When it appeared on television I’d heard about the 30 Days episode featuring an LDS woman, Katie, living with gay men who’d adopted children. I hadn’t been able to see the program, however, until today, when a friend forwarded me the link. It is fascinating to watch, and it seems to me that Spurlock (the man behind the 30 Days series) has done a fine job presenting a balanced picture of the issue. It is apparent that the gay couple (and their friends) had hoped to change Katie’s mind. They believed that by opening their home and showing that they are good people trying hard to be good parents to four children, their actions would at least soften Katie’s opposition. She remains steadfastly opposed, however, and she describes well how her views are too intertwined with her identity and with her understanding of God and morality to change. The program takes about 43 minutes to watch, and it is well worth your time.
7 Responses to “30 Days with Same Sex Marriage”
Comments are currently closed.
I’m a big fan of 30 Days but hadn’t seen this yet. Just finished it and I’m speechless. This woman came across as very defensive and stubborn. And dare I say it - not very Christlike at all. All she said over and over was “I’m right, I KNOW I’m right.” And the funny thing is that I could see my wife reacting the exact same way in that situation. How has this Church drifted so far from Joseph Smith’s intellectual curiosity and openness? Regardless of whether we as members believe polygamy was a commandment from God or not, how can anyone claim that 1 man/1 woman marriage is the only good option for kids?
I’m with you Joe….I am just speechless. She was so offensive with her constant “I know” dogma. At no point was she able to see that these two men were doing something really good and selfless. All she only saw them as “gay”. She really couldn’t get outside the “gay” word and see them in their roles as fathers, partners, friends, teachers. I wonder how she would feel if polygamy were legalized? How would she then defend the sanctity of one woman one man marriage? She exemplifies everything I despise about the LDS church and gays. I have to say that I would rather be friends with the gay couple than her….and I am a Mormon.
I thought the moment at the picnic was poignant–just after her run-in with the elderly woman on the porch she runs into the house crying (as she does often in this episode). One of the women she has just insulted then comforts her.
Her rhetorical strategy is also tiresome–states her beliefs, as if bearing testimony, then expects everyone else to agree with her. When they don’t, she gets offended because they are taking it personal (her words) and don’t respect HER beliefs.
Finally, the question she refuses to answer: Do you honestly believe that it would be better for these foster children to go without permanent homes than become members of gay and lesbian families?
I wanted to scream!
In a similar vein is this blog post dealing with Prop 8. For better or worse, the post and comments reveal much about how people think about the issue. The post describes a family being approached by their stake president for a significant donation in support of protectmarriage.com. The amount requested, they surmise, was based on records of their tithing contributions, and the stake president tells them that he is tracking the donations made by people in his stake. There is no way to verify it, but a couple of the comments report that wards and stakes are expected to generate more than $100,000 in donations to protectmarriage.com.
Another interesting aspect of the post is that the writer appears to draw a connection between obediently agreeing to the donation request, and the news that the bank approved their application for a home loan. Obedience brings blessings, seems to be the conclusion, although in a later comment he appears to regret making too close a connection between the two events.
The post and comments are fascinating, and sad.
“Finally, the question she refuses to answer: Do you honestly believe that it would be better for these foster children to go without permanent homes than become members of gay and lesbian families?”
I think she was asked this more than once and she refused to answer. I think she was experiencing serious cog-dis. If she agreed that the children were better off in a loving home rather than foster care, then her anti-gay foundation is going to crumble. She COULD not accept that a loving,k permanent home with stable parents was better than temporary foster care. She should be required to spend 30 days in various foster care homes.
“She should be required to spend 30 days in various foster care homes.”
Amen.
I’ve been a big fan of “30 Days” since it started airing over a year ago. It’s interesting to compare this episode to other episodes where someone agreed to live with a group of people they had deep, fundamental disagreements with. In every other case I can think of–the atheist woman who spent 30 days with a fundamentalist Christian family, the Minuteman border patrol guy who spent 30 days with a family of illegal immigrants, and so on–the subjects walked away with a more sympathetic and more tolerant view. It’s not necessarily that their opinions always changed 180 degrees, but their beliefs definitely became broader, more nuanced, and much more understanding.
For some reason, that change of heart that typically comes from walking a mile in another person’s shoes just didn’t happen in this case. At all. There was no empathy or reaching out on this woman’s part–only a retreat into a self-serving victim mentality. For me, it was very uncomfortable and difficult to watch.