Larry Miller admits ‘Brokeback’ mistake
Many readers, especially in Utah, will remember the uproar when local businessman Larry Miller pulled “Brokeback Mountain” from one of his movie theaters in January 2006. The problem wasn’t that he wouldn’t show the movie (it’s his theater; he can do whatever he wants), but that he pulled it at the last minute because of its content, yet failed to pull movies like “Hostel” and “Grandma’s Boy” that were much, much more vulgar, violent, and sexual.
Last week, Miller did a very big thing: He publicly admitted that canceling “Brokeback Mountain” was a mistake.
“Not because I got beaten up over it, but because it was a knee-jerk reaction,” he said in last Thursday’s Salt Lake Tribune. “You have to choose your spots to draw your lines and I didn’t choose a very good one.”
The reason the subject came up now is that Miller owns the Utah Jazz, and a former Jazz player, John Amaechi, has recently come out of the closet, making him the first NBA player, active or retired, to publicly acknowledge being gay. Miller was being interviewed to get his reaction to Amaechi’s announcement, and naturally the “Brokeback Mountain” controversy was addressed.
I think this is remarkable. The incident is a year old and could be considered a moot point now, yet Miller takes the opportunity in the Amaechi interview to admit that he made a mistake. That shows real class and character, I think.
Miller is a devout Mormon and was praised by some in the LDS community for rejecting “Brokeback Mountain,” but I don’t think anyone sensible would turn against him now for admitting his error. He does an excellent job in the Salt Lake Tribune interview at maintaining his religious convictions while expressing understanding:
“It was good for me in a couple of ways,” he said [in regards to a meeting he had last April with a gay and lesbian group at the University of Utah]. “I learned a lot about them with some open and honest dialogue. It didn’t change my way of thinking or theirs, but we all realized after talking with each other we have a better understanding of each other.
“I’m still outspoken on issues, but I know I have to look at people’s feelings and lives. I’d like to say I’m more understanding now. To say I’m tolerant would be less accurate, but I am more understanding.”
The fight between the gay community and religion is ongoing, and I think Miller’s sentiments are the closest anyone’s going to get to a truce.
The gay community wants religious people to be “tolerant,” but to them “tolerant” often means “not considering homosexual conduct sinful.” And most religious people simply aren’t going to reach that level of “tolerance” (if that’s even a legitimate definition of that word).
The gay community often sees this as a slap in the face: Anything short of embracing, encouraging, and welcoming homosexuality is considered “intolerant.” But it’s arrogant to try to tell any religion what they ought to believe, especially if you’re not even a member of that religion. (And if you ARE a member, wouldn’t you rather your church’s leadership base its core doctrines on what they believe is God’s will, not on member voting? If my church suddenly started changing policies based solely on what I wanted, I’d have to conclude that that church was not divinely inspired, and leave it.)
Religious people, meanwhile, often want the gay community to understand that they (they religious people) have every right to consider gay conduct sinful. And they do have that right. But when those beliefs are being used to champion secular laws restricting gays’ rights, then a line has been crossed. Preach what you want in your churches, but leave the laws out of it.
So I think Miller’s statement is excellent, and it’s what religious people should strive for. “Tolerant”? Not in the sense of having changed his mind about homosexuality, no. He still believes homosexual conduct is sinful. But “understanding”? Yes. Understanding someone means you can relate to him in some ways, you have common ground, you can see his point of view — whether you agree with it or not. You can be understanding of someone’s circumstances, proclivities, and personal affairs without having to believe that what that person does is right in the sight of God.
And NO, believing that someone is sinning is NOT the same thing as judging him, or believing yourself to be better than him, or looking down at him. Some people act that way, but they shouldn’t: Haughtiness and judgmentalism are sins, too. True Christians remain humbled by the fact that they, too, have sinned, and realize that rather than scorning or condemning homosexuals, they should be grateful that they haven’t had to face a struggle like that. If Miller’s statements accurately reflect his beliefs, then he strikes me as a good man and a true Christian.
February 13th, 2007 at 8:08 am
“But when those beliefs are being used to champion secular laws restricting gays’ rights, then a line has been crossed. Preach what you want in your churches, but leave the laws out of it.”
So you think the LDS church is flat out wrong in opposing gay marriage?
February 13th, 2007 at 9:24 am
That depends on what you consider “gay rights.” I think Eric said enough here to make his opinion on the matter clear while not taking an outspoken political stance.
I do remember reading about that controversy, though. It says a lot about Eric to praise Miller after criticizing his decision last year.
February 13th, 2007 at 9:38 am
I thought the last paragraph was especially beautiful. Everyone just needs to be nice to each other!
February 13th, 2007 at 9:57 am
“So you think the LDS church is flat out wrong in opposing gay marriage?”
Brandon: IMO, there’s room to argue that opposing gay marriage is not restricting gays’ rights. Endorsing a law that says marriage must be between a man and a woman is something that affects everyone — it’s not something gays WANT, but they retain the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex that straight people do.
The arguments that I’ve heard FOR gay marriage, such as hospital policies that only give family or spouses access to a loved one, are issues to be taken up where they occur. I say make the hospital change its policy, but don’t make the world change its definition of marriage.
February 13th, 2007 at 9:58 am
I agree. We don’t need to be “tolerant” we need to be understanding. My sins are no different from their sins. Theirs is just more visible. I think you’re right on about this subject.
February 13th, 2007 at 10:37 am
” it’s not something gays WANT, but they retain the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex that straight people do … I say make the hospital change its policy, but don’t make the world change its definition of marriage.”
One thing I’m utterly unable to understand is how allowing gay people to marry in any way invalidates or lessens straight marriage. Love is love, and if you find someone that you want for your rest-of-your-life partner, there’s no difference. The ability to bear children is often raised, but it’s a straw man argument — many straight couples (my husband and myself included) marry without the intention or ability to make babies. Gay couples can adopt, or use a surrogate, or choose in vitro fertilization — just like straight couples who are unable to conceive.
I’m married, and for the life of me I can’t see any way in which any other couple’s commitment to each other has any impact on my marriage whatsoever. That anyone believes that their own union is lessened because someone they don’t even know wants to make a similar commitment … that’s mind-boggling to me.
I do agree with Eric’s statements regarding leaving religious beliefs in the church, and keep them out of legislation. And that real Christians don’t preach hate — Christ was all about the love, baby. And being kind to one another.
Great piece, all around.
February 13th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
The argument that gay marriage “lessens” straight marriage is not clearly defined. Gay marriage does not lessen straight marriage in that if gay marriage were allowed, straight spouses would somehow be less married. Gay marriage would, however, change the definition of marriage for everyone in that it would make marriage–a religious covenant, a union sanctioned by God, to Christians–also a union that sanctions sinful behavior. I am not saying that straight marriages are without sin or anything of the sort, and I am sure there are a plethora of examples of straight marriages that God wouldn’t sanction. But gay marriage would institutionalize a sinful practice. In this respect it “lessens” marriage because it changes what is a holy institution into one that endorses condemnable behavior.
February 13th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Amp, that is probably the best argument I have ever heard anyone put forth defining the reason that gay marriage would “lessen” the true meaning of marriage. Thank you for putting it in such precise terminology. I will be quoting you in the future.
February 13th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Yes. Very well said, Amp.
February 13th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Amp said: “Gay marriage would, however, change the definition of marriage for everyone in that it would make marriage–a religious covenant, a union sanctioned by God, to Christians–also a union that sanctions sinful behavior.”
To Christians, yes, agreed.
But a legal marriage is already available to atheists, agnostics, New Age-Believers, and even the most depraved, dysfunctional, horrific examples of humanity… as long as one party in the couple is male and the other is female. Legal marriage is freely undertaken by hordes of scumbag losers who regularly defile the sanctity of what Christians consider a holy union and a contract between a loving couple and God. As long as one’s a boy and the other is a girl, all 50 states give that “marriage” the green light.
I don’t know what the right answer is, but I agree with Dawn. I fail to see how allowing a loving couple of the same sex to LEGALLY engage in what they already consider a “marriage” lessens or invalidates mine or anyone else’s straight marriage, or changes its meaning, in a legal sense.
February 13th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Here is the flaw in Amp’s argument. He says marriage is “a religious covenant, a union sanctioned by God, to Christians.” Yes exactly — to Christians. (and probably to other religions too) To people who aren’t religious, marriage isn’t a religious covenant sanctioned by God. Legally speaking, it’s just a contract between two people. From the government’s standpoint, religion and God have nothing to do with it. In some countries, the church wedding isn’t legally binding at all, you have to go to the courthouse to make it actually legal. The church part is just for show.
I can understand why Christians would be opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds, but why should we change the laws of the country because of religion? Christians are opposed to pre-marital sex too, but no one’s passing laws making it illegal. Christians and Jews alike believe it’s sinful to take the Lord’s name in vain, but it’s still legal to do it (thank God). Basically, you cant’ go changing laws based on religious principles. There have to be social, for-the-good-of-the-people reasons, too, ones that aren’t based on “this is what God wants.”
February 13th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
I keep reading Amp as “armpit” for some reason. That’s funny.
Defining marriage as between a man and a woman also has legal significance. For homosexuals to realize some of the rights of heterosexuals (i.e. adoption, survivorship rights, government assistance, etc.), there are a few avenues.
The first is through legislation - writing (I just wrote that “righting” then changed it to “writing,” but it may be correct the first way also. Welcome to my head, Dr. Freud. Can I offer you something to read?) a whole new library full of laws enacting these “civil” rights specifically for married homosexuals. That’d take a real long time and be real hard.
Another way is through winning court cases that would effectively allow these rights to be extended to homosexuals. Incidentally, this is the way racial civil rights were established. I think the Civil Rights Amendment followed Brown v. Board.
Or, homosexuals might appeal to administrative agencies or officials for programs and policies that would extend the rights to homosexuals. The downside to this is that the administrative programs and policies are often executed using existing legislation or trial decisions, so the first two methods would also likely still need to be pursued. Unless there’s a nice government agent named Bev (aren’t they all named that? I was at the DMV today and that was her name, for reals!) who would push through the paperwork for a wink and a smile.
If marriage is constitutionally defined as between a man and a woman (I always think that phrase sounds funny - “defined as between” - kooky), homosexuals would be effectively limited to pursuing massive legislation that would grant them the rights they seek. This is because the way the law is currently written, the rights sought reference marriage. So, judges might extend “marriage” to include homosexual relationship or might not. If they don’t, they follow precedent. If they do, is that fair?
The legislation route is way harder than the judicial or administrative route. Cause you have to politic everyone to agree with you. Is politic a verb? Well, I’m verbing it. So go “define as between” me a beer and get the heck out.
February 13th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Karen Stout and David, you both make excellent points.
The impetus for religious persons opposing gay marriage isn’t necessarily because they want to impose their religion others; you certainly don’t have to be religious to oppose gay marriage any more than being religious is synonymous with being opposed to gay marriage. Rather, it is a matter of standing up for what they believe is right and wrong. That their religious views inform their sense of morality is perhaps ancillary in this respect. One of the purposes of laws is to establish an acceptable code of conduct. I think, especially in a free society, thoughtful individuals have an obligation to work so that the state reflects their idea of right and wrong. This is certainly true of an issue with such far-reaching effects. I think it is important for both sides of the marriage issue to be vocal and persuasive–that is what leads to a middle ground.
I’m female, by the way. I thought it was funny David assumed my flawed argument was written by a man.
February 13th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Thank you, everyone, for your input on this issue. I didn’t intend for this to become a debate on the pluses and minuses of gay marriage, a subject which nearly always causes contention, rancor, and headaches. Please see this new blog entry for a clarification of one point, and for an injunction against further debate of the gay-marriage issue. There are many fine forums for such discussions, and this is not one of them.
February 13th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
I think that we could solve the thorny issue if government got out of the marriage business altogether. The fact that government recognizes marriage on an official level leads to a conflict of church and state, as we see in the gay marriage issue. If the government simply recognized civil unions and left the definition of marriage up to the various religious denominations that perform marriage, there wouldn’t be a debate at all. Marriage (performed by a church) would maintain the definition as a religious covenant, sanctioned by God. All couples would qualify for the legal rights associated with being a member of a civil union, but marriage would be reserved for those who wished to include a religious element in their union, and they would find a religion that was willing to perform such a marriage.
This would never happen in the States, but it seems to work pretty well in Europe (France and Italy, and others, if I’m not mistaken). It also reduces the whole debate to an issue of semantics, which probably wouldn’t really satisfy anyone on either side of the issue. I think that’s why it appeals to me.
February 13th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Oh! Oh! Oh crap. I had the perfect answer that would solve the issue for everybody, but now I can’t post it. It also took care of world hunger and North Korean nukes.
Shoot.
February 14th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Randy, I do not think the statement “Shoot” would solve any of our North Korean nuclear worries. It would probably only exacerbate them.