Those following my Twitter feed noticed yesterday’s tweet about Utah philanthropist Bruce Bastian’s announcement this past weekend in San Francisco of his $1 million contribution for the campaign against California’s Proposition 8, which, if passed, would nullify the state’s recent move to legitimize same-sex marriage. Speaking at the Human Rights Campaign dinner, Bastian said, “One thing I learned as a Mormon was that preaching costs money. The Mormons will raise a lot of money to support Proposition 8 in November.”

Indeed, the LDS Church, wary of potential public calls for stripping the church of its tax-exempt status, has been sly in its political involvement when it comes to campaigns dealing with the issue of marriage. With regard to the now-defunct California Proposition 22, which banned any same-sex unions, the Mormons aggressively lobbied its 750,000 members in the state for donations of $150 or more to help pass the measure. Surely, their efforts will redouble this time around.

Just a few months ago, in the honeymoon of new LDS president Thomas Monson, the church announced an August meeting with Affirmation, a group of gay Mormons. That meeting has now been cancelled.

If one needs further evidence of the church’s refusal to acknowledge even at a modicum the possibility of fruitful, meaningful, spiritual, loving relationships among same-sex couples, I recommend going to the Mormon Times web site, which is administered by the Deseret News and the Church, and reading a recent column by Orson Scott Card, a well-known science fiction writer and member of the church. Incidentally, Card is extraordinarily familiar in the sci-fi community. His novel, Ender’s Game, is among the best-selling books of its genre and is being made into a major film. Marvel Comics will issue a six-issue miniseries based on the novel beginning in October.

The essay, which was posted July 24, is infused with dramatic fear-mongering prose. Its timing is particularly unsettling, as one considers the July 27 shootings at a Unitarian Universalist Church in West Knoxville, Tennessee. There, a gunman decided to take his frustrations with gays, liberals, and others to deadly extremes.

Here are a few brief excerpts from Card’s essay, which carries the deceptively innocuous headline ‘State job is not to redefine marriage.’ In particular, I have bold-faced the most-disturbing passage in the essay:

“The first and greatest threat from court decisions in California and Massachusetts, giving legal recognition to “gay marriage,” is that it marks the end of democracy in America.

“Do not suppose for a moment that the ‘gay marriage’ diktats will not be supported by methods just as undemocratic, unconstitutional and intolerant.

“Already in several states, there are textbooks for children in the earliest grades that show ‘gay marriages’ as normal. How long do you think it will be before such textbooks become mandatory — and parents have no way to opt out of having their children taught from them?And if you choose to home-school your children so they are not propagandized with the ‘normality’ of ‘gay marriage,’ you will find more states trying to do as California is doing — making it illegal to take your children out of the propaganda mill that our schools are rapidly becoming.

“If America becomes a place where our children are taken from us by law and forced to attend schools where they are taught that cohabitation is as good as marriage, that motherhood doesn’t require a husband or father, and that homosexuality is as valid a choice as heterosexuality for their future lives, then why in the world should married people continue to accept the authority of such a government?

“What these dictator-judges do not seem to understand is that their authority extends only as far as people choose to obey them. How long before married people answer the dictators thus:

“Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.

“Biological imperatives trump laws. American government cannot fight against marriage and hope to endure. If the Constitution is defined in such a way as to destroy the privileged position of marriage, it is that insane Constitution, not marriage, that will die.”

While Card might continue to enjoy the illusion of being a mild homophobe, the essay’s underlying tone is detestable, appearing more along the lines of the extremist Fred Phelps than of other conservatives struggling with this issue and, as occasionally publicized, their own sexual identities. Card’s emphasis is clearly on the dysfunctional aspects as he sees them. He has long been identified by his anti-gay rants as he has by his science fiction.

Certainly, anyone is entitled to his or her rights of expression. However, AfterElton’s Brent Hartinger raises some issues regarding the harmfulness of Card’s rants:

“Supporters of Card have long argued that he isn’t a bigot — that his views are inspired by his Mormon religion and are, therefore, immune to criticism.

“But honestly, if this isn’t bigotry, it’s hard to imagine what is.

“I’ve read almost all of Card’s books, some of which are excellent and a few of which even include somewhat sympathetic portrayals of gay people. But I’ll never give another cent to this paranoid, delusional man.

“A few years ago, Mel Gibson gave a much-publicized anti-Semitic rant while under the influence of alcohol, and the incident received major media coverage, and many in Hollywood refused to continue their associations with him. Likewise, many bookstores refuse to carry books by Ann Coulter, because she is rightly perceived to be a hateful demagogue.

“Card has been saying outrageous, openly bigoted things about gays for years. But he has received little mainstream criticism, and major media players such as Marvel Comics, Warner Brothers, and Card’s publisher Tom Doherty Associates continue to work with him.

“Earlier this year, Card was given the prestigious Margaret A. Edwards Award by the Young Adults Library Services Association for his contributions to young adult literature. As my author friend David Levithan argued at the time, would they have given the award to an author who is as openly racist or sexist as Card is homophobic? Would an author who advocates a return to South Africa’s apartheid be welcome at an awards ceremony anywhere other than a meeting of the Ku Klux Klan?

“Orson Scott Card is a hateful, dangerous man. It’s high time more people treat him as such.”

Meanwhile, at the other end of the spectrum, there is Jeffrey Nielsen, the former Brigham Young University adjunct faculty member who was dismissed in 2006 for his views on gay rights. Recently, he issued his own letter to California Mormons on this issue, in response to the Church’s letter that was read in LDS wards across the state. Here are a few excerpts:

“Please think deeply about this, not only as a member of a particular church, but also as a citizen of a democracy.

“To press for an amendment to a civil constitution that would legalize discrimination against an entire class of people is nosmall matter, but of the greatest significance. When the argument, no matter how well intentioned, is based solely upon a religious proclamation; then, I believe, it is a serious contradiction of the wisdom of our founding fathers. It also does tremendous damage to the great progress in civil rights we’ve made in our country respecting the equal dignity of each person and towards a more certain legal equality for all citizens.

And …

“Of course, religious authorities of any denomination possess the right, and may claim the legitimacy, to set the theology and policy for their religious community. When they, however, attempt to interject religious doctrine into the public spaces of a diverse democracy without reasonable justification, then members,especially faithful members, of that religious organization have the civic responsibility to express public disapproval of such dangerous and undemocratic behavior.

And …

“No one is asking that you condone a behavior that might violateyour religious faith, but we need to allow everyone the freedom to live their life as they see fit, so long as it does not physically harm another person. After all, religious values must be something an individual freely chooses, not something forced upon him or her by the state. We should never allow our constitutions, whether state or federal, to become weapons in a crusade to impose a particular religious value system upon a pluralistic democracy. Today it might be a particular religious value that we affirm, but tomorrow it might be a religious system, which would seek to legislate against our own sincere beliefs. So now is the time to take a stand and keep separate civil and religious authority.”

There are important distinctions in tone here. Authorities searching the shooter’s home in Tennessee found a cache of books from among some of the nation’s most celebrated conservative polemicists (Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, and Bill O’Reilly, to name a few). In his four-page letter, the shooter said he despised liberals for “ruining the country,” and Democrats for tying “his country’s hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of media outlets.” Furthermore, he targeted the Unitarian Universalist Church because “of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country.”

Often, the discourse when it comes to the likes of a Savage, Hannity, or Limbaugh becomes comical and it’s fun to poke away at the absurdity of it all. On the other hand, the words sometimes belie messages that become destructive and tragic.

More to the point, the LDS Church’s campaign carries huge risks. But then, there is the centrality of marriage in this particular faith. Mormonism is striking for its persuasiveness encouraging young people to marry as soon as possible, much like an incoming freshman on a college campus faces the prospects of free trial offers, new credit cards, or cellphone plans to keep their social networks finely tune. More importantly, the culmination of the pathway to marriage comes in the temple where faithful Mormons, temple recommends up to date, pledge not only their obedience to each other but to the obligation of true faith toward Mormon theology and authority, especially if one or both should ever stray from the church.

The current political circumstances surrounding the issue of same-sex marriage further exaggerate the difficult paradox that many Mormons must try to deal with in contemporary society. Mormons, at least those tethered faithfully to the temple, accept their ecclesiastical controls over individual rights and perceptions. However, as the church continues to wrestle with its legitimacy among secular institutions and among members of the Christian communion, its members often are left confused and powerless to rationalize their emotional experiences and to reconcile new information with their dictated beliefs.

The recent FLDS events in Texas provide an interesting comparative context. Reading a variety of opinion pieces and posted comments from Mormons on a wide range of blogs and news-based web sites, I saw essentially two camps of opinions. One was that this Texas community of polygamists should be left alone as they enjoy the rights as the rest of citizens. The other was that the FLDS adherents made Mormons look bad.

On the issue of gay marriage, Mormons opine quite vigorously that it endangers the sanctity of the marriage covenant and a healthy minority believe that it is wrong in the eyes of God. On the other hand, there is also a significant minority which believes, much as they do with FLDS adherents, that they, too, should be left alone as they enjoy the rights as the rest of citizens.

Hence, the conflict of the Mormon institution. The church has approved and banned polygamy and so, in the eyes of God, polygamy is both allowable and condemnable. However, the church has never sanctioned homosexuality under the assumption that scriptural writings indicate as much.

Therefore, Mormons must ask themselves why it is not acceptable either to allow both or to ban both practices of marriage. In effect, if one is ruled unacceptable, then why is the other not subject to the same decision.

In reading the opinions with regard to the FLDS events, some Mormon commentators defended the polygamous adherents as capable of loving marriages that, in part, fulfilled the promise of the Mormon gospel. Yet, on the issue of gay marriage, the emphasis — as in Card’s commentary — stays with dysfunctionality.

An open mind is a healthy one as in this story shared by author Carol Lynn Pearson:

STORY: THE RING OF LOVE. Most of the readers of this newsletter will be aware that there is a fair amount of controversy around the recent California court decision authorizing gay marriage, and in particular around the entry of the LDS Church into the arena with a strong effort to pass a proposed amendment to the state constitution forbidding such marriages.

A day or two after the letter from church leaders first hit the Internet, I had a long telephone conversation with a friend of mine. We were not on the same page as we discussed these issues, but at the end of our conversation we both said some important things. I said, “You know, I’ve committed to look at this and everything else and ask, ‘Will this thing bring a little more love to the planet, or take a little love away from the planet?’”

My friend replied, “You have a very good point there. And we need also to remember that when this life is done and we meet Christ, we will hopefully be able to say to him, ‘I saw you hungry and I fed you…I saw you naked and I clothed you…I saw you in prison and I visited you…’”

I added, “‘And I saw you as a young gay man about to take your own life and I put my arms around you…’”

“Yes, yes,” my friend said. “It all comes down to love, doesn’t it?”

Feeling very good as we ended our conversation, I got in the car and drove to Safeway for some groceries. In my mind I was going over what we had said: “Yes, it all comes down to love…will it bring a little more love to the planet or will it take a little love away?…it all comes down to love.”

As I parked at the store and got out of the car, my eye spotted something small and round on the ground. I bent down and picked up — a little copper ring. Even without my reading glasses I could tell there was a word etched into the ring. “L-O-V-E.” This did not really surprise me. I know by now that if you think about love, if you talk about love — you find love. The ring was slightly bent, but love often gets bent out of shape a bit.

I knew I would never be able to locate the person who lost the ring, so I put it on the ring finger of my left hand. And — it fit! — just like Cinderella’s glass slipper. I thought — “Wow, I’m engaged! I’m engaged in the work of love with someone that I’ve never met, someone who cared to wear the word ‘love’ on his or her finger.”

I’ve been wearing that ring since. And I love the fact that I will never know who this person is — man, woman, child, black, white, Californian, Asian, Methodist, Mormon, Jew, a straight person or a gay person. All I know is that this person is the angel we might be entertaining unaware that we read about in scripture. This person is the Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief that we sing about. This person is the one in whose face we must see the face of Christ.

I’m not going to take the ring off until after the November election. And every time I look at it, I will remember that when I found it I was thinking of our gay brothers and sisters, and I will hope and believe that more and more of us — whatever our politics — will cease looking at them with fear and judgment, will want to give them a little more love rather than take a little love away from them, will include them in our universal ring of love, will practice seeing in their faces the face of Christ.