Mormon church issues statement in support of gay-rights ordinances

[Misshalfway]

It's a little frustrating to me that it took so long for the other side to acknowledge the churches position on rights for gay people OR on any sort of legislation or movements to stop hate crimes of all sorts. In their response, they said this was a first step. Yet, the church made this statement last year. Perhaps it just takes time to really hear one another. I will say that I am not that impressed with the published response. And I am not impressed that they used the temple square incident to bookend their statements. How exactly, I would like to know, is the church not living its religion?

[Just_A_Guy]

I think the gay rights lobby was disappointed that the Church didn't pitch in with the "common ground initiatives" that came out of last year's legislative session (and were ultimately defeated).

The legislature meets again in a couple of months. Should be an interesting session.

[Maxel]

Dogs can't really give consent, while a partner of the same sex can. I think there is a huge difference between "deviant sexual practices" that involve and consenting partner and ones that don't. In my opinion, whatever two consenting adults want to do in the bedroom is none of my business and I don't think they should be discriminated against for it.

Whether we should make laws that explicitly lay out what minority groups are protected or not is an entirely different question though.

If Cass Sunstein has his way, soon animals will be able to sue humans in court. From there, it's a short trip to animals being able to enter into legal contracts. If that does happen, we may very well be met with this exact dilemma: do we protect the rights of Canophiles and their furry, 'consenting' sexual partners?

(Sorry, couldn't resist. )

[Maxel]

It's a little frustrating to me that it took so long for the other side to acknowledge the churches position on rights for gay people... In their response, they said this was a first step. Yet, the church made this statement last year. Perhaps it just takes time to really hear one another.

Or the gay rights activists don't want to hear what we're saying until they think we're caving in and willing to sing their tune. I guarantee you that the same gay rights activists who were happy with this will be dissappointed the next time the Church makes any kind of official declaration regarding the sanctity of marriage.

What they don't understand- because their eyes are shrouded in darkness- is that the Church really doesn't hate or fear gays, but that the Church is mainly concerned with seeing the divine institution of marriage preserved in the societies in which it (the Church) exists. To those who equate sexuality with one's being, being against gay marriage equals hating homosexuals. To those who see more clearly, being against gay marriage does not equal hating homosexuals.

This kind of misunderstanding from those opposed to the Church will become more prevalent and blatant as time moves forward, methinks.

[Just_A_Guy]

If Cass Sunstein has his way, soon animals will be able to sue humans in court. From there, it's a short trip to animals being able to enter into legal contracts. If that does happen, we may very well be met with this exact dilemma: do we protect the rights of Canophiles and their furry, 'consenting' sexual partners?

(Sorry, couldn't resist. )

The secret to reading Cass Sunstein is understanding he doesn't mean half of what he says.

[Misshalfway]

I think the gay rights lobby was disappointed that the Church didn't pitch in with the "common ground initiatives" that came out of last year's legislative session (and were ultimately defeated).

The legislature meets again in a couple of months. Should be an interesting session.

Ah. I see.

Well, if that is the case then again it just seems like they are mad cuz the church isn't doing what they want us to. That's a far cry from "not living our religion" and supporting hate crimes and discrimination.

The church traditionally doesn't get involved in political matters. It comes out of the cave to make big statements and then it goes back in again. I think this was a big deal for the church to make a statement here so I am surprized to still feel so much venom in the statements. They feel like they are going to make the church bend if its the last thing they do. No exactly a sign they are ready to start being friends and work together.

Yeah. We'll see what happens I guess.

[Moksha]

Is this really a problem? What legal grounds are there for firing someone because they're gay or kicking them out of there home aside from there being no law specifically protecting them...

This is really of most concern when landlords refuse even considering renting to Gays. Anyway, the Church sees no moral or legal basis for this discrimination.

[ADoyle90815]

People have been discriminated against in housing or employment because of sexual orientation, which to me is just as wrong as discriminating because of race, disability, or gender. Now, if someone was not qualified for a particular job, then that's different. Also, if someone has a history of not paying rent, then a landlord doesn't have to rent to them, especially if there's proof of non-payment or poor credit.

Personally, what two consenting adults do behind their closed bedroom door doesn't bother me or any potential marriage. If people really wanted to "protect" marriage, they would make it harder to get a divorce than it is.

[Moksha]

I will say that I am not that impressed with the published response. And I am not impressed that they used the temple square incident to bookend their statements. How exactly, I would like to know, is the church not living its religion?

Twixt the word and the action falls the shadow. My guess is there has been an overlap in action between hating the sin and loving the sinner. Perhaps even an overlap in action between touting free agency and allowing it to happen.

Whatever the case, words help define our actions and what you may be seeing is just the lag time. If seen on an eternal scale, it might look like a momentary blip.

:)

[Just_A_Guy]

Is this really a problem? What legal grounds are there for firing someone because they're gay or kicking them out of there home aside from there being no law specifically protecting them and couldn't that be used on any non protected group like, meat eaters, vegetarians, people who look funny, people who laugh weird. etc.

Don't get me wrong if someone is canned or loses their home based only on their sexual preference it it wrong but is there some sort of legal president that allows an employer or landlord to discriminate on everything that it's specifically protected? And if so how will they protect the millions of other people with a lifestyle that is different then the employer or land lord?

Wouldn't i be easier to say you can evict or fire based on this critera rather then specially protecting every new minority group that comes along?

I don't think I'm quite following you here, Hordak. Utah is an at-will employment state, so unless they have a contract specifying to the contrary you can fire someone for pretty much any reason you want (except for the standard protected classes) as long as your company conforms to its own written procedures in doing so. As for landlord/tenant: that's basically covered by freedom of contract, which I understand is more or less a given except as modified (in this case) by fair housing legislation, fit premises/habitability acts, and the like.

So in both cases, the presumption is that you can fire/evict (or refuse to hire/rent) using any criteria you want, except as specifically prohibited by law. As a libertarian, I happen to prefer that paradigm.

Edited November 12, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[hordak]

I don't think I'm quite following you here, Hordak. Utah is an at-will employment state, so unless they have a contract specifying to the contrary you can fire someone for pretty much any reason you want (except for the standard protected classes) as long as your company conforms to its own written procedures in doing so. As for landlord/tenant: that's basically covered by freedom of contract, which I understand is more or less a given except as modified (in this case) by fair housing legislation, fit premises/habitability acts, and the like.

So in both cases, the presumption is that you can fire/evict (or refuse to hire/rent) using any criteria you want, except as specifically prohibited by law. As a libertarian, I happen to prefer that paradigm.

You answered my question. What I was getting at is that refusing to rent to someone because they are unprotected is refusing to rent to someone because they are unprotected.

Whether it's gays, overweight people, tall people, pretty people, ugly people, Lawyers;) etc.

Now this new law, if it passes will protect gays, and no one else. 5-10 years latter a new special interest group pops up, and demands protection from discrimination and so on and so forth.

It seems to me if the law took a proactive approach and said you can discriminate based on this criteria (criminal record, income, rent history etc.) then it would protect any new group waiting to pop up and be more effective.

Like if instead of saying Blacks get equal rights in employments, voting etc , then having the fight again and saying women have the same rights in employment, voting etc. , then fighting about ageism in the work place.

We could have saved the country quite the head ache/ heart ache if we just said,for example you can't fire someone for something that doesn't affect their productivity in the work place. (Obvious in Lawyer speak it would have to be more complex ) This would protect race, color, creed, age gender etc. and we wouldn't have to have these fights every so many years.

Now I see where you are coming from on the libertarian aspect. You business your rules.

I don't know if I agree or disagree, to be honest I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about it.

However I think if we are going to protect our citizen we should protect them all not just the ones who can get loud enough, and enough funding to get protected status.

If they can't refuse to rent to Hordak because I'm white and race is protected is it "fair" they can refuse to rent to Just a guy because your bald ( i have no idea just tossing something out here) and it isn't protected?

I mean my race would affect my being a good tenant as much as your baldness would but one's protected and the other isn't.

My 2 cents.

[Faded]

I grew up in Wyoming. I remember seeing a news report that a gay University of Wyoming student had been taken by a group of other UW students, chained to a fence post and beaten to death. It was a good number of years ago, but I believe that's the gist of what happened.

The news reporters were greeted by protesters with signs like, "God Hates Fags" and things like that -- essentially protesting the fact that the murderers were on trial for "doing God a favor by killing a fag."

As a Wyoming native who hasn't lived there in a very long time, I was appalled and embarrassed. The people of my home state were THAT barbaric? Are they insane?

The reason I share this: While we certainly do disagree with the practice of homosexuality, we do not condone hatred, discrimination nor any mistreatment of any group of people. Homosexual behavior is an abomination before God, but we need to tread very carefully lest we find ourselves hating the sinner rather than the sin.

[Elphaba]

Andrew Sullivan is a blogger for The Daily Dish. He is gay, and supports the right of gay couples to marry.

He is also pragmatic, and knows it is not going to happen everywhere. While he understood the anger that people who are gay felt when Proposition 8 passed, he was completely opposed to tactics that included vandalism and intimidation.

The following is his response to the Church's statement:

It is possible to be cynical or begrudging in reacting to the LDS Church's unprecedented public decision to support civic protections against discrimination in employment and housing with respect to homosexuals in Salt Lake City. I think that is a temptation to be resisted.

What the LDS church has done in Utah is an immensely important and positive step and places the Mormon church in a far more positive and pro-gay position than any other religious group broadly allied with the Christianist right. They have made a distinction - and it is an admirable, intellectually honest distinction - between respecting the equal rights of other citizens in core civil respects, while insisting - with total justification - on the integrity of one's own religious doctrines, and on a religious institution's right to discriminate in any way with respect to its own rites and traditions.

I believe that there are forces of discrimination and bigotry within the Mormon church - and they have recently been ascendant. But that is true of most churches and most institutions. And what I have long observed among Mormons - unlike some other denominations - is also an American decency that tends to win out in the end. I've never met a nasty Mormon. They put many Christians to shame in their practice of their faith and the civility and sincerity with which they live their lives. And this decision in Salt Lake City - not an easy or inevitable one - to make a clear distinction between civil marriage and other civil protections is one worthy of respect.

I do not agree with it. I see no reason why civil marriage for non-Mormons should be banned because Mormons find it anathema to their doctrines - just as I see no reason why civil divorce should be banned because it violates the Catholic church's doctrines. But I can respect that position because I can respect the sincerity of that religious belief and see in this stance a genuine attempt to reach out and respect the rights of gay citizens in certain basic respects. Gays should and must reciprocate.

For this is not something that many other churches, including my own, have been able or prepared to do. I wish, of course, that Michael Otterson, who is also a decent and sincere man, had not framed the position in such a defensive way:

"The church supports these ordinances because they are fair and reasonable and do not do violence to the institution of marriage."

That's a lamentably inflammatory way to describe gay citizens' genuine attempt to seek equality in civil marriage - which we certainly don't see as "violence" in any way at all. But the extremity of that quote may well have been necessary to avoid a backlash among conservative Mormons. And I would much rather focus on the positive gesture than the back-handed swipe that accompanied it.

The other thing to say about this is that it speaks very highly of the strategy of Equality Utah, the state's main gay group, who decided to call the LDS bluff when the church said it was merely opposed to civil marriage - and not other protections for gay and lesbian citizens. Equality Utah immediately tried to get the church to endorse civil unions. That was a non-starter, but in response, we have this support for an anti-discrimination ordinance. Treating religious groups as interlocutors to be engaged, rather than as enemies to be attacked, has not been successful in most places. I did my best with the Catholic hierarchy in the 1990s and got little but contempt or terrified silence in response. Imagine the impact if the Pope came out and explicitly endorsed anti-discrimination laws for gay and lesbian people and used those words and expressed the kind of respect the Mormons just have. It would do a huge amount of good - for gay people and for the church. This Pope cannot do that; but the Mormons just did. More power to the Mormons.

For this degree of respect - even if it is not fully what I want or what gays truly deserve - we should reciprocate with respect as well. This is a moment of genuine dialogue and civil compromise. And it was accomplished in Salt Lake City among gay and straight Mormons and gay and straight non-Mormons in a way that other Christians in other places have been unable to replicate.

Leadership comes in the unlikeliest places. And when it does, we should thank God and be glad.

Elphaba

[Guest]

I grew up in Wyoming. I remember seeing a news report that a gay University of Wyoming student had been taken by a group of other UW students, chained to a fence post and beaten to death. It was a good number of years ago, but I believe that's the gist of what happened.

The news reporters were greeted by protesters with signs like, "God Hates Fags" and things like that -- essentially protesting the fact that the murderers were on trial for "doing God a favor by killing a fag."

As a Wyoming native who hasn't lived there in a very long time, I was appalled and embarrassed. The people of my home state were THAT barbaric? Are they insane?

The reason I share this: While we certainly do disagree with the practice of homosexuality, we do not condone hatred, discrimination nor any mistreatment of any group of people. Homosexual behavior is an abomination before God, but we need to tread very carefully lest we find ourselves hating the sinner rather than the sin.

You don't have your facts straight. The people picketing Matthew Shepard's court hearings and funeral was the Westboro Baptist Church. They, in no way, represent the residents of Wyoming or the students and faculty of the University of Wyoming, or the United States! As a matter of fact, that sorry-excuse-for-a-family-enterprise-masquerading-as-a-church hails from Topeka, Kansas and are decidedly a very very very minute minority whose views have been rejected by most, if not all, churches and organizations in the nation.

[sixpacktr]

The church only had something to gain with this. We don't condone hatred of anyone or discrimination of anyone. Never have, never will. So to come out for non-discrimination based up on sexual preference was a no-brainer.

However, I do think that this has gone too far in this country. Every little group with a pet peeve starts claiming discrimination when things are unfair in their opinion. All that has happened with this is that lawyers like John 'The Breck Girl' Edwards gets richer because I guarantee someone will be offended by someone else and claim discrimination.

I have been discriminated against because of being a Mormon. In fact, I've been fired for being a Mormon (of course, they didn't say THAT in the paperwork, but the conversations that went on behind the scenes were all centered on that). Was I upset? Damn straight I was. Could I prove it? Not in any shape, manner or form. Why? Because I couldn't prove what was really in the person's mind. And this will be the same way.

There are already laws upon laws in this land protecting us from discrimination. But those aren't special enough for a group that wants recognition.

I'm gonna ask for special rights for Bohemian-Irish Mormons that are overweight and like sushi, because I KNOW that there are those out there that just want to keep me from being happy....

[Elphaba]

Elphie, you'll love the Trib's story. Apparently this is the result of weeks of secret meetings between LDS officials and the Utah gay-rights leadership.

Yes, I understand that, and applaud both group's efforts to rise above the animosity that existed in the aftermath of Proposition 8. I think the fact that the Church, because it is usually very conservative, publicly spoke out in support of not discriminating against gays is both poignant and profound.

What I don't understand is Otterson's use of the phrase do violence when he said:

"The church supports these ordinances because they are fair and reasonable and do not do violence to the institution of marriage." (bold mine)

Given laws making it illegal to discriminate against gays have no effect on traditional marriage whatsoever, I fail to see how the phrase do violence was appropriate. Rather, the use of the loaded term was unecessary, and, in my opinion, offensive.

When you speak out against discrimination of a group of people, you don't insult them while doing so.

Elphaba

Edited November 13, 2009 by Elphaba

[Misshalfway]

I don't know that he meant to offend. He could just be emphasizing how changing the definition of marriage feels to those who want to preserve it.

[Vort]

What I don't understand is Otterson's use of the phrase do violence when he said:

"The church supports these ordinances because they are fair and reasonable and do not do violence to the institution of marriage." (bold mine)

Given laws making it illegal to discriminate against gays have no effect on traditional marriage whatsoever, I fail to see how the phrase do violence was appropriate.

Not sure of your objection.

Let's try recasting this. Suppose the LDS Church approved of a law forbidding discrimination based on weight. In their explanation, they said, "This ordinance is fair and reasonable, and does not do violence to the interests of public health." Would you then object that the Church was somehow insulting fat people by suggesting that they did "do violence" to the public health? When they explicitly stated the opposite?

Then why would the Church's saying "this does not do violence to the institution of marriage" make you think they were saying the opposite -- that protection of the civil rights of homosexuals does "do violence" to marriage?

[Just_A_Guy]

Leadership comes in the unlikeliest places.

Sullivan's approach seems to be "one backhanded complement deserves another".

Seriously--I appreciate his sentiments. It does seem just a tad like he himself wants it both ways when he decries cynicism against the Church but labels the Church's endorsement of civil unions last year a "bluff".

But generally, yes--kudos all around. Anyone up for a round of Kum-Ba-Ya?

[pam]

I keep reading that one line of the statement over and over trying to read more into it. I just don't see that he is in any way attempting to offend or insult any group of people. I can see how it might be taken that way but I just really don't see any kind of malice in his statement.

On another note and I don't mean this in any way derogatory. Perhaps the fact that he is English and his use of the language or his wording might differ than what you and I are used to comes into play here. This was pointed out to me.

[Just_A_Guy]

Well, the whole gay marriage position is that allowing gays to marry strengthens, rather than diminishes, the institution. So I can see why they're upset.

[Elphaba]

Let's try recasting this. Suppose the LDS Church approved of a law forbidding discrimination based on weight. In their explanation, they said, "This ordinance is fair and reasonable, and does not do violence to the interests of public health." Would you then object that the Church was somehow insulting fat people by suggesting that they did "do violence" to the public health?

Not that they did “do violence,” but that they could “do violence.”

I have to interrupt your scenario to explain. The only conclusion I can make is that the actual anti-discrimination ordinance the Church supported does not “do violence” to marriage because it does not include marriage, which obviously would be same-sex marriage. I reach this conclusion based on the Church’s overt stance against SSM, which clearly states it threatens the divine institution of traditional marriage. That is the foundation of my position.

The premise of my position is the choice of the words “do violence,” particularly the word “violence,” is unnecessarily antagonistic, and I believe less-aggressive words would have sufficed. The Church has spoken out against same-sex marriage before, and I‘ve never seen it use a word with the connotation “violence,” has.

Thus, your comparison of obese people does not work, because it must include marriage to fit.

Then why would the Church's saying "this does not do violence to the institution of marriage" make you think they were saying the opposite-- that protection of the civil rights of homosexuals does "do violence" to marriage?

I don't, and didn't mean to imply it did.

However, the Church’s support of the protection of civil rights of homosexuals does not include same-sex marriage. If this were included in an anti-discrimination ordinance, it would “do violence.”

"The church supports these ordinances because they . . . do not do violence to the institution of marriage." (bold mine)

Hopefully, it’s clear by now that my issue is not with what the Church supports. It has every right to define its stance on same-sex marriage, and to ask its members to actively oppose it. It is the phrase “do violence.”

Anyone in public relations knows that it does not matter what you mean to say; rather, what matters is how your audience perceives what you say. In this case, Otterson’s audience was obviously members of the Church, and they will understand what he meant.

However, his audience was also the national non-Mormon public, and frankly, they’re confused. They don’t know what he meant by “do violence.” This is especially confusing to those who support same-sex marriage. They see the words “marriage,“ and “violence,“ together, and can’t believe the Church said that.

The intent of those who support same-sex marriage is to have an additional type of marriage legalized, not perpetuate violence on the one that already exists. So, they are not only confused, they are also insulted, and I think it is naïve to think it would be otherwise.

Additionally, Otterson said:

Our language will always be respectful and acknowledge those who differ. . . .

I don’t think “do violence” is respectful to those who differ. I think it insults the very people the Church has been dialoguing with. The common understanding of the word "violence" doesn't fit their intent, and since the Church has never used such an extreme word before, I don't know why Otterson felt it necessary to do so this time.

Did he intent to offend? Of course not. But should he have known it would? As a public relations professional, yes he should have.

Elphaba

　

Edited November 14, 2009 by Elphaba

[Vort]

I have to interrupt your scenario to explain. The only conclusion I can make is that the actual anti-discrimination ordinance the Church supported does not “do violence” to marriage because it does not include marriage, which obviously would be same-sex marriage.

This sounds right to me.

The premise of my position is the choice of the words “do violence,” particularly the word “violence,” is unnecessarily antagonistic, and I believe less-aggressive words would have sufficed. The Church has spoken out against same-sex marriage before, and I‘ve never seen it use a word with the connotation “violence,” has.

The phrase "to do violence to" has a well-established meaning in this context, and does not imply that homosexuals are going around beating up married people. Redefining marriage to include marital status between same-sex partners, as between humans and vegetables or planets, would indeed do violence to the traditional concept of marriage. It's a perfectly valid use of the phrase.

Hopefully, it’s clear by now that my issue is not with what the Church supports. It has every right to define its stance on same-sex marriage, and to ask its members to actively oppose it. It is the phrase “do violence.”

Anyone in public relations knows that it does not matter what you mean to say; rather, what matters is how your audience perceives what you say. In this case, Otterson’s audience was obviously members of the Church, and they will understand what he meant.

You are, perhaps, conversing with exactly the wrong person on this topic. It seems that no matter how precise I am in phrasing my responses (or questions), someone is sure to misunderstand me and attribute malice where none was intended. If I try to explain myself using careful word choice, people just get madder and madder. When I ask for explanations of what they mean, even if I provide exhaustive documentation of what they said and when, they just continue to get more angry, usually without ever bothering to actually respond to anything I am asking. (Note that this is true even, or especially, when I take great pains to answer all of their questions or points in detail.)

So I understood Br. Otterson's phraseology and found nothing objectionable in it. I have to think that even if I were on the other side of the fence, I would not find the use of that phrase objectionable, since it accurately reflects exactly what he meant.

But then, I will never get elected president, either.

However, his audience was also the national non-Mormon public, and frankly, they’re confused.

If this is literally true, then such people are too ignorant to get involved in public conversations with adults.

The intent of those who support same-sex marriage is to have an additional type of marriage legalized, not perpetuate violence on the one that already exists.

But of course, such legalization would unarguably do great violence to the very idea of traditional marriage, if not to the actual individual marriages themselves. To say you don't like a stated fact because you don't like how it sounds seems absurd to me.

Did he intent to offend? Of course not. But should he have known it would? As a public relations professional, yes he should have.

From a purely pragmatic and political point of view, you may be absolutely right. But if our ability for public discourse is so broken that it becomes politically incorrect for someone to use a well-established and well-understood phrase in exactly the way it is appropriate to use, then our problems go far deeper than a few hypersensitive souls taking offense where, very clearly, none was intended.

[Elphaba]

From a purely pragmatic and political point of view, you may be absolutely right. But if our ability for public discourse is so broken that it becomes politically incorrect for someone to use a well-established and well-understood phrase in exactly the way it is appropriate to use, then our problems go far deeper than a few hypersensitive souls taking offense where, very clearly, none was intended.

A news release is not public discourse. It is meant to inform your audience of something you want it to know. If that audience is the national public, and given most people in that public are illiterate above an eighth-grade reading level, you restrict yourself to language that will not be misunderstood by that public. I believe the inclusion of the word "violence" can be misunderstood, especially by those not familiar with the Church's stance that same-sex marriage violates traditional marriage.

Having said this, I've gone back to the blogs I frequent, and people are understanding what Otterson meant. The confusion I observed seems to have abated. So, while I still disagree with the use of the word "violence," all of my bloviating appears to have been much ado about nothing.

Elphaba

[Rico]

I am flabbergasted. Sin is sin. Unrepentant sin is unrepentant sin. I thought the Church should stand up and help us keep sin from encroaching into our daily lives instead of giving it an open door?

Someone once told me that gay marriage will be the next Blacks in the Priesthood issue for the Church. I fully expect that the Church will be allowing gays to get married in the temple in the next 20 years. You can only appease sin for so long before you let it overtake you.