LDS Church’s support of SLC gay rights law shouldn’t be a surprise
Several news sources have reported on the Salt Lake City law passed on Tuesday night that explicitly prohibited employment and housing discrimination against gay, bisexual and transgendered persons. The law was apparently passed after the LDS Church announced its support for the measure. There is already talk about passing similar provisions in other cities in Utah, or extending the law state-wide.
Just as I like to see accommodation for religious beliefs in same-sex marriage legislation, I also like to see a recognition of the rights of all people that don’t interfere with religious beliefs. The AP article quoted Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council as saying: “It’s disappointing and I’m fearful that it reflects in part a reaction to the attacks they came under after Proposition 8 — an effort to bend over backwards to exhibit tolerance toward homosexuals in some way.” I think Sprigg is likely right that this move was at least in part a reaction to the Prop. 8 fallout, but I don’t think this is an attempt to show tolerance. I see this as an attempt by the LDS Church to clarify its position on homosexuality. After all, there’s no doctrinal tenet in Mormonism that says that people not adhering to the Church’s teachings (such as living a homosexual lifestyle) should be subject to discrimination at work or at home.
The first line of the AP article about the Salt Lake law reads: “It looked like a stunning reversal: the same church that helped defeat gay marriage in California standing with gay-rights activists on an anti-discrimination law in its own backyard.” But it shouldn’t be surprising. Since the family plays a central role in Mormon theology, there certainly are gay rights issues that the Mormon Church opposes, such as same-sex marriage, adoption by same-sex couples, or perhaps school curricula. But asserting those positions need not take on the form of absolute opposition to all gay issues. LDS Church spokesperson Michael Otterson mentioned other issues that the Church does not oppose, such as equality in probate matters and hospitalization/medical care issues.
I think the cooperative approach should go both ways: while supporters of same-sex marriage disagree with religious groups on various issues, they can (and should) recognize the right of religious groups and individuals to believe and teach religious principles that may include opposition to homosexuality. For the past few years it has appeared that the gay rights movement and religious liberties were on a collision course, but cooperation like that in Salt Lake is a good reminder that the conflict is both unnecessary and avoidable.
The Mormon Church’s support of the SLC gay rights ordinance (from which the Church is exempted) is nothing more than a transparent ploy to blunt criticism of a long record of Mormon political activity in California, Hawaii and other states to demean, marginalize and exclude homosexual Americans from equal protection under the law.
One has to question how this article is found on a site which presumably is dedicated to a discussion of law, if one assumes that a legal discussion demands only the clearest use of language and clearly defined terms. What on earth does the term ‘homosexual lifestyle’ mean? Is there an analogous term–’heterosexual lifestyle?’ One wouldn’t be surprised to see the term used in language originating from the Mormon Church–since it is freely used to imply something dark yet not clearly spoken about how homosexuals live. I don’t know any two people who live the same life, so terms like ‘heterosexual or homosexual lifestyle’ seem vague and frankly stupid to me.
The assertion that ‘…same sex marriage supporters disagree with religious groups on various issues, they can and should recognize the rights of religious groups and individuals to believe and teach religious principles that may include opposition to homosexuality’ seems to be consistent with the fuzzy thinking that employs the term ‘homosexual lifestyle.’ Someone needs to read the Constitution. Those rights are guaranteed by the Constitution as are the rights of those whose religion does not demonize homosexuals and the rights of those who have no religion. Anyone can believe and teach whatever they choose, as long as it doesn’t doesn’t include encouraging violence against other persons or property.
The assumption that the existence of equal civil marriage rights for homosexuals somehow precludes anyone from believing or teaching what they choose is nonsense. The existence of equal protection under the law for homosexual citizens does not preclude Mormons or anyone else from practicing marriage in their Church as they see fit, or from teaching or believing any (hateful) thing they choose to, The 150 year doctrine of Africans being the ‘Sons of Cain’ comes to mind.
Mormons continued until 1978 to keep blacks from the priesthood, and thus from Temple marriage, even though anti miscegenation laws were all overturned in 1963. No Church or religious group has ever been forced to marry anyone in this country ever–since civil marriage is available to most citizens, except homosexuals in most places and churches are free to marry or not marry anyone they choose.
The only collision course between homosexuals and the Mormon Church that exists is the one between the Mormon Church’s desire to destroy our equal protection under the law and our determination to obtain it fully. Once we have obtained equal protection under the law, continue to believe and teach whatever hateful nonsense you want to and the rest of us will continue moving into the 21st century. Most of us will happily move on and be thrilled to have nothing further to do with you.
As far as the SLC ordinance is concerned–do you think tossing homosexuals a small bone is going to placate us and convince us that Mormons are the nicest people and–aw shucks–you just love everybody? NO ONE is falling for that. Our equal protection under the law is something guaranteed by the Constitution, not by the whim of a smug self righteous (so called) Church. I say toss it back and continue to oppose the Mormon Church–the most dedicated and well financed enemy homosexuals have.
Wrong date on the citation…..Loving vs Virginia was decided in 1967.
Utah overturned its anti miscegenation law in 1963, prior to the Loving vs Virginia decision which ended all such laws. Although Utah overturned the law in 1963 and the USSC ended all such laws in 1967, it wasn’t until 1978 that the Mormon Church ended its ban on blacks holding the priesthood and thus preventing interracial (Temple) marriage. In the period between 1963 (7) and 1978 the Mormon Church was not forced, pressured or sued to obtain equal marriage rights for blacks, as the ban was centered on religious doctrine (no matter how onerous or vile) and was separate from civil marriage and thus protected by Constitutional religious freedom. The tired refrain about how the Mormon Church is going to be sued to perform marriages between homosexuals has no basis in any legal precedent whatever. If the case were indeed tenable, one might expect Church lawyers to be making that case in front of the cameras, instead of paying someone else to do it by donating to PAC’s. Plenty of lawyers up there at Church headquarters and at BYU Law School–how come none of them are trying to make this case?
My name is Kyle Walter and I am a Gay Mormon living in St. George Utah. I hold the priesthood, am hiding behind the institution of marriage even though church law says i must remain celibate my life waiting to be cured in the next life. It is what it is.
I feel sadness from you Kyle, and I am deeply saddened by your situation. Leaving Mormonism was the best choice for me, and I trust you will find what is right for you. This is a site devoted to primarily legal discussion, but I am certain I have let my anger about ambient issues with Mormonism spill over in spite of my efforts to remain focused on legal issues. Can’t say anything more other than I am sorry Kyle, and never stop praying–in spite of what Mormons tell you God still hears your prayers.