Our universities, religious universities. Is that what that said?

Brenton Erickson [01:17:00] That is what it said. And I. Tammy Baldwin put out, you know, her own description of the amendments, and I love some of the words that she uses, because I think it makes what's actually going on here pretty clear.

Brenton Erickson [01:17:10] Protects all religious liberty and conscious protections available under the Constitution of federal law currently, and then here confirms that these, you know, groups will not be required to perform services as in the original bill. Wasn't going to do anything that these groups were worried about, that they're proactively reaffirming the rights they already have under the Restoration of Religious Freedom Act. They're already, they're reaffirming it because in their mind, I think as often as you can reaffirm it, it makes it more difficult to change it in the future. Right. So they're, in my mind, they're unnecessarily inserting themselves. This could just be a lovely conversation about a victory for queer people.

Brenton Erickson [01:17:46] But no, we have to always acknowledge that straight conservative religious people exist and are valid and need all the protection in the world. You have to acknowledge it every time.

John Dehlin [01:17:56] Yeah, it's almost like all lives matter or white lives or blue lives matter. You can't just allow people of color to have their moment where they highlight mistreatment.

Brenton Erickson [01:18:07] Right.

John Dehlin [01:18:08] You know, you've got to make sure the white straight, Christian people are always, first and foremost, get the attention and are protected.

Brenton Erickson [01:18:15] Right.

John Dehlin [01:18:15] Is that what you're saying, Hannah? Do you want to add anything to that?

Hannah Comeau [01:18:18] Yeah, I would actually. So I, yeah, I definitely agree with that. And I think something I just have been thinking about the last couple minutes as a comparison that I think really highlights where our society stands on this issue. While I do agree that compared to 10, 20 years ago, we're making more progress, I think that.

Hannah Comeau [01:18:45] So the. Okay, so I'm trying to figure out how best to make this, to make this comparison. So back when RFRA was passed, I had mentioned previously that this has been used as a double edged sword to both protect religious minorities, but also justify religious organizations to discriminate based on things like sexual orientation.

Hannah Comeau [01:19:11] And so something interesting this has been tried a couple, a couple times is the do no Harm act was introduced as an amendment to rfra basically explicitly stating that the statute cannot be used to discriminate. So essentially protecting, overtly protecting the rights of LGBT people or other marginalized communities within this Religious Freedom Protection Act.

Hannah Comeau [01:19:47] And that did not gain any support and was not passed. Where I think it's interesting that when those roles are reversed in the sense that we are now considering legislation that will protect LGBTQ rights, the Congress is very, very willing to explain explicitly protect the rights of religious freedom. So they're willing to do it that way, but aren't willing to protect LGBTQ rights explicitly in statutes that primarily address religious freedom.

John Dehlin [01:20:24] Yeah, Britain.

Brenton Erickson [01:20:26] Yeah, I was going to say, I do think if we're being honest about the political and legal landscape, we're actually nowhere near a lot of the concerns the church has. I don't think we're anywhere near churches losing tax exemption status. I don't Think we're anywhere near BYU actually having to comply with Title 9 fully. The current battleground is about individual business owners, individuals wanting religious exemptions just for their, for themselves.

John Dehlin [01:20:53] The cake seller.

Brenton Erickson [01:20:54] Exactly. And that's the current legal and political battleground. I think even Democrats for the most part are nowhere near questioning a religious universities or religious organizations ability to discriminate. No. Like it's. So that's why I think this is such overkill in my mind.

John Dehlin [01:21:09] But yeah, and self serving. Yes, it's self serving for the church.

Gerardo Sumano [01:21:14] Yeah.

John Dehlin [01:21:15] Yeah. All right, well, I guess, I guess. Well I, I think we've kind of covered it for the most part. I guess I'll just end with this question. Maybe we'll go around the horn. We kind of changed the title of today's episode to the Mormon Church's Gay Trojan Horse. Is that Fair Britain? And then I'll ask you, Hann Gerardo, is that a fair, Is that a fair title that, that this amounts to a Trojan horse?

Brenton Erickson [01:21:39] Yes.

John Dehlin [01:21:40] Yeah. Okay. All right. Any final, any final comments you want to make, Brenton, before we.

Brenton Erickson [01:21:45] This is so unrelated. I'm sorry, but I, I was preparing for the episode last night and listening to a couple podcasts found I was reminded of this quote that is so fantastic. It's from the Red Lily. It says. It's an ironic quote. The law in its majestic equality forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal loaves of bread. And the irony there being that the rich have no need to do any of those things. And it just hit me last night that the, the church's approach, especially over the last like 10, 15 years of the law of chastity is the same for everyone.

Brenton Erickson [01:22:18] We're like, even within the church, people try to say that we're discriminating, but in reality we're treating everyone equally. We all have to follow the same rules. It's the exact same thing as that quote. The God's rules about marriage apply to heterosexuals and homosexuals alike. Well, those rules are built for heterosexual heterosexuals. So like just.

Brenton Erickson [01:22:38] The LDS church is surprisingly good at controlling the narrative for its own members especially. And this is an example of controlling the narrative in a PR stunt for a legal issue.

John Dehlin [01:22:50] It reminds me of the Orwell quote, all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. Yeah, Hannah, Trojan horse, not. What final statements do you have?

Hannah Comeau [01:22:59] Yeah, I think that's an accurate comparison. Brenton. I love that quote. I think that's also very accurate. But I think in terms of this legislation. I think a Trojan horse is a very accurate analogy because on the surface it looks great. I first saw this and I actually screenshotted it and, and sent it to my girlfriend, a couple other people, and I was like, is this. I wonder if this is true? Like, this is. This is great. And then, yeah, just a little bit looking into it, you quickly realize that the act, the act with the amendments include, the amendment included, that we went over, does essentially nothing to increase the rights that LGBTQ people already have that are existing, but does a lot for religious.

Hannah Comeau [01:23:54] Religious institutions as far as expanding their exemptions. So, yeah, I, I think, I think it's very accurate to say that. And it's difficult because not a lot of people, I imagine, are interested in doing the. The work to read beyond the surface of the LDS Church supporting this bill. And that's why I think it's especially dangerous and potentially very problematic.

John Dehlin [01:24:24] Yeah. Yeah. A net negative for Mormons and for the. The power and influence of the Mormon Church. All right, Gerardo, we're going to give you the last word.

Closing Reflections and Listener Support

Gerardo Sumano [01:24:34] Yeah. Well, thanks, John, for doing this, wanting to do this episode.

John Dehlin [01:24:41] Thank you.

Gerardo Sumano [01:24:42] You convinced me to do it.

John Dehlin [01:24:44] Is that what happened?

Gerardo Sumano [01:24:45] Yeah.

John Dehlin [01:24:45] Okay. You were like, nah, not worth it. Is that. Is that how it happened?

Hannah Comeau [01:24:49] Yeah.

Gerardo Sumano [01:24:50] Yeah.

John Dehlin [01:24:50] But wait, why did you. Why did you feel like it might not be worth it? I mean, this is kind of a big deal. Are you just kind of tired?

Gerardo Sumano [01:24:57] Yeah, just tired of it. I just thought this is just gonna die down again and, you know, people are not gonna remember about it. But. But I'm glad we did it. We covered it. You know, we did better than the Tribune did by really telling the whole story, I think, and I think it's important and the. The Mormon Church hopefully will eventually learn to do better and. Yeah, that's all. Yeah.

John Dehlin [01:25:27] And also want to refer people, you did an amazing multi image series on Instagram. There was like nothing out there challenging this, quote, victory for the Mormon Church and the Mormons people. But you, Gerardo, put together like a six image series on Instagram.

Gerardo Sumano [01:25:43] Yeah.

John Dehlin [01:25:43] That really distilled why this, this really is a Trojan horse and is not a moment to celebrate in terms of the Mormon Church and the Mormon people. So we'll make sure and include in the show notes or just go to the Mormon Stories podcast Instagram channel and you. And it's pinned to the top right now and you can share that. I think that's one of the most viewed and most shared things we've ever put out. On our Instagram channel.

Gerardo Sumano [01:26:06] Yeah.

John Dehlin [01:26:06] And that was yours, so thanks for doing that.

Gerardo Sumano [01:26:08] Yeah.

John Dehlin [01:26:09] All right. Well, Brenton, it's so great to have you back. Will you. Will you keep doing good things, and will you come back again anytime we need you?

Gerardo Sumano [01:26:16] Yeah.

Hannah Comeau [01:26:17] Yeah.

Brenton Erickson [01:26:17] Although it'll have to be from a distance a little bit.

John Dehlin [01:26:19] Wait, are you moving?

Brenton Erickson [01:26:20] Yeah.

John Dehlin [01:26:21] What the. Utah needs you, brother. What the freak.

Brenton Erickson [01:26:24] Sure. Yeah. Yeah, we are.

John Dehlin [01:26:28] Are you talking about your. Your next change, or do you. Is that private?

Brenton Erickson [01:26:31] Oh, yeah, we're. The plan right now is to move to Oregon.

John Dehlin [01:26:34] So relatively soon, because Oregon's way more LGBTQ friendly because of job offers.

Brenton Erickson [01:26:39] But it doesn't hurt. It doesn't hurt that. That we wouldn't deal with the same issues.

John Dehlin [01:26:43] Okay, well, we're going to miss you, right, Gerardo? We're going to miss Britain for sure. And, Hannah, I guess that means you're moving back to Utah to kind of bounce the force. Is that right?

Hannah Comeau [01:26:53] Oh, goodness, that. No.

John Dehlin [01:26:57] Okay. Well, Hannah, we're really grateful for you coming back, and we wish you luck in being certified as a legitimate attorney in least in D.C. and we. We're grateful that you'll come on when we need you, and we hope you'll come back.

Hannah Comeau [01:27:14] Yeah, of course. This is. As you know, I really love discussions like this. I think it's very interesting to follow, especially from a legal perspective. I just find it so interesting. So I really appreciate being included in this.

John Dehlin [01:27:28] Our pleasure. All right. And thanks to our viewers and listeners who are providing great commentary on the YouTube and Facebook Live streams, and just thanks everyone in general who makes Mormon Stories podcast possible. We exist primarily thanks to the donations people make, the recurring donations that people make. So if you value this content and you want to see continue and you're not already a supporter, please go to MormonStories.org, click on the donate button, become a monthly donor, and we'll be the place that provides balanced journalistic coverage of the Mormon Church, since right now we can't always trust the Salt Lake Tribune or even the New York Times to provide that sort of coverage.

Supporting Mormon Stories and Open Stories Foundation

John Dehlin [01:28:09] So please continue supporting Mormon stories in the Open Stories Foundation. And we'll keep doing this sort of breaking news news coverage thanks to also the people, listen, the people on YouTube and Facebook. We really value your subscribing or following those channels. That really helps with the algorithms. It really helps get the word out. So even if you don't support us financially, if all you do on YouTube or Facebook is become subscribers or followers to the YouTube Mormon Stories podcast, YouTube channel or our Facebook page on Mormon stories. That helps out a lot. We're trying to break a hundred thousand followers on YouTube within the next six, six months, let's say.

John Dehlin [01:28:50] And that would be really helpful. Anyway, be good to each other. Be kind to each other. Love each other. Love is love. Let's support any type of love. And we'll see you all again soon on another episode of Mormons Choice podcast. Take care, everybody.

Transcript © 2026 John P. Dehlin. All rights reserved. Brief quotations are welcome with attribution and a link to mormonstories.org; all other use requires written permission.