POLITICS: A Big Small Step
Randal Serr
Last week, the same church that propelled a campaign prohibiting gay marriage in California came out in support of a statute in Salt Lake City that would protect the GLBT community from discrimination in housing and employment. Before the Salt Lake City Council unanimously approved the measure to a standing ovation, the LDS Church sent a spokesman to officially represent them and show support for the proposal. The representative recognized the complexity of the issue and the strong feelings involved, and went on to say the ordinance would grant “common-sense rights that should be available to everyone.” He finished his statement by emphasizing the importance of human dignity and respectfulness.
While gay-rights supporters were surprised and articulated their gratefulness to the church, others have not been so respectful. Gayle Ruzicka, president of a conservative interest group in Utah and host of a talk radio show, has since called the anti-discrimination ordinance “very discriminatory,” because it “discriminate[s] against people who have personal religious beliefs.” I’m sure Ruzicka’s opinion of Mormons being persecuted and eventually expelled from the state of Missouri in 1833 simply because of their faith is similar: the residents of Missouri were the real ones being discriminated against. And, of course, if Mormons were kicked out of their apartment or fired simply for being Mormon today, Ruzicka would not find that to be discriminatory either. In fact, according to her logic regarding discrimination, she would probably side with the persecutors. They are the victims after all.
There are talks among state legislators of attempting to overturning the ordinance, but it’s iffy so far and probably lacks the support needed to pass. Even Chris Buttars, a legislator who has compared gays to radical Muslims, has said he has no problem with the Salt Lake ordinance. Even he agrees that “a person ought to be able to have a roof over their head and have a job.” It seems to me that if this ordinance is good enough for Salt Lake City, it should also be good enough for the entire state, given that roughly 80 percent of gay Utahns live outside of the capital city.
Nonetheless, the passage of the statute is momentous, especially in the state of Utah. There have been talks between gay rights advocates and LDS leaders for months now, which ultimately resulted in a small but meaningful change. The Church showed the ability to compromise and willingness to engage with the gay community (albeit on a small scale), and that is commendable. That is more than we can say for many fundamentalist or orthodox religions.
No, the LDS Church did not come out in support of gay marriage. They have not expressed support for civil unions, nor have they fully committed to supporting the Common Ground Initiative, which would extend the same protections that are now law in Salt Lake (as well as other rights) across the state of Utah. But they did send an official representative to back a non-discrimination proposal in their own backyard, and an Apostle of the church has since said these rights could be modeled anywhere with a process of goodwill. Call it expediency or call it compassion, but the narrative has certainly changed.
Randal Serr is a liberal political columnist for Rhombus. He is currently pursuing a graduate degree in public policy at the University of Utah.
I don’t think the narrative has changed at all. If anything, it’s gotten a nice shot in the arm of much-needed clarity.
Because the Church came out in favor of Prop 8, many people jumped to the assumption that it is against homosexual rights in general, or that the Church is fundamentally homophopic.
This has never been true. While Utah itself and the Mormon community may be culturally averse to homosexuality, the Church has consistently held a line of tolerance, love, and understanding. The issue isn’t that the Church needs to “modernize” and become more tolerant, it’s that people need to understand what the religious motivations behind the Church’s actions really are, and stop jumping to negative conclusions.
“the Church showed the ability to compromise” ??
The fact that you are still referring to the LDS Church as “The Church” says it all. In fact, for those of you who have not had the pleasure of leaving Zion, there are, in fact, many churches. While I would love to believe the the Mormons are doing something kind to make up for the the hatred and intolerance they displayed by spending millions of dollars on Proposition 8, when they could have been helping families who have been evicted from their homes and lost their jobs, I’m really sorry-but I’m just not buying into this line of thinking. Intolerance equals hatred in my book.
The fact that he was referring to the LDS Church as “the Church” (not The) is because in that context it was completely appropriate. I’m sure in an article referencing the Catholic Church, one might respond by giving it due reverence by calling it ‘the Church’ as well. Perhaps you may want to check your bias’ at the door, because for so much talk of intolerance, you seem to be pretty intolerant of The Church of jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints’ putting their nose in anything other than strict humanitarian work.
Oh, also, keep in mind that families getting evicted from their houses and people losing their jobs happens all the time, so any effort from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints to help these people is constantly going on. You may want to make lying your next accusation towards The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, because at the below link, they report exactly how much they contributed to their “intolerance” campaign.
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/church-clarifies-proposition-8-filing-corrects-erroneous-news-reports
If The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was being intolerant by their stance towards Proposition 8, then there are also a lot of intolerant people in California too, because apparently, they voted and it fell in favor of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints viewpoint. Don’t quote me on that though.
Oh Pete, I had no idea there were OTHER churches in the world. This is a new revelation to me, so I’m going to have to go pray about which one I feel is right for me. Thanks for the info.
Thank you very much for the clarification. I will now refer to the the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as “the” Church rather than “The” Church. I am happy that “the” Church has modified their original report from approximiately $2k spent to $189k. I’m assuming that no additional moneys beyond that $189,000 will be reported in the future. (only time will tell). I would love to know how many members of “the” Church also made private contributions to this hate campaign but apparently that would make me intolerant. Also, I am not intolerant of “the” Church, yet merely perplexed by any religious organization that chooses to endorse its members and their young children standing on street corners holding signs that suggest they are more qualified to define what is a proper marriage than anyone else living in this country. I am equally disappointed by every other group that supported Proposition 8 and spent money to propel forward this disgusting piece of legislation, particularly at a time when so many people in this country and abroad are suffering. Even if “the” Church and all its members contributed only $189,900, I still have to think that could have fed quite a few families. And for the record, I applaud “the” Church on its mission to assist people in need. I only wish these funds would have been considered for other better causes. I agree, there are a lot of uneducated people in California and quite frankly, I was shocked when Proposition 8 passed and was written into legislation. For the record, I am a Mormon who is not gay. I only hope that all members of all churches in the future will elevate basic human kindness as the most important consideration when they choose which contributions are most important to society, monetary or otherwise.
Well, obviously we’re both set in our beliefs. You can stick with your intolerant views. I’ll continue to believe anyone and everyone has a right to organize and assemble to exercise their civil liberties, no matter their views.
I was there in Massachusetts when they legalized gay marriage, it didn’t bother me much. I may believe that marriage is between a man and a woman (does that make me uneducated?) but that doesn’t mean those who put the legislation into act are “evil” or involved in “hate campaigns.” Perhaps putting your efforts into promoting understanding and fostering cooperation on both sides, might be better than criticizing those with opposite views as you. You’ll never change anything doing that.
Thanks to both of you for your comments. In hopes of avoiding a downward spiral of petty bickering, let’s endeavor to end this discussion here as neither of you are likely to change each other’s mind as Jon pointed out. (And for the record, I agree with Pete on this issues but think he goes a little far in completely demonizing the LDS Church. Although I certainly didn’t agree with their appropriation of those funds, they certainly weren’t and aren’t the only ones funding the “traditional marriage ” movement.) Regardless, thanks for the discussion.
Leave your mormon stuff out of it please. How do you expect to get people onto your site with a temple on the front page?!?!?! Good luck dude.
I HATE EVERYTHING ABOUT YOUR WEBSITE. THIS ISNT SPAM. I AM A UTAH LOCAL AND I THINK THIS SITE SUCKS.
Dear Angry at Mormons,
I’m sorry you didn’t find our site more to your liking. That’s unfortunate, but seemingly unavoidable. You are of course welcome to not visit our site, thus ensuring we will not enrage you further in the future. You are, however, also invited to continue reading if you so choose. As they say, it’s a free country.
Thanks for reading,
Steve Pierce
Editor, Rhombus