Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...Salt Lake OKs gay rights laws with Mormon backing
11.11.2009 8:22am EST
(Salt Lake City) 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.
The Utah-based church’s support ahead of Tuesday night’s vote came despite its steadfast opposition to gay marriage, reflected in the high-profile role it played last year in California’s Proposition 8 ballot measure that barred such unions.“The church supports these ordinances because they are fair and reasonable and do not do violence to the institution of marriage,” Michael Otterson, the director of public affairs for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said.
Passage made Salt Lake City the first Utah community to prohibit bias based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Under the two new ordinances, it is illegal to fire someone from their job or evict someone from their residence because they are lesbian, bisexual, gay or transgender.
Utah lawmakers tend to quickly fall in line when the influential church makes a rare foray into legislative politics. So Tuesday’s action could have broad reaching effects in this highly conservative state where more than 80 percent of lawmakers and the governor are church members.
“What happened here tonight I do believe is a historic event,” said Brandie Balken, director of the gay rights advocacy group Equality Utah. “I think it establishes that we can stand together on common ground that we don’t have to agree on everything, but there are lot of things that we can work on and be allies.”
But the church has pointed out an inherent dispute it has with the gay lifestyle. Mormonism considers traditional marriages central to God’s plan. Gays are welcome in church, but must remain celibate to retain church callings and full membership.
It’s strong support for Proposition 8 in California last year drew a sharp reaction from gay rights supporters nationwide, with many protesting outside temples that singled out Mormons as the key culprits in restricting the rights of gay couples.
Since then, however, Utah’s gay community has sought to engage church leaders in quiet conversations to help foster better understanding, said Valerie Larabee, executive director of the Utah Pride Center.
“I thought this conversation would never come to be while I was here in Salt Lake City,” said Larabee, adding that the discussions have “shifted her perspective of what’s possible” and could foreshadow a different relationship between the two sides.
But addressing the council on Tuesday, Otterson said the endorsement is not a shift in the church’s position on gay rights and stressed it “remains unequivocally committed to defending the bedrock foundation of marriage between a man and a woman.”
Church support for the ordinances is due in part to the way the legislation was drafted to protect those rights. Exceptions in the legislation allow churches to maintain, without penalty, religious principles and religion-based codes of conduct or rules.
“In drafting these ordinances, the city has granted common-sense rights that should be available to everyone, while safeguarding the crucial rights of religious organizations,” Otterson said Tuesday .
Previous Utah legislation that sought statewide protections for the gay community did not contain those exceptions.
And although this was the church’s first public endorsement of specific legislation, it is not the first time the church has voiced support for some gay rights. In August 2008 the church issued a statement saying it supports gay rights related to hospitalization, medical care, employment, housing or probate as long as they “do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.”
Last year, church leaders were silent on a package of gay rights bills known as the Common Ground Initiative, dooming them from the start.
‘80 percent of lawmakers and the governor are church members.’
i can’t even put into words what I’m thinking
Maybe I’m missing the point, but any church’s involvement in any sort of legislative process really rubs me the wrong way. So some Mormons might be trying to enter the 21st Century; that doesn’t make the church progressive and it doesn’t make the violation of the separation of church and state acceptable. I’m all for non-discrimination, but the Mormons can keep their legislation. Or start paying taxes as a political entity because they have officially and overtly crossed the line from religious institution to political powerhouse.
“do not do violence to the institution of marriage”
WTF?
Yhitzak: I am always intrigued when I see people on these sites state that any church involvement in the legislative process bothers them. We live in a representative democracy, often times called a Republic. In God We Trust isn’t on our money for no reason. You may not like it, but religion is a formalized manifestation of the beliefs of a community. Democracy in any of it’s forms is rule by community. It is only in recent years that there has been such a large push against such involvement. And before you go ranting about how churches aren’t supposed to get involved because of that whole “Not allowed to support a candidate” thing, and that rule should be made more strict allow me to spell this out in painful detail.
That Rule Has Nothing To Do With Churches
That’s right. The only reason that political rule is in place is because churches are 501(c)(3) organizations. That rule is something they inherit from the much MUCH broader category of non-profit organizations they happened to fall into. It was not a decision that was made based on the fact that they are religious.
Now I am not defending the current status quo necessarily. I just think we need to take some time and think about what we are really saying when we claim religious institutions shouldn’t take part in the democratic process.
That “separation of church and state” you are throwing around is possibly the most abused phrase in the entire constitution. The exact wording in the Constitution is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. That’s it, beginning and end of story. As long as the government doesn’t specifically endorse a religion, or give a specific religion preference over another by spending money to fund representation of them in the schools or similar formalized action they are indeed honoring that separation.
People who don’t want even religious based morality to play a part in the legislative process don’t want democracy. Plain and simple democracy is the act of measuring public consensus and then enacting government based on that public balloted consensus. The public is both allowed and expected to vote their conscious. Most of the public form their concept of conscious from a religious background. It is from communist ideologies that religion is thought to be the “Opiate of the People” (Marx, 1843). This opinion is much more compatible with communism BECAUSE public opinion doesn’t matter, only the opinion of the individual in power. Such structures do not allow for the freedom fighting we are allowed in this country.
The rule on the books states only that a 501(c)(3) cannot endorse a candidate. That is the beginning and the end of the limitation. You may not like it, hell I may not like it, but consider carefully what that rule actually represents, and why it is in place, both in terms of what it limits, and the freedoms it protects. If there is one thing our history teaches us, it’s that taking freedoms away from someone, even freedoms we think they are abusing and don’t deserve often has far more reaching ramifications than we can imagine. Legislation isn’t a candidate, and they are well within their rights, historically, constitutionally, and legally under our tax laws. Get over it.
One thing comes to mind: Bullsh** with a candy shell.
Yup, still smells like a barnyard to me.
Facebook User: It is true that the First Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” but what is happening in Utah (from the body of this article: “Utah lawmakers tend to quickly fall in line when the influential church makes a rare foray into legislative politics.” The use of the word ‘rare’ is coincidental) is exactly that: the Mormon church has an absolutely incredibly strong influence on lawmaking with or without a legal mandate to do so. I do not throw Amendments around lightly, and I have not suggested that any individual -lawmaker or otherwise- not use their religious beliefs to guide their decision-making process; what I am saying is that a religious institution overtly involving itself with legislation is wrong. Not religious people, religious INSTITUTIONS. There is a difference and the difference really is honored in American law. Get over it!? Seriously!? No. I cannot and I will not because kowtowing to the status quo is what keeps the status quo AS the status quo! Democracy is a double-edged sword, for sure, and it requires constant vigilance and perpetual maintenance.
You should really go take a comprehensive look at the Communist Manifesto, also. Easily the most misinterpreted piece of literature since the Bible. And maybe present your position in a slightly less condescending manner.
I completely agree with Yhitzak. There is a difference between politicians being influenced by their own religious and moral beliefs – something that cannot be avoided – and religious groups actually deciding law. It is the difference between a democracy and a theocracy, and Utah, it seems, is a theocracy.
At the same time, it would be foolish to regard this as anything other than a positive step. Like it or not, in many places across the US the interests of the gay community are going to have to be balanced with the interests of religious groups, and there are many religious organizations that would not consider endorsing legislation affording us ANY rights.
The Mormons are no friends of the gay community, but this action shows that they do not always have to be our enemy.
Isaac: “The Mormons are no friends of the gay community, but this action shows that they do not always have to be our enemy.”
Well put.
I do believe strongly in the seperation of church and state. However, there are many religious people, and they will follow whatever their religion tells them to. So, this is actually very good. Very surprising, but very good!
I see their endorsement of this as nothing more than political spin.I shouldn’t nor do I see a need for their endorsement of my life as it violates my freedom of religion and civil rights.Saying that recognizing civil marriage would cause violence to religious based marriage shows their ignorance and unwillingness to respect my right to believe and live as I choose.On a positive note they may be starting to realize that there will and should be a backlash for the increase of crimes against lgbt people from all the religious rhetoric and grandstanding.
My understanding was that Utah’s majority population was non-Mormon?
As an aside, I really appreciate the Mormon focus on family. I simply wish that their focus included my family.
Facebook User, that’s some creative civics you’ve posted. You’re mistaken on several points.
Democracy is rule by the people—by individuals—not rule by a community. While those people are typically members of a community, such as a city or state, it is not the community en bloc that rules. Furthermore, the people of a community have diverse beliefs, not just one religion, and all of them get to vote. That includes the evangelical down the street, but it also includes me as a socially progressive Christian and my next-door neighbor as an atheist. Finally, the results of a vote don’t have to reflect anyone’s religious morality. In fact, a primary purpose of the courts is to prevent a majority, including a religious majority, from imposing its will upon a minority.
Incidentally, the limitations on non-profit organizations go beyond supporting a candidate to substantial political involvement—and those limitations include churches, so the argument that they have nothing to do with churches is simply incorrect.
The Constitution has been called the bedrock of our Democracy, but it isn’t frozen in time. Additional law is built upon that bedrock. For example, most qualified jurists today agree that a right to privacy exists, even though it isn’t explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Similarly, the first amendment isn’t an adequate reflection of the separation of church and state as we know it today. Granted, some conservative “strict constructionists” disagree with this viewpoint, but they are a small minority of jurists.
There’s a reason the IRS always looks into churches and religious organizations that get involved in politics, Victor.
And, so, “separation of church and state doesn’t appear in the Constitution.” Big deal, the Supreme Court recognizes one implied in the first amendment and by the founding fathers’ intentions. And FYI, the U.S. is a constitutional republic, so our Supreme Court’s interpretation of the first amendment is binding on all states, including backwards Utah.
Agree with Isaac here. “I completely agree with Yhitzak. There is a difference between politicians being influenced by their own religious and moral beliefs – something that cannot be avoided – and religious groups actually deciding law. It is the difference between a democracy and a theocracy, and Utah, it seems, is a theocracy.
At the same time, it would be foolish to regard this as anything other than a positive step. ”
Problem is it is just another GAY Jim Crow baby step to FULL EQUALITY. We are no longer putting up with HOMO JIM Crow Laws…. like the ones President Obama likes so much.
So say Thank you, and then go out and work for FULL EQUALITY under the Fourteenth Amendment, after all, by saying this is nice and good you are SLAPPING those 13,000 VETERANS kicked out under DADT in the face. Happy Veterans Day.
Wow, heavy stuff!
Just a couple thoughts from the outside here.
I don’t THINK the constitution dealt with the issue of tax free status organizations.
Using tax free status to collect money from those whom you would restrict constitutional rights of equality just seems, well, unconstitutional, or am I missing something here?
If you want to campaign in the legal/political forum, forego tax free status and do/say what you want.
If you want to be political, forego tax free status.
This does not seem like rocket science; again: from the outside looking in.