In today’s press conference, LDS leaders encouraged church members to support anti-discrimination legislation while continuing to oppose marriage equality. You can find a very local perspective here, slightly less local here or downright global perspective here. A few quick highlights:
- LGBT people deserve the same basic rights as all individuals: equal access to housing, legal protections, employment and dignity.
- Religious freedom, usually meaning freedom from having to provide equal access to religious benefits to all people, must also be protected. [1]
- Individuals should be able to continue to discriminate in providing services they object to, regardless of the law, according to remarks made by E. Oaks. [2]
- People on both sides of the divide should respect each other and not take potshots or revenge against one another over political disagreements.
The airtime given to the grievances of religious individuals who feel their freedom is infringed upon when they as individuals are forced to provide services to gay people was the one regrettable aspect of this announcement.
“When religious people are publicly intimidated, retaliated against, forced from employment or made to suffer personal loss because they have raised their voice in the public square, donated to a cause or participated in an election, our democracy is the loser,” said Elder Dallin Oaks
Perhaps it was a necessary rhetorical concession as so many people living in a religious bubble seem to think it’s a real problem, not the natural social consequence of their intolerant behavior. Are there instances of individuals being held back unfairly due to their opposition to gay marriage? Maybe. But that’s a question of being on the wrong side of history. Society’s a bitch. We can’t just stop the world and get off because we don’t like how this is going. And as for democracy losing out when dissenting voices are marginalized, well . . .
Putting the freedom of privileged individuals to discriminate in their personal and business endeavors without consequence on par with the rights of marginalized individuals to have access to basic benefits such as employment, housing, and legal protections feels like a poke in the eye to those who already support anti-discrimination (and even worse to those who have personally suffered from discrimination). It also has the negative side effect of making the church’s support for anti-discrimination legislation seem needlessly begrudging rather than heartfelt and sincere.
“I’d say we’re more sensitive than before. Our tone may be different. Our beliefs don’t change our doctrines are what they are,” said Elder D. Todd Christofferson
“God is loving and merciful. Jesus ministered to marginalized outcasts. It’s for this reason that the church has publicly favored laws and ordinances that protect LGBT people from discrimination in housing and employment.” Sister Neill Marriott.
Whatever you may think, it’s a good day when the church feels compelled to stand against discrimination of minorities and to call upon church members to set aside their hurt feelings to follow the golden rule. I guess it’s back to basics in Mormonism, folks. The worth of souls is great. Mostly.
What’s your take?
- Is this a long-overdue, welcome reminder for church members to cease discriminating against gay family members and gay people in the community? Or just another retrenchment?
- Should church members be protected by the law if they refuse to perform legal services on the basis of conscience? Or is this providing religious exemption to individuals rather than to churches as legally intended?
- Was the selection of Oaks (a former judge who has been very vocal in opposing gay marriage) & Christofferson (whose brother is gay) significant? Does this show the two polar opposites (working together) among the Q15 on this topic?
- Is this debate Ameri-centricity and Utah-politics at its worst, demonstrating yet again that we can’t grasp the world beyond our bubble? Or is this a matter of international importance because where US politics go, there goes the world?
Discuss.
[1] The church has discontinued LDS adoptions, and many speculate this is so that they will avoid a situation in which they must grant equal adoption access to gay couples. This seems like a distant future possibility, but one that has given many pause. The church’s stated reasons for getting out of this business were financial, not ideological.
[2] Examples cited include a doctor refusing to provide fertility assistance to a lesbian couple, a pharmacist refusing to provide a morning after pill, or a municipal clerk refusing to perform a same-sex marriage. What’s disturbing about this is that these are merely individuals in the public sector, not working for a religion that would give them immunity under the religious exemption clause. If an individual objects, it would be the role of their employer to determine if it is reasonable to have another employee perform that function or not. If this refusal to do the job is deemed unreasonable, then the discrimination should rightfully jeopardize that person’s ability to do the job for which they were hired. Small business owners performing work in the public sector are not exempt from anti-discrimination laws just because they dislike homosexuality. Those individuals who violate the law as an act of conscience may in fact suffer real consequences, and that’s not discriminatory any more than it’s discrimination if the IRS disagrees with how you pay your taxes.
Wheat & Tares 
In a 1997 internal Mormon church memo, Dallin Oaks was recognized for plotting that “in the political process in order to win this battle (against marriage equality), there may have to be certain legal rights for unmarried people such as hospital visitation so opponents in the legislature will come away with something.”
Flash forward to today, and we can see the great humanitarian sincerity as Oaks intoned, “We call on local, state and the federal government to serve all of their people by passing legislation that protects vital religious freedoms for individuals, families, churches and other faith groups while also protecting the rights of our LGBT citizens in such areas as housing, employment and public accommodation in hotels, restaurants and transportation—protections which are not available in many parts of the country.” Crafty old buzzard, eh?
It is ironic that the press conference was held at the conference center which is the physical location for an important
supreme court case on religious freedom.
The case is Amos v Presiding Bishopric 483 U.S.327 (1987)
It involved a mechanical engineer and maintenance person who worked at the old Deseret Gymnasium which is now the site of the conference center.
The church instituted a requirement that everyone who worked at the Gym had to be a temple recommend holder. Mr Amos was a member but did not have a recommend. He was fired and sued. The supreme Court held that the church was within it’s rights for fire him.
A lot of the worries that gay marriage and or anti discrimination laws for gays will force religious organizations
to violate their religious principles are overblown and this case proves it. If the church can fire a mechanical engineer for not holding a temple recommend it can surely refuse to have bishops preform a gay wedding or all the other parade of horribles that were trotted out in the proposition 8 case.
I am somewhat more sympathetic to small businesses who refuse to provide personal services to gay people.(The King case about the baker in New Mexico who reused to bake a cake for a gay wedding.)
I would support a very limited religious exemption for persons providing personal service for gay weddings, baker photographers florists and so forth. I would be very hesitant to go beyond this.
I must confess if the situation involved a baker and a interracial marriage I would not support a religious exemption.
Their were and are many sincere people who believe that interracial marriages are prohibited by scripture. Before the 1978 revelation a lot of L.D.S people felt that way.
I can’t distinguish the two situations on legal or constitutional grounds but at the present time I think their are good policy reasons for the very limited religious exemption I propose.
As the statements at the press conference indicated there are going have to be some difficult compromised involving religious exemptions and gay rights but I believe they can and should be made.
It’s a thin and murky line they’re asking people to walk. If anyone finds where it is detectible or comprehensible I congratulate you. Me, I made the decision long ago to follow my conscience because that is very clear and certain for me.
Latter day Saints support of same-sex marriage is doctrinally unsound. only faithful husbands and wives may live together as husband and wife after this life. knowing this how could latter-day saints support gay marriage?
“Jesus ministered to marginalized outcasts. It’s for this reason that the church has publicly favored laws and ordinances that protect LGBT people from discrimination in housing and employment.” Sister Neill Marriott.
This is hilarious since, historically, the church has done more than its part in the “marginalizing” of these specific “outcasts”.
Everyone is still talking about gay marriage, but there was no mention of gay marriage in the press conference. The church is paddling as far away from gay marriage as it can right now. It’s a new era: defending minority positions, not imposing majority positions. We shift from offense to defense.
Re #4:
Latter day Saints support of alcohol consumption is doctrinally unsound. Only alcohol-abstinent faithful LDS husbands and wives may live together as husband and wife after this life. Knowing this how could latter-day saints support the production and sale of alcoholic beverages?
Did I mention that I’ve had some very decent wine at Marriot hotels?
I think we should be very grateful they finally learned and actually used the acronym LGBT in their
loss retreat re-framingcaring address. That’s progress!I am glad that the LDS Church has called for legislation to protect LGBT individuals from discrimination in housing and employment. I support their constitutional right to continue to discriminate against gays themselves, but hope that the day will soon come when they chose to give up that discrimination in their doctrine, policies, and practice.
Dallin Oaks is a pathetically transparent bigot. He always has been.
Winifred, I take it you didn’t read Peggy Fletcher Stack’s article in the Trib where she asked Elder Christofferson if good members could support gay marriage and he said, “yes!”
The overlay of “we’ll give this if you give that” reduces what could have been a positive statement into a cheap political tit for tat…
Kristine A – like to read the article you mentioned…details????
Then we have this unfortunate statement from Elder Oaks.
“I know that the history of the church is not to seek apologies or to give them,” Oaks said in an interview. “We sometimes look back on issues and say, ‘Maybe that was counterproductive for what we wish to achieve,’ but we look forward and not backward.”
The church doesn’t ‘seek apologies,’ he said, “and we don’t give them.”
How very Christian of us.
Wow. That is just chilling. “…and we don’t give them.”
#14 – the things that bugged me most about that was:
a) the church does issue apologies
b) Oaks said ‘sometimes we look back on issues’ in the same sentence as ‘we look forward not backward’. Clearly he means we do look backward, but we pick and choose when we fancy expressing regret, apology, or just pretending it didn’t happen.
What bothers me about the lack of apology is the implied lack of responsibility, in an area where they’ve given a lot of clear commands. If they don’t want to apologise because they don’t want to be sued/blamed for suicides of LGBT+ teens who feel they’d rather deal with the ‘sin’ of suicide and be free of their orientation than live as a hated sinner in mortality, fine, whatever, but at the very least renounce poisonous elements in Horizons/Hope for Transgressors/For the One.
Do missionaries still give lessons on the steps of repentance? Because Elder Oaks might need a refresher. He seems to have skipped right to the end.
Btw, where’s THE prophet on this issue? Taking a dementia break? If so how do we know this is God’s will vs. Oak’s will???
Aussie, Anon posted the link in 14 FYI. I’m choosing to focus on Christofferson’s statement as opposed to Oaks’ refusing to apologize statement.
We already have state constitutions, the US Constitution and civil law to protect the rights of citizens and the transaction of business.
After the debacle of Prop 8 and DOM acts actively supported by the church around the country I would suggest the church stay out of the business of drafting legislation and get on about the business of being merely decent and compassionate in the conduct of day to day life while endorsing the same for the faithful. I think the way Christ said that was, “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s…”
Thanks Anon and Kristine A. As I was reading that statement, I wondered what would be the result if a person who was summonsed to a Diciplinary Council had that attitude. No I’m not going to apologise, I’m really only looking forward…????
Judging by the vitriol spouted by the openly gay contributors to this thread, I’d say that the Church and its faithful adherents need not worry about accusations of ‘hate’. In particular, Howard, I’d say Pres. Monson is too busy and Elder Oaks does well as a presenter. You’d do well to NOT question the Prophet’s abilities, recall what happened when some kids mocked Elisha (II Kings 2:23-24). I’d say that the old boy could take you or I (or both at once) to school in a tussle of wits.
I’d say the only thing that I inherently agreed with about being in support of LGBT ‘rights’ re: housing and/or employment is that LDS members ought to comport themselves with compassion and respect for other viewpoints. I wouldn’t agree at all with the assertions of some for a legal duty on the part of PRIVATE individuals and businesses(as compared to the public sectors where LGBT folk are most certainly citizens and taxpayers too!) to take all comers and would certainly politick for changes in the various laws to ensure the inherent rights to freely (dis)associate. I see no inherent ‘right’ for a white, middle-aged, heterosexual LDS male to be afforded employment nor rented or sold housing, nor credit provided, and I’ve never felt that any so-called ‘disadvantaged’ group on whatever basis (and WHEN, pray tell, would said group(s) be deemed ADVANTAGED and therefore not in need of Government surfeit?) has any less or more ‘rights’ than yours truly.
I don’t see, however, that supporting rights of LBGT folk in employment and/or housing is contrary to the Gospel. The CURRENT prophet spoken (Elder Oaks acting as mouthpiece suffices), so that settles it. This is a political matter. For the time being, as long as the rights to freely (dis)associate are being trumped (un-constitutionally, I say, but I also say it has to be fought in the political marketplace of ideas) by ‘rights’ of folks to access to common commercial products/services, then LDS members have a duty to comply with the law. If you own property and can’t stand the thought of renting to a gay couple, sell it or don’t rent it out at all, but don’t just defy the law and expect that the Lord ‘has your back’ on it. (This is why I’ve ALWAYS solely used ‘word-of-mouth’, it’s perfectly legal for me to limit my market exposure to whomsoever I want…but once I put out that sign ‘For Rent’ or list it, then I’m legally obligated to take all who qualify).
BTW, I’ve never been against marriage ‘equality’. I’ve always maintained that a gay man can take a (female) bride. I wouldn’t advise such a union, but the gay man ought to be perfectly able to do so.
I wonder if there is a transcript or video for this interview with Elder Oaks or we are just supposed to take the journalists’ word for it that he actually said it
The journalist was Peggy Fletcher Stack who writes for the Trib. This was in a Q&A after the session. Here’s another take on the apology discussion: http://bycommonconsent.com/2015/01/28/all-apologies/
Personally, I think it was just a gaffe. He didn’t mean it to sound so stark. I think it was Sean-Hannity-speak. He’s been watching too much Fox News.
Confused at how mandating non-prejudice for housing, employment, etc is a basic right but not marriage.
Don’t see how both can be argued.
Douglas, has anyone on this thread identified him or herself as being openly gay, or are you just using that descriptor as a lazy pejorative? I’m perfectly capable of “spouting vitriol” towards the likes of oaks and holland on this issue without being gay, openly or otherwise. And frankly, I’m perfectly happy to own my feelings towards them. In this case, however, those feelings are judgments based on the words and actions of particular individuals, not because of a class or group to which they belong.
#22 In case it matters, I am not gay but, purely as a civil rights matter, it has been clear to me for decades that discrimination is wrong and targeting a minority group for special exclusion from basic civil rights is not only in flat out violation of the US Constitution but evil.
In the matter of President Monson, I can’t think of a time when the prophet is more essential for leadership and if he’s too busy to concern himself with the LGBT issue he might address himself to a church in turmoil.
Just in case there are some out there that didn’t know, Christofferson and Oaks just finished a “Google Chat” with Jennifer Pearce of the Tribune on her “TribTalk” series. It was much more productive than the press conference:
http://www.sltrib.com/home/2112602-155/tomorrow-at-115-pm-lds-leaders
#26 (Brjones) – In case you wondered, no, I didn’t have you in mind. The ones that I’d mentioned have openly discussed their being gay in other threads, and by coincidence it seems to be they that spew forth rude and hateful things towards LDS Church leaders. They can leave the Church, but they can’t leave it alone. But you’re right, you don’t HAVE to be gay to ‘spew vitirol’, and I wouldn’t be proud of it if I were you. However, methinks you’re not in danger of being pounced by ravenous female ursine critters, unless you’re part of a mob of unruly young men such as likely the Prophet Elisha faced (what most bible commentators agree was the likely circumstances of the ‘she-bears’ incident). ‘Feelings’ you can ‘own’ however you wish, I’d never suggest any ‘thought control’ (and no dark sarcasm in the classroom…). Still, even adversaries can show respect, which tends to uplift what they’re contending for.
#25 (jpv) – it’s not a question of “rights” as much as definition. LGBT folk contend that their unions, freely entered into as consenting adults (which IS their right and thanks goodness for that Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas, 2003, FINALLY got the several states and Federal government out of the bedrooms of said consenting adults), are deserving of legal status the same as the ‘traditional’ union of a man and a woman. Of course, the LDS Church is but one party among many that recoil in horror at such a notion and contend that there is no ‘right’ to marry in the same context of discrimination.
The only trouble is, while I might contend that states neither owe a duty to recognize gay unions as marriages consummated within their borders nor give full faith and credit to such marriages solemnized in other states, the several states ARE perfectly able to legislate them. That’s why I felt that a Federal ‘Defense of Marriage’ Act, though well-intentioned, was a wrong-headed approach…e.g., running roughshod over the Ninth and Tenth Amendments is not how I’d have upheld ‘traditional’ marriage.
I know many of commenters here, and there is only 1 commenter (2 comments) above from an openly gay commenter than I am aware of. 28 of 30 comments above are either from straight people or if they are gay, then they are not openly gay.
I rarely comment about things Douglas says anymore, because the things he says are rarely based in fact. He does seem to have an aversion to gays; and he NEVER puts forth anything insightful whenever he comments.
MH, the point of identifying a couple of what the late Spiro Agnew would have termed “Nattering Nabobs of Negativism” (actually coined by William Safire, Nixon’s speechwriter) as being “openly gay” is not to decry their gayness, but to point out that they holler for “tolerance” and “consideration”, yet in their demeanor they don’t give it to those they oppose. Apparently in the liberal and/or LGBT mind, courtesy and decency are the sole duty and prerogative of the religious conservatives. Fine. I’m simply pointing out this rank hypocrisy on their part.
As for your own rather dubious characterization of my posts, fine, opinions vary. Sometimes you knock one into the bleachers, at other times you swing and miss badly. Other than when I’m merely stating OPINION, wherein are my citations NOT based in fact? I’m calling you out on that one, sir, and put up, else you owe me an apology. I doubt you have the fortitude…
I don’t have an aversion to gays per se, I know several and their lifestyle is of no issue to me. My objection is to the imposition of a radical LGBT agenda to impede religious freedom and to use schools and other public institutions to indoctrinate our children against OUR values. Do not kid yourselves about these radicals, which are a small but vociferous element of the gay community. If we fail to oppose their half-baked ideas now this country will reap a harvest of sorrow. Keep in mind the lesson of history: the Bolsheviks (later renamed Communists) were but a minor faction that had very little role in overthrowing the Czar or were even the major “Socialist” party…but in only a few months (and Lenin had even fled Russia in July 1918, three months before he assumed power) they’d assumed effective control…and the unfortunate peoples of the ‘Soviet Union’ paid a horrific price in their loss of freedoms and millions of their own dead (outpacing EVEN Hitler) for the next 75 years. That’s the advantage of being old enough to remember the “Commie Rats” but young enough to not have forgotten.
Here’s evidence of you not paying any attention to facts: “Judging by the vitriol spouted by the openly gay contributors to this thread…” to which I responded “28 of 30 comments above are either from straight people or if they are gay, then they are not openly gay.”
I’m not sure why you felt the need for me to point it out again, I guess you can’t read either. Even reading the comments from the token openly gay guy, his comments were sarcastic, but can hardly be classified as vitriolic, and they certainly weren’t pointed at you, who hadn’t even joined the conversation at that point.
(Doing some catching up…)
How hard is it – I mean, winifred (#4), how hard is it for others, to understand the difference between an LDS eternal temple sealing, which is and will probably continue to be solely between a man and a woman, and a civil marriage performed by an authorized agent of the government? “Doctrinally unsound” to marry civilly? That’s at least as ludicrous as it is bigoted. “Civil rights,” as opposed to human rights, are whatever the government says they are. Those marriages “are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end [the new and everlasting covenant] have an end when men are dead.” The Church’s rightful concern with marriage should be the building of stable families (not the destruction or prevention thereof) during mortality and the facilitation of eternal families where possible and desirable.