Religious organizations need to include LGBTQ community

For LGBTQ students at Brigham Young University, the message has been confusing. The school, founded and largely funded by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (also known as the Mormon church), has a long-standing honor code that included language barring students from expressing any form of homosexual behavior.

Recently, however, that language was removed from the honor code. Students who identify as LGBTQ were hopeful and optimistic, feeling free to participate in acts of chaste romantic behavior already enjoyed by their heterosexual classmates. And nearly just as quickly, there was a clarification stating that “same-sex romantic behaviors” were still against the teachings of the church and therefore not acceptable.

Nathan Kitchen is president of Affirmation: LGBTQ Mormons, Families & Friends, a nonprofit that supports LGBTQ individuals and their families as they navigate the intersections they occupy in life, including the ways they interact with the Mormon church, whether they're members or not. Kitchen, an alumnus of BYU, spoke with me to discuss the changes and ambiguity in the honor code, its impact on students, and what could instead be done to create a safer and more loving environment for LGBTQ individuals. (This interview has been edited for length and clarity.)

Q:

What were your initial thoughts when you first learned that the section of the school's honor code that prohibited expressions of homosexual behavior, had been removed? What did this removal seem to communicate?

A:

In November of 2015, the church implemented a policy that declared all members of the church in same-sex marriages as apostates and barred their children from being blessed or baptized until they were 18 and could disavow their parent's marriage. When the discontinuation of this hurtful policy was announced in April of 2019, it stated that “immoral conduct in heterosexual and homosexual relationships will be treated in the same way.” This statement seemed rather progressive for the church and set a clear benchmark for LGBTQ members to follow concerning their relationships: no premarital sex and marriage is defined as between one man and one woman.

When the new honor code removed written restrictions on “all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings,” it appeared to implement this stated equalization. It seemed to communicate that the church and church schools were on the same page. Adding to this optimism was the initial direct message from BYU'S honor code office to students, faculty, and community leaders that same-sex hand holding, kissing, and even dating for fun or companionship was no longer an honor code violation.

Q:

And when the clarification was released that said, in part, that “same-sex romantic behavior” was not compatible in keeping with the school's honor code?

A:

Typically, large organizations carefully control their messaging internally before releasing a policy change. It took two weeks after the rollout of the policy change to clarify the details of the honor code change. …The two weeks of honor code ambiguity communicated a lack of basic respect for LGBTQ students. These students were led to believe they were safe to come out and publicly show chaste same-sex displays of affection, just like their heterosexual peers could. It placed vulnerable LGBTQ students squarely in harm's way when the commissioner of the Church Educational System finally issued his reversal, communicating that while the “homosexual behavior” clause had been removed from the honor code, it remained in force as an unwritten rule.

Q:

Can you talk a bit about how that particular language (that addresses LGBTQ students) has been harmful?

A:

The “homosexual behavior” clause that was removed from the new honor code ...had previously been known as the “no hand holding, kissing, or dating” rule for same-sex relationships. Lesbian, gay and bisexual students had to be careful not to sit too closely to someone of the same sex while studying or to linger a bit too long in a same-sex hug because fellow students were anonymously reporting such behavior to the honor code office.

This meant that the honor code office would call the reported student in to determine the intent of the observed behavior. The entire process was sexual orientation profiling. Intent is never determined in this manner for heterosexual students engaging in the same activities. This kept sexual minorities on campus in a perpetual state of fear. The excitement seen on campus when the new honor code was first released was the promise of a life without fear on campus.

Today, the honor code office states that they will no longer accept anonymous reporting and it urges students to govern themselves instead of reporting others. However, with the clarification that the “homosexual behavior” clause is still in effect as an unwritten rule, not only has the fear returned in the LGBTQ student population, but a sense of betrayal as well.

Q:

What would you like to see BYU and other religious institutions and organizations do to earn the trust of their LGBTQ members as a place where they are safe and accepted, as they are?

A:

I would like to see LGBTQ people provide feedback on any proposed policies affecting LGBTQ members before they are released.