Saturday Night Live alum Julia Sweeney performs the first 15 minutes of Letting Go of God, a solo act where she explores the rethinking of her faith. The Los Angeles Times called Sweeney’s show a “a gale-force breath of fresh of fresh air into the mostly politic dialogue about religion in our time.” Definitely worth a watch.

Those who voted yes on Proposition 8 have been called many things in the aftermath of  the election. Haters. Bigots. Hypocrites. Christianists, and those are only a few of the more kind labels. But never have I heard anyone refer to them as un-American.

Tom Hanks has come under fire recently for retracting his statement from last week where he said voting for Proposition 8 was un-American. Unsurprisingly, some in the LGBT community are up in arms over the retraction, despite the infrequency of such a charge. 

The LGBT community is still smarting from the unhealed wound that is Prop 8, myself included. I married my partner in September of 2008, and there’s a reasonable chance that by the summer of 2009 it will be rendered invalid. (Catholics, Mormons can expect a bill if that happens).

There are multitude of reasons of why marriage equality lost in November. One I keep coming back to is a failure to cast the role of the villain in the battle against Prop 8. Unlike Prop 6 in 1978, there was no John Briggs to debate, and no Anita Bryant to galvanize  our base. Instead in 2008 we had the Catholic and Mormon church, two amorphous beasts that were nearly impossible to vilify in the minds of the public. 

Since the election, many in the LGBT community have been quick to accuse and eager to demonize, perhaps in an effort to finally cast the “villain” we never had the opportunity to confront. Unfortunately, we are not always right in this rush to judgement. Naiveté, retractions, misstatements and quotes taken-out-of-context can erase years of LGBT favor and support. Even members of the LGBT community are not immune. 

Among many, Reverend Rick Warren now fills the role of villain quite nicely, Prior to the election, Warren made a video supporting Prop 8, and later compared gay marriage to incest and pedophilia. But who was talking about Warren prior to the election? Where was the outrage then? Drowned out by the noise against the Mormon and Catholic church? Granted Warren himself leads a church (an unfortunate pattern), but at least we could have put a face to the hate, a person to focus on, and someone to discredit. 

Which brings us back to Tom Hanks. 

First his original statement (via Fox News):

“…and the truth is a lot of Mormons gave a lot of money to the church to make Prop-8 happen, there are a lot of people who feel that is un-American, and I am one of them. I do not like to see any discrimination codified on any piece of paper, any of the 50 states in America, but here’s what happens now. A little bit of light can be shed, and people can see who’s responsible, and that can motivate the next go around of our self correcting Constitution, and hopefully we can move forward instead of backwards. So let’s have faith in not only the American, but Californian, constitutional process.”

And now his retraction (via a publicist):

“I believe Proposition 8 is counter to the promise of our Constitution; it is codified discrimination. But everyone has a right to vote their conscience; nothing could be more American, To say members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints who contributed to Proposition 8 are ‘un-American’ creates more division when the time calls for respectful disagreement. No one should use ‘un- American’ lightly or in haste. I did. I should not have.”

I anticipate the reaction in the LGBT community will be swift, viewing the retraction as cowtowing to the religious right. And considering the reaction already among some in the LGBT community, you’d think that Tom Hanks not only retracted his “un-American” comment, but whole-heartedly endorsed Prop 8 as well. Hanks only retracted the “un-American” label, which really seemed misapplied in the first place. Isn’t refusing to vote even more “un-American?” Regardless of what or who you are voting for?

Nor did the media or bloggers help by mischaracterizing the retraction as an apology, when the words “sorry”, “apologize” or “regret” appear nowhere in the statement.

What is important however is that “Discrimination should not be codified.” survived in the retraction. This says a lot more about Tom Hanks than any “giving in” does. Last time I checked Americans could still be bigots and hate mongers and racists. It doesn’t make them un-American. It makes them undesirable elements of society.

In such a toxic environment it’s easy to turn on friends, or those who been supportive of our cause. I too have been guilty of rushing to judgement (sorry Josh Brolin).  But these are the people we cannot afford to lose. Tom Hanks and Melissa Etheridge are not the villains. Barack Obama is not the villain. 

The LGBT community is still angry, and if that anger continues misdirected, we will lose more than friends and supporters, will lose our cause, and ourselves.

I… we… need to remember that hate, intolerance and ignorance are the villains, and those individuals who personify them. I don’t count Tom Hanks among them.

A reminder below of just how short our memories are…

This is too rich. The creative teams behind South Park and Avenue Q are joining forces to produce Mormon Musical. Perhaps we’ll finally get to see the magical underwear?

More here.

I’m reminded of this episode of South Park. If you have the time give it a look (not safe for work).

Here is a clip from that episode.

Cassandra Handley, author of VF.com’s “A Mormon View” blog, feels the Mormon church has been unfairly criticized since the passage or Prop 8. Vanity Fair published a conversation between Handley and Sue Carswell, representing the L.G.B.T. community, and moderated by Michael Hogan, V.F.’s executive online editor.

Here are few of the more interesting exchanges:

Hogan: But if it’s just about semantics, why is the Mormon church trying to change the constitution of the state of California?

Handley: We have something that we call the Proclamation of the Family that basically states our position on the importance of the family. We value family as being the most crucial institution in the world. And the first statement of that proclamation, which I don’t have memorized, is something along the lines of, We believe that a marriage is between a man and a woman. And then it says something along the lines of, We value procreation so much, and the way that procreation can take place is between a man and a woman.

Carswell: I’m sure there are members of your church who can’t have babies and go through fertility treatments, adoption. The same way that gay couples can and do in their own marriages.

I can’t understand why you would come to my wedding when you say what you just said. I’m not getting a civil union. I’m having a wedding. What’s the difference between the two that I’m not getting here? You would come to my civil union? Of course you would, according to what you’re saying. But you’d also come to my marriage, yet you’re saying that you’re against marriage.

Handley: The thing is, though, if this proposition had not passed, religious groups could have been forced to conduct same-sex weddings. And if they refused, they could have been open to legal action.

Hogan: That’s not really a rationale for changing the constitution of the state to say that same sex-couples shouldn’t be allowed to get married anywhere and that a bunch of people who’ve already been married now have to lose their marriage licenses. That’s an argument to say, You shouldn’t force us to conduct same sex marriages, which is a much more modest goal.

and…

Hogan: Let’s talk about definitions of marriage and how they have changed in the L.D.S. church over time, and the fact that there was a time when polygamy was recognized in the L.D.S. church.

Handley: There was a time.

Hogan: And when did that end?

Handley: In order for Utah to become a state, it obviously had to give it up. And this happened in the late 1800s. [Utah became a state in 1896.]

Before that, though, when the church was founded, there was gross prosecution. People were killed. They were tarred and feathered. Our first prophet [Joseph Smith] was martyred. So the first members fled from place to place. They faced hatred and resentment, much of it having to do with the practice of polygamy.

Hogan: This is what’s strange to me. Here’s a church with a history of being persecuted, having to find a place where it could practice its beliefs on its own, and eventually thriving in that place, in Utah. How did they get to the point where now they’re saying, “We want to dictate the laws of California to reflect our religious beliefs”? They didn’t want the law of other religions to affect them back in the day.

Handley: They wanted the L.D.S. voters in California to take the proposition into consideration.

The entire post can be viewed here.