Newsweek - National News, World News, Health, Technology, Entertainment and more... | Newsweek.com
SPONSORED BY
Full Post
Posted Friday, November 13, 2009 7:56 AM

The Mormon Church Supports Gay Rights ... Wait, What?

Sarah Kliff

The Mormon church is supporting gay rights.

 

Sound a little suspicious? That has been the read around the blogosphere as of late, after the Church of Latter-day Saints announced Wednesday that it would support a Salt Lake City ordinance barring housing and workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation. Cue cynicism: "The Mormon Church views gays as worthwhile human beings in the workplace, but not in their own bedrooms. Got it," quipped a blogger at gay blog Queerty. Over at Seattle's alt weekly: "No one is fooled: this 'rare' action is an attempt to blunt charges of anti-gay bigotry ... in the wake of Prop 8."

Advertisement

We know the Mormon church does not agree with gay marriage—it adamantly opposes homosexuality. But writing off their support, which probably played some role in this legislation passing, is childish, willfully ignorant of how this law came to be and what it means. Like the fact that leaders of gay-rights groups in Utah have, for the past two months, met secretly with LDS officials regarding the proposition. Or that this will actually make a difference in the lives of gay Salt Lake City residents. The Mormon church could have easily sided with the Sutherland Institute, a local conservative think tank that opposed the measure on the grounds that "each new inclusion in the law of such vague terms as 'sexual orientation' and 'gender identity' represents a mounting threat to the meaning of marriage." As Andrew Sullivan more thoughtfully writes over at The Atlantic, "Someone has decided to offer an open hand. A civil rights movement should never spurn such a good faith effort."

Gay Americans want the right to full and equal marriage, and rightfully so. There’s a good chance that, in the relatively near future, a younger generation of voters will make that the norm. But, in the here and now (and especially in conservative states like Utah), the right to marry is not even on the table: 31 states have voted down gay marriage by popular vote. What is available are smaller, albeit imperfect, offerings that the gay community can—and should—embrace, while still demanding more.

Just take a look at how the two gay-rights votes, both in liberal states, fared this past election: the marriage initiative in Maine failed, the everything-but-marriage referendum in Washington state passed. Granted, the Washington state referendum was not ideal: namely, it did not include marriage rights. But it did include inheritance rights, pension benefits, and a whole host of other benefits. These things matter, as does employment discrimination. And, in at least the short term, they are applauding rather than deriding.

Tag(s):
You must be a registered user to comment.  Click here to register.  Already a user?  Click here to login.

Member Comments

Posted By: Whatever you think you know is probably wrong (November 18, 2009 at 2:27 AM)

Sloagm,

 I appreciate this discourse as well.  I will also continue to try to change views in regards to our Equality as US Citizens as well as our worth as a members of society in general.  I am glad that at least you seem to share that view.  Now to work on the rest....LOL

One of the biggest issue with us really is this idea that we somehow make this choice.  It is the belief in that idea that makes it so easy and convenient to say "well you make this choice and you need to live with those consequences."  The reality of is completely different.  One thing that is most troubling for us is all the people that make that claim have no personal experience to base that claim on, but they are sure that is the case. It is like a blind person telling you what a painting looks like and refusing to except that they are wrong about it regardless of what you say.

While I do not deny that some people may be able to choose to interact with both sex's, those people are Bisexual, not Homosexual, and they are able to conform into the "norm" while those of us that are strickly Homosexual are not.  Those people, Bisexual or Homosexual, that try and conform,, to the "norm" generally end up divorced, commit adultery, or are completely miserable and suicidal.

The distaste and disgust for us is based on our preceived sexual intimate behavior,  add in the religious justification for discrimination, and the choice buisness and we are fair game since we are such a small part of the population.  What is interesting with the choice assessment is that we feel the same way, in most cases, to your sexual intimate behavior.  What is troubling is that we are not trying to force you into changing your sexual identity/behavior, but most of you are trying to force us to change ours.  Or deny us options that are allowed you.  How would you feel as a Heterosexual to be forced into being Homosexual?  Or forced into a marriage that you don't want with someone that you have no intimate connection with?  Kind of makes your skin crawl right??  We feel the same way.

As a member of the LDS I assume that you would feel the way we feel if you were forced to become Roman Catholic.  It would be Abhorrent to you, wouldn't it?  Now you may ask me why I am going on about that but you first need to put our plight into personal perpective to your own to really get where we are coming from.

Back to the choice bit now.  We feel we are penalized for who we are, and also feel that while your religious beliefs are a choice you make, are lives and how we are is not, and your religious beliefs are being used to control our lives and our limit our options.  I would challenge you to ask any homosexual that you may know exactly when it was that they made this supposed choice and I am sure that they will be able to clarify for you what I am saying.  I also challenge you to look deep into your own heart and pinpoint when exactly you made the choice to be heterosexual.  I am prettty sure that you will have the same answer that we do....Never!   If you can do that for me then put yourself in our shoes and try to understand that the misconceptions that people have for the LDS are not all that different than what most people have for Homosexuals.  Those misconceptions that other people have should not be allowed to limit your freedoms and options in your personal life, and neither should they in ours.

While you may say that Marriage is not be a guaranteed right given to you by the Laws of the Land, the Laws of the Land gives you certain benefits for that commitment.  You are rewarded for a relationship that you have and we are penalized because our commitments and our relationships are viewed as less than yours.  For you to understand that personally it would be like everyone else except Mormons allowed Free Health Care, and making Mormons pay for everyone elses.  Only because people don't agree with Mormonism.  Now it may be wrong to award Marriage certain things at all, or it maybe wrong for the Government to be in the Marriage buisness but it is and it will remain that way.

The cost of being gay in America is very high and I really don't think that anyone would willing pay the price for it if it was really a choice.  I know I wouldn't personally. They did a study on the cost of being Gay in America over our lifetimes and the amount of money is very significant.  With the tax restricitons, lawyer fee's to cover all possibilties, health care coverage restrictions etc. it is between $50,000 and $460,000.  Add in if one of us dies we have no access to our partners Social Security and Death Tax.

On top of that we can be fired, denied health coverage for our partners, loose coverage for our partners with a carrier change that will not allow Domestic Partnerships, we can be denied housing, we can be attacked beaten and killed, we are made fun of, protested, we can be cast out from are families, and generally dispised because some people think that we are making a choice to be who we are.  Who in the Heck would make the choice to have to deal with all that?  Well according to the majority of people the Homosexual is such a glutton for punishment that they suppossedly do.

Since this is from my personal experience I can speak with utter certainty on this topic.  If I am totally wrong I will except the consequences, but my Salvation is my own responsiblity.  I do wonder however about the consequences for those people that have turned away countless others and shut them off completely from God, all the while claiming what they are doing is in His Name.  If they are wrong I can't even imagine trying to explain that.  Luckily for me I wont ever have to because I have never tried to bar the door to Heaven to anyone.  Nor have I ever placed myself in his place as the Judge of Sin.

Thank you for taking the time to correspond.  Unlike some others I do truly appreciate your involvement.  Take care.


Posted By: StepfordWife (November 17, 2009 at 8:27 PM)

There is a very simple solution to this problem.  The government should decline to legislate on marriage at all and grant civil unions to any two people who want one provided they are of age and do not have a civil union with anyone else.

Marriage should be left to religion.  As far as i'm concerned two people can call their civil union whatever the hell they want to.  The government does not need to define marriage, they just need to take care of the paperwork.


Posted By: sloagm (November 17, 2009 at 7:32 PM)

sieg6529: Why is that an insidious comparison? It wasn't meant to be. I wonder why you characterize it as insidious? You are clearly making a value judgement aren't you? You simply draw the line at one point and I draw it at another. You would include one form of marriage in a civil marriage framework while excluding other forms. It is as subjective as any argument against gay marriage. It wasn't meant to be insidious and it wasn't meant to be a slippery slope. If anyone is allowed to marry, that is exactly what it means: anyone, and why not?

WYTYKIPW: This has been good, thanks for coming back with your insights. I really appreciate them. There is certainly a lunatic fringe that believe that all gays cannot contribute in any positive way in society. I think there are groups that believe that about mormons too, but we won't let them get in the way of a meaningful conversation. Setting that fringe aside, let me say that there is a vast majority of people that really do believe that scripture is divine and for that reason cannot get their head around the concept of welcoming in something they see as contrary to the laws of God into an institution that they believe exists independent of "the State."

And that vast majority is not full of hate, at least the ones that I interact with. Sure they are full of misunderstanding, but we all are, just as your on screen name suggests, which is why I'm glad I got to correspond with you here.

Like I said above, I wasn't suggesting those alternative forms of marriage as some slippery slope, it was to point out that I believe that those forms of marriage should have a valid case under the "open" construct you are perhaps proposing. If you are not proposing an entirely open construct, then I see it as simply drawing a line in the sand with your version of marriage on the inside but leaving other forms outside. What I'm saying is that your definition is an exclusionary and subjective line in the sand just as much as mine is, but has little historical precedent on which to found itself.

With your thousands year-old reply. Clearly some traditions have stood the test of time and others have not. Comparing those that have and those that have not does not really get us anywhere as we could easily argue both sides of that issue in terms of endurance and importance.

I may be biased here, but I think the LDS church has done a good job walking the line. Espousing  and not listening to the "thousand little cuts" theories, and advocating for equal treatment, while not wavering on a fundamental belief that marriage is an eternal principle. And that marriage and family is not something that was created here on earth, that it exists in the heavens, that it existed before the world was, and that it will exist after this world ends.

Given the LDS church's very peculiar view on the eternal nature of family relationships when compared to other churches who generally view the afterlife as an ambiguous envelopment of our spirits into what they believe is an undefinable, unknowable God, I find it interesting that other faiths are as strong in their opposition to gay marriage as they are. This isn't to disparage them, but I would be interested in knowing why they reason that it is wrong at all? After all, the LDS church is the only church (that I know of) that believes that family relationships can be eternal. I know many people probably believe it personally, but the LDS church is the only church that teaches it as a core principle. This is why the family is so important to us.

I think it is also why we can try and explain why we cannot accept gay marriage as an institution, yet accept gay individuals as equals under the law and in the eyes of God. I know you don't think it is equal, but in my twisted mind somehow I think it is. Maybe you can convince me otherwise :)

Thanks,

Sloagm