Mormons Support Gay Rights?
By Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy on November 12, 2009 at 10:45 AM in Bloggers, Current Affairs, DNC, Gay Rights, Linda Anselmi, Obama Comrades, Obama's Broken Promises, Religion
When NQ faithful reader, Doc99, sent me this article, I had to check that it wasn’t from The Onion, or any other satire site. But no, this is for real, “Mormons Throw Support Behind Gay-Rights Cause.”
Well, I’ll be a monkey’s uncle. Sure never saw THAT one coming. I’ll give you a moment to recover from the shock.
Okay. So, yeah - check out what brought this about for the Mormon Church:
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.On Tuesday night, after a series of clandestine meetings between local gay-rights backers and Mormons in Salt Lake City, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced it would support proposed city laws that would prohibit discrimination against gays in housing and employment.
The ordinances passed and history was made: It marked the first time the Salt Lake City-based church had supported gay-rights legislation.
The Mormon church — which continues to suffer a backlash over its support last year of Proposition 8, the measure banning gay marriage in California — emphasized that its latest position in no way contradicts its teachings on homosexuality.
But the action is one of the strongest signs yet that even conservative religious groups that oppose same-sex marriage might be willing to support legal protections for gays that fall short of that.
Well, that is good news. Personally, I felt like the Mormon Church was being used as a bit of a scapegoat in CA. Sure, they supported Prop 8, but apparently, so did the majority of Californians. It’s a hard truth to swallow, but the evidence is indisputable. The majority voted for Proposition 8. Are you telling me that that many Californians could be swayed to violate their internal beliefs by the Mormons? Really? Exactly.
More about the Church:
At the same time, the church’s position has angered some of its conservative allies on social issues, prompted questions about whether public relations is its real motivation, and put the church on the spot over how far it will go on similar legislation on the state and federal level.“This is a very good public relations response that has the additional benefit of actually representing the way the current church leadership thinks,” said Armand Mauss, a retired professor at Washington State University and scholar of Mormonism.
Some of the church’s conservative allies in the gay marriage battles, however, call it a setback. The two new ordinances make it illegal to fire or evict someone for being gay, bisexual or transgender.
Such legislation robs employers and landlords of their rights and gives legal ammunition to judges sympathetic to gay marriage, said Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies at the conservative Family Research Council.
“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,” Sprigg said.
Michael Otterson, director of public affairs for the Mormon church, said Wednesday that church leaders were able to support the ordinance because it doesn’t carve out special rights for gays.
Supporting “basic civil values,” Otterson said, does not compromise the church’s religious belief that homosexuality is a sin and that same-sex marriage poses a threat to traditional marriage.
“There are going to be gay advocates who don’t think we’ve gone nearly far enough, and people very conservative who think we’ve gone too far,” Otterson said. “The vast majority of people are between those polar extremes and we think that’s going to resonate with people on the basis of fair-mindedness.”
The position is not a reversal, Otterson said. 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.”
I have to admit - given the attacks on the Mormon Church, I am a tad surprised to see this is their position. Honestly, that’s more progressive than many people would believe. More than I would have believed had I not read it for myself. The way in which the Mormons have been demonized by LGBT rights activists and supporters, one would have thought the Mormons were the Devil Incarnate. Evidently not:
Church officials say the city ordinances were not discussed in the recent meetings between church staff and gay rights leaders, and that it was the mayor who put the proposals on the table.Harry Knox, director of the religion and faith program at the gay-rights group Human Rights Campaign, said the Mormon church’s stand on the Salt Lake City ordinances could help alter the debate over gay rights.
“The church deserves credit, but that credit really comes because people have been pushing for it,” Knox said. “It’s not something thing they arrived at on their own and out of the goodness of their hearts.”
The church’s action is the latest sign of a softening among some conservative Christians toward offering some legal protections to gays.
Activists are trying to garner support from evangelicals for a federal employment anti-discrimination law that would cover gays. However, religious reaction was largely negative to a federal hate crimes act protecting homosexuals that President Barack Obama recently signed into law. Several conservative Christian groups argued that preaching against homosexuality could be deemed a hate crime under the legislation.
The Mormon church has not taken a stance on either piece of federal legislation.
Otterson, the church spokesman, said that in the case of the Salt Lake City ordinances, Mormon leaders weighed in because they were responding to a request for feedback on specific legislation.
Asked whether the church would take a stand on similar state or federal legislation, Otterson said: “The church leadership is not inclined to offer free advice where it’s not being requested.”
Well, that’s an interesting response. But the rest of it is a bit eye-opening for a church that has been completely demonized by liberals. Perhaps, at some point, they might actually have to start looking at just who it was who voted for Prop 8. I guarantee you, they weren’t all Mormons…
And speaking of religious types, it seems Donnie McClurkin, Obama’s big campaign buddy, has been out and about spewing hate against the GLBT community. Oh, yes. No doubt, Jesus told him to call us “vampires,” and “perversions.” Yep:
The last time we heard from Donnie McClurkin, he was campaigning with Barack Obama. At the Obama campaign event, you may recall, McClurkin harangued gays for over thirty minutes and proclaimed:“God delivered me from homosexuality.”
Well, McClurkin is back. This weekend, he re-emerged spewing homophobic hate in Memphis. Rod 2.0 reports:
Donnie McClurkin ramps up the ridiculous to speak in tongues and call gays “vampires”. The infamously “ex-gay” — or should we say merely “re-closeted” — Grammy Award winning gospel singer and evangelist rants against gays, gay youth and recently out gospel singer Tonex at the Church of God in Christ’s Holy Convocation Youth Service. This happened last Saturday at the COGIC convention in Memphis.
Oh, it doesn’t stop there: I
n the first of three disgusting YouTube videos, McClurkin begins his rant against Tonex, the gospel star and minister who recently confirmed his long-rumored sexuality. McClurkin says Tonex is a “perversion” and must pray away the gay: “God did not call young people to such peversion. Society has failed him, his church has failed him … I would be homosexual to this day if Jesus hadn’t delivered.”McClurkin also rails against against openly gay youth as “broken and feminine”: “I see feminine men, feminine boys, everywhere I go … No, don’t applaud ‘cuz it ain’t funny. It’s because we failed. I see them everywhere.”
Rod has posted the three videos of McClurkin’s rant. Check them out. It’s ugly.
Again, it begs the question: why did people in the GLBT community ever think Obama stood with them considering the people with whom he surrounded himself?
I might add, if you really want to see where the community is these days, check out some of comments at posts that have anything to do with the DNC at Gay Americablog - I know Aravosis was an Obama water carrier. He sems to have realized the error of his ways. TOo late, I know, but nothing like being scorned, right? The anger in the comments is palpable by people in the GLBT community at Obama and the DNC. Hence the latest, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Give” campaign being generated against the DNC. Oh, yeah. They are shutting down their wallets. About damn time, too, if you ask me.
That is to say, Upside Down World continues - the Mormon Church is supporting a number of GLBT rights, Obama’s good buddy is ranting against GLBT people, and the is dragging its feet. Maybe it’s because of its new leadership - Gov. Tim Kaine, homophobe. Okey dokey.
I think I need to sit down now.
(Release: November 13)
on sale for only $16.95.
has a spatula.)
And check out these: 
("This crazy redhead is on to something. Her pink Rambler story alone is worth the price of the book," writes 
- “Richard Sale’s reportage on Washington, the CIA, the American armed forces, and foreign intrigue has created a perfect background for this account of the steady growth of President Clinton as a master of the game of nations.”--W. Patrick Lang, former head of Middle East Operations, DIA
"Anne C. Heller's stunning biography of Ayn Rand" uses a "plethora of newly unearthed research and fresh insight."
How about a nice cup of herb tea?
*Hugs* to you for standing up for human rights.
That’s better than nothing and is a good start, but it reminds me:
“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
(Civil) marriage must be the same for all. The equal protection clause demands it.
From Section 1, Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution:
“…No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Religious institutions can prohibit same-sex marriages from being performed by their clergy as is their right.
Was just thinking that when you make same-sex marriage a ballot question such as Prop 8, the minority (lesbians and gays) are most assuredly going to lose.
This is why most of our laws are made by legislatures and court precedence. Many times, it is up to our elected officials and courts to stand up against the masses, when it comes to protecting minorities.
If you put interracial marriage as a ballot question 60 years ago, interracial couples would have lost the right to marry. It took the courts to fix this injustice. Wiki entry:
Good point, there, Gal!
I made myself another double cappuccino. That helped steady me!
Double cappuccino sounds wonderful! The caffeine buzz is one of the few I regularly indulge in. In fact, my blood must be 99% organic fair-trade coffee.
People need to realize in order for everyone to have liberty, you can’t deny liberty to a small group, even if in granting them liberty it goes against your own beliefs and the views of the majority.
What if by some strange twist of fate nature threw humanity a curve ball and some virus made babies being born 90% homosexual and 10% heterosexual? Would now the majority rule when they grew up and make opposite sex civil marriage illegal?
My point is: liberty has a price. And by the way, the Chicken Little’s of America were wrong in their weather forecast: they sky has not fallen in states where marriage equality is the law. And it won’t fall when eventually its the law of the entire land, as equal treatment demands.
Rev. Amy kindly rescue comment-1276243. Tanks!
NP, sorry for the delay. Cannot imagine why it snagged it…
Maybe spammers are spamming the type of coffee I drink?
And thanks for the rescue.
Sorry OT:
OBAMACARE ENDORSEMENTS: WHAT THE BRIBE WAS
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on TheHill.com on November 6, 2009
As the suicidal Democratic congressmen proceed to rubber-stamp the Obama healthcare reform despite the drubbing their party took in the ‘09 elections, the president trotted out the endorsements of the AMA and the AARP to stimulate support. But these — and the other endorsements — his package has received are all bought and paid for.
Here are the deals:
* The American Medical Association (AMA) was facing a 21 percent cut in physicians’ reimbursements under the current law. Obama promised to kill the cut if they backed his bill. The cuts are the fruit of a law requiring annual 5-6 percent reductions in doctor reimbursements for treating Medicare patients. Bravely, each year Congress has rolled the cuts over, suspending them but not repealing them. So each year, the accumulated cuts threaten doctors. By now, they have risen to 21 percent. With this blackmail leverage, Obama compelled the AMA to support his bill…or else!
* The AARP got a financial windfall in return for its support of the healthcare bill. Over the past decade, the AARP has morphed from an advocacy group to an insurance company (through its subsidiary company). It is one of the main suppliers of Medi-gap insurance, a high-cost, privately purchased coverage that picks up where Medicare leaves off. But President Bush-43 passed the Medicare Advantage program, which offered a subsidized, lower-cost alternative to Medi-gap. Under Medicare Advantage, the elderly get all the extra coverage they need plus coordinated, well-managed care, usually by the same physician. So more than 10 million seniors went with Medicare Advantage, cutting into AARP Medi-gap revenues.
Presto! Obama solved their problem. He eliminates subsidies for Medicare Advantage. The elderly will have to pay more for coverage under Medigap, but the AARP — which supposedly represents them — will make more money. (If this galls you, join the American Seniors Association, the alternative group; contact sbarton@americanseniors.org. This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .)
* The drug industry backed ObamaCare and, in return, got a 10-year limit of $80 billion on cuts in prescription drug costs. (A drop in the bucket of their almost $3 trillion projected cost over the next decade.) They also got administration assurances that it will continue to bar lower-cost Canadian drugs from coming into the U.S. All it had to do was put its formidable advertising budget at the disposal of the administration.
* Insurance companies got access to 40 million potential new customers. But when the Senate Finance Committee lowered the fine that would be imposed on those who don’t buy insurance from $3,500 to $1,500, the insurance companies jumped ship and now oppose the bill, albeit for the worst of motives.
The only industry that refused to knuckle under was the medical device makers. They stood for principle and wouldn’t go along with Obama’s blackmail. So the Senate Finance Committee retaliated by imposing a tax on medical devices such as automated wheelchairs, pacemakers, arterial stents, prosthetic limbs, artificial knees and hips and other necessary accoutrements of healthcare.
So these endorsements are not freely given, but bought and paid for by an administration that is intent on passing its program at any cost.
Who is surprised?
*Crickets*
Anni what the news behind Lou Dobs leaving CNN? Mr. Independent Himself, is no longer part of the CNN.
I say good for Lou.
Amy, I applaud you for plucking this material out on the Mormon Church and offering it up for our consideration.
From where I sit, admittedly a straight woman, the Morman position does show movement and I think is indicative of the evolution in thought for some [not all] very conservative institutions. The Mormon Church was not willing to support city laws that would prohibit discrimination against gays in housing and employment.
They don’t feel comfortable with the marriage issue yet, but this is certainly a step in the right direction. I think it’s a positive sign that they were willing to be nudged. And that’s a good thing. How can any religious body deny basic civil rights to any of its members or to any swath of the American public? It flies in the face of what the Christian ethic is suppose to be all about.
As for McClurkin seeing feminine men “everywhere.” Perhaps, he’s looking too hard! Too often, we see those who condemn the most, those so quick to point out evil and “sin,” as being the biggest hypocrits of all.
Obama is either a piss poor judge of character or he’s chosen his inner circle to reflect his own personal point of view.
Either way, it’s not a good sign.
Thanks for the update!
Peggy Sue - thanks. I gotta say, when Doc99 sent me the link, I really couldn’t believe it!
I made the mistake of watching one of the videos of McClurkin earlier today. Holy smokes - talk abt your anti-gay diatribe. It was horrifying. And this is one of Obama’s cohorts.
WHY people didn’t pay more attention to this before is beyond me. Obama put this guy on a national stage, and this is what he is doing on it. Great.
I don’t believe the majority of Californians are against gay marriage. I just think it’s easier to get out the vote with the ones who are.
Add the Mormons, the increased black vote, and the complacency of the people who thought we were comfortably heading for legal gay marriage and you end up with this result.
Don’t get too excited about the Mormons. This is a response to a totally local political issue. There is a large per capita gay community in Salt Lake City. It is politically prudent for the church to agree rather than have their blessed Temple Square and world headquarters of the church picketed in downtown Salt Lake City. The new governor, Herbert, even took the stance that the state didn’t have to agree. So, this is just a political bone thrown to Salt Lake City’s gay population.
This isn’t a stepping stone to more open acceptance or a change of heart. The church is just agreeing to a civil rights issue that could in essence effect anyone.
“Just a bone thrown to SLT’s gay population…” Yeah, that may well be, but it is still a good thing any time Constitutional rights are recognized, don’t you think?
Bravo Amy.
Great post.
Constitutional rights, true. But, the mormons aren’t going to change their doctrine.
Reality.