Steve Marmel: The Mormon Church Takes a Baby Step

The Mormon church for the first time has announced its support of gay rights legislation, an endorsement that helped gain unanimous approval for Salt Lake city laws banning discrimination against gays in housing and employment.

[Kyra]

Is there an exemption in the employment part for religious entities? That might do it.

And of course, given that it's Utah, they can be reasonably sure of never having to provide spousal or domestic-partner benefits.

I suspect it's just a way for them to say "See, we don't hate gays!"

[Rick in Kansas]

Kyra wrote:

Is there an exemption in the employment part for religious entities? That might do it.
And of course, given that it's Utah, they can be reasonably sure of never having to provide spousal or domestic-partner benefits.
I suspect it's just a way for them to say "See, we don't hate gays!"

There is not only an exemption for the Church in the employment ordinance, there's one for them in the public accommodation ordinance as well. They can support this because they have been protected from any effect from it whatsoever. These ordinances were going to pass whether the Church gave their holier than thou blessing or not, so this was nothing more than a meaningless gesture on their part that was merely to score some public relations points. The real test will come when the state Legislature sinks their teeth into this issue, as they have promised to do. that's when it will be interesting to see if they put their clout where their mouth is. Earlier this year, Equality Utah and their few allies in the Legislature launched what they called the Common Ground Initiative. Based on statements that the Church made after the passage of Prop 8 in California claiming that the Church wasn't opposed to domestic partnerships and rights for same sex couples, the Initiative was a set of five bills which would grant same sex couples domestic partnerships and the rights associated with that, as well as a statewide version of the employment and public accommodation ordinances passed by Salt Lake City. When those bills came up, the Church's silence was deafening, and the bills went down to defeat, exclusively along Republican and Mormon lines. So when these ordinances are threatened by the state Legislature, the question is will the Church speak out against that, or will they do as they did the last time and stand silent as their henchmen did their dirty work for them???

[Leftatalbuquerqu e]

Welcome to the 20th Century.

Too bad it's the 21st.

[rdg1234]

Kyra wrote:

Is there an exemption in the employment part for religious entities? That might do it.
And of course, given that it's Utah, they can be reasonably sure of never having to provide spousal or domestic-partner benefits.
I suspect it's just a way for them to say "See, we don't hate gays!"

!!! I think this is totally political and I don't believe in its sincerity for a moment.

I've been 100% unimpressed since the millisecond I heard it, and I can't bring myself to say a word more than a curt, cold, "Oh." It's virtually meaningless, and is even being reported *with reiterations that their entire STAND AGAINST THE SIN OF BEING A GAY* is still in full force and effect.

I would probably feel silently sorry for anyone who fell for this. It has no impact and no context. Like you said ... I believe precisely the same. They did this not only so they can say, See, we don't hate gays!

I think they did it for *LEGAL PROTECTION* so that they can claim in future *COURT CASES* that they "don't hate gays" -- which will easily and fleetly be proven false if you ask them to recite their *core beliefs about orientation*.

[Speedieg]

This is not sincere at all. It gives them the ability to claim they're not evil without having to do anything. There are a lot of exemptions.

[Luck]

So, when will the LDS church employ gays?

I'll bet not anytime soon.

I cannot believe how much press the LDS church is getting these days. All on issues that are controversial, not religious in nature.

How sad.

[writewingproxyco ntin]

rdg1234 wrote:

<quoted text>
I think this is totally political and I don't believe in its sincerity for a moment.

Maybe you're right, but I'm less sure. I know there are some lay members of the Mormon Church, as with other religions, who are not homophobic, sexually disordered cretins.

In either case, it's the definition of victory when abject bigots have to pretend to temper their hateful views in public. So one could argue that if the Mormon Church is being completely insincere in tacitly allowing a gay rights bill to go through that _that_ is the victory - that they would feel a need to be insincere in the first place.

[Spider]

Beware the trojan horse

[How does this happen]

I am still amazed that it even MATTERS what the lds church says about anything. I have always believed that a church cannot not run a state but anyone who lives here can clearly see that it absolutely does! The mormon church needs to keep their mouths shut when it comes to political matters...they want to be a church...then be a church, not a senate! No one ever says on the news "And what is the Catholic churches respnse?" or "What is the Baptist churches response?" Nope..only how does the lds church respond, or what does the lds church have to say. Amazing. That is all I can say.

[dskfjk]

what

[rdg1234]

writewingproxycontin wrote:

<quoted text>
Maybe you're right, but I'm less sure. I know there are some lay members of the Mormon Church, as with other religions, who are not homophobic, sexually disordered cretins.
In either case, it's the definition of victory when abject bigots have to pretend to temper their hateful views in public. So one could argue that if the Mormon Church is being completely insincere in tacitly allowing a gay rights bill to go through that _that_ is the victory - that they would feel a need to be insincere in the first place.

You make a great point here: Sufficient momentum and influence led them to feeling *forced* to do this.

[Hesed]

How does this happen wrote:

I am still amazed that it even MATTERS what the lds church says about anything. I have always believed that a church cannot not run a state but anyone who lives here can clearly see that it absolutely does! The mormon church needs to keep their mouths shut when it comes to political matters...they want to be a church...then be a church, not a senate! No one ever says on the news "And what is the Catholic churches respnse?" or "What is the Baptist churches response?" Nope..only how does the lds church respond, or what does the lds church have to say. Amazing. That is all I can say.

They control politics in Utah.

So yes, in that state, they matter.

[Spider]

How does this happen wrote:

I am still amazed that it even MATTERS what the lds church says about anything. I have always believed that a church cannot not run a state but anyone who lives here can clearly see that it absolutely does! The mormon church needs to keep their mouths shut when it comes to political matters...they want to be a church...then be a church, not a senate! No one ever says on the news "And what is the Catholic churches respnse?" or "What is the Baptist churches response?" Nope..only how does the lds church respond, or what does the lds church have to say. Amazing. That is all I can say.

The mormon mafia is fishing to see how far they can go before the government gives them a slap.

Their last big slap came in 1890 when congress seized their assets and dissolved the mormon "church"

Thats what it takes

[rdg1234]

Uh, you guys. Looks like everyone was hoodwinked.

Just read an editorial that gives a far more balanced take on what the Mormon church did here, and why. There is growing consent that this was a public relations ploy.

The church *WOULD NOT* have had to do much of anything more than this because in Utah,*legislation literally cannot move without their consent*. In Utah, there *is no* separation of church and state at the state level -- something like 80% of Utah's legislature(s) is/are Mormon.

The legislation *EXEMPTS THE CHURCH* itself, so it was an empty gesture.

The legislation officially supporting the legislation was (it is claimed) overtly homophobic -- to wit, "The church supports these ordinances because they are fair and reasonable and *do not do violence to the institution of marriage*" -- emphasis added.

There are all sorts of things wrong with this.

Thanking them for this is, to me, a technicality and nothing more. I would thank them about as sincerely as a "christian" who's just engaged in anti-gay invective proceeds to tell you to "have a nice day." I was suspicious of this from word one and this editorial entirely makes sense to me, using little more than logic and a few scattered facts to put this into perspective.

My stance and view of the Mormon church remains entirely negative and completely unchanged after this "legislation," comedy routine that it is, has been or will be passed. They "stooped" to "hand a crumb" to the gay people whose families were placed in jeopardy and whose children are defenseless in the wake of the passage of Proposition 8. There's some new movie about this; I personally hope it slams them beyond anyone's wildest dreams.