“The mountains are calling, and I must go.” —John Muir

flahute

Posts Tagged With: Mormon

Prop 8 protests in SLC

» by flahute in: Current Events on November 8th, 2008 at 13:26:30 UTC |
Thousands protest LDS stance on same-sex marriage - Salt Lake Tribune

Opponents of a measure that banned gay marriage in California took their outrage to the spiritual hub of Mormonism on Friday.

More than 3,000 people swarmed downtown Salt Lake City to march past the LDS temple and church headquarters, protesting Mormon involvement in the campaign for California’s Proposition 8. The measure, which defined marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman, passed this week.

A sea of signs in City Creek Park, where the march began, screamed out messages including, “I didn’t vote on your marriage,” “Mormons once persecuted . . . Now persecutors,” and “Jesus said love everyone.” Others read, “Proud of my two moms” and “Protect traditional marriage. Ban divorce.”

Former Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson and three openly gay state legislators, Sen. Scott McCoy and Reps. Jackie Biskupski and Christine Johnson, spoke out in support. At one point, the crowd took up the mantra made famous by the country’s new president-elect: “Yes, we can!”

Then, the masses headed west, weaving between cars, waving at those who watched from windows in the LDS Church Office Building and shouting chants such as: “What do we want? Equality! When do we want it? Now!”

The comments after the article can be very telling. One commenter asked:

What’s wrong with calling marriage and civil unions just that ?? Why do we have to use the word marriage in both cases when most feel that marriage is between husband and wife ??

Simplistic yes — but that’s the way that I want it and most of the Calif. voters feel the same way — there is a differance.

The problem with maintaining the fiction of “marriage” and “civil unions” comes down to the segregationist concept of “separate but equal”; which as was proven time and time again during the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s was never equal.

I can understand people having moral/religious qualms against marriage between two people of the same sex, but for me personally it’s about NOT legislating and especially not Constitutionalizing morality. Morality comes from within. It should not be imposed on others.

No one has ever been able to give me a rational non-religious reason for why gay marriage should be banned; no one has been able to tell me how allowing two men or two women to get married to each other damages their own marriage to the point that it needs to be “protected” by law.

If someone can give me a coherent argument on that side, maybe I’ll reconsider; but until then, personally, I must choose to support equal rights for everyone, regardless of race, creed, religion or sexual orientation.

Other people are calling for the revocation of the Church’s tax-exempt status.

The problem there is that the LDS Church is well within its rights to speak out on socio-political issues.

501(c)(3) prohibitions state that a church may not make statements that directly support or oppose a candidate or slate of candidates in a “sermon, church bulletin, on a church website or in an editorial in a church publication.” The bottom line is that § 501(c)(3) prohibits charities—including houses of worship—from endorsing or opposing candidates “either expressly or by implication.”

However, this does not mean that church leaders are not permitted to voice their opinions regarding important socio-political matters that could have profound impact on their congregations. Church leaders have always been free to speak out on moral and ethical issues at stake in pending legislation or public referenda. They may take stands on political issues such as abortion, gay rights, gun control, and health care, to name a few.

Taking away the Church’s tax-exempt status could have a profoundly negative impact on other tax-exempt organizations, such as the American Cancer Society, the San Francisco AIDS Foundation, the American Foundation for AIDS Research (AmFAR), and a host of other organizations’ ability to lobby Congress or support ballot initiatives to increase funding for research.

The Church’s position will never be changed by direct attacks; this will only bolster their opinions. What needs to happen is for active members who disagree with the Church’s position to speak up, rationally and calmly and over and over and over again. Challenge the Church to change from within.

Elsewhere, the focus should be on challenging the legality of Proposition 8 itself in the Courts. Does it constitute a Constitutional revision (which requires approval of both houses of the California State Legislature) rather than an amendment? Does it put the California Constitution into direct conflict itself, by banning same sex marriage, when the Courts have ruled that bans on same sex marriage violate the equal protection clause?

There have also been calls to boycott Utah … I need to think about this one a bit more, but part of me says that rather than boycotting Utah, gay rights activists should start organizing trips to Utah. Most Utahns are isolationists already. Boycotting may just give them a sense of relief. Instead more gay people should travel to Utah, move to Utah, and keep the issue front-and-center in Utah.

And to think I was worried about how I’d spend my post-election blog time.

Sphere: Related Content

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Ah, Utah, I don’t know thee well enough

» by flahute in: Utah on July 24th, 2008 at 23:57:40 UTC |

You just have to love Utah and its wonderfully idiotic (original language snipped, because I’ve got the word “porn” in several blog entries to help drive traffic) concept of holiday celebrations.

Today is July 24, which has some meaning to the Mormons, although I’ve no clue exactly what. Problem is that most people in the state act like it’s Christmas in July without the gifts.

Salt Lake City 1920

According to Wikipedia:

Pioneer Day (also archaically called the Day of Deliverance) is an official Utah state holiday celebrated on July 24 in the U.S. state of Utah, with some celebrations in regions of surrounding states originally settled by Mormon pioneers. It commemorates the entry of Brigham Young and the first group of Mormon Pioneers into the Salt Lake Valley on July 24, 1847, where the Latter-day Saints settled after being forced from Nauvoo, Illinois and other locations in the eastern United States. Parades, fireworks, rodeos, and other festivities help commemorate the event.

In addition to being an official holiday in Utah, Pioneer Day is considered a special occasion by many members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. On Pioneer Day, some Latter-day Saints walk portions of the Mormon Trail or reenact entering the Salt Lake Valley by handcart. Even Latter-day Saints outside of the U.S. occasionally sing Mormon folk music around July 24 in remembrance of the pioneer era.

Ah … so basically the State of Utah codified a religious holiday, in the name of “history”. Once more proof that there is little (if any) separation of church and state in Utah.

The worst parts? The DABC liquor stores are closed and they shoot off more fireworks than on the 4th of July. So aggravating! Good thing I stocked up on Stella Artois earlier this week.

Sphere: Related Content

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Gay Rights & Religious Liberty

» by flahute in: Current Events on June 17th, 2008 at 05:40:45 UTC |

Gay Rights, Religious Liberties: A Three-Act Story : NPR

Morning Edition, June 16, 2008 · As gay couples in California head to the courthouse starting Monday to get legally married, there are signs of a coming storm. Two titanic legal principles are crashing on the steps of the church, synagogue and mosque: equal treatment for same-sex couples on the one hand, and the freedom to exercise religious beliefs on the other.

The collision that will play out over the next few years will be filled with pathos on both sides.

As many of my regular readers know, before I moved to Utah, I lived in San Francisco for many, many years, and Santa Cruz prior to that. Needless to say, having spent nearly 2 decades in Northern California, the issue of gay rights has had a lot of visibility in my life … so to me, the recent California Supreme Court decision overturning the state’s ban on same-sex marriage prompted thoughts of “It’s about freakin’ time!”

I’ve always felt that it was just plain wrong to deny gay couples involved in a committed long-term and loving relationship the same basic rights that a violent, abusive husband has simply by virtue that his wife hasn’t yet filed for divorce.

And seriously, how does Adam & Steve getting married have a negative impact on Adam & Eve’s marriage?

Wedding bells chime for California same-sex couples

Lesbian rights activists Del Martin, 87, and Phyllis Lyon, 84, were the first same-sex couple to receive a marriage license in San Francisco on Monday, with Mayor Gavin Newsom presiding over their wedding ceremony.

“This is an extraordinary moment in history,” Newsom told a cheering, standing-room-only crowd at City Hall. “I think today, marriage as an institution has been strengthened.”

But this morning, I listened to the above linked (and excerpted) story on NPR’s Morning Edition … and it got me thinking about some of the other involved issues tied to gay marriage … and religious freedom.

In the story, a lesbian couple wished to have their (New Jersey) civil union ceremony performed in a Pavilion owned by a Methodist retreat center, formally known as the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association. The Methodist group gave them permission to have their ceremony anywhere on the property except those areas used for religious purposes by the group.

The couple filed an anti-discrimination suit. The NPR story continues:

The Methodist organization responded that it was their property, and the First Amendment protects their right to practice their faith without government intrusion. But Lustberg countered that the pavilion is open to everyone — and therefore the group could no more refuse to accommodate the lesbians than a restaurant owner could refuse to serve a black man. That argument carried the day. The state revoked the organization’s tax exemption for the pavilion area. Hoffman figures they will lose $20,000.

Now, with the help of the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a Christian legal firm, Hoffman is appealing the case to state court. He says religious freedom itself is in jeopardy.

“And that potentially affects every religious organization in America, not just Christian organizations, but every religious organization. And I get calls from Jewish rabbis who are equally concerned — people from across the spectrum who think it’s a battle worth fighting. And we agree,” Hoffman says.

Now, I am hardly the most religious person in the world, but I do believe that any person should be able to practice the religion of their choice … and in this particular case, I happen to agree with Reverend Hoffman; especially since the group didn’t tell the couple they couldn’t have their ceremony on the property at all, just not within structures used for religious purposes by the group.

A case like this, carried to its extreme, could mean that the the Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (and everyone else) could be forced to allow gay couples to hold their civil ceremonies (and/or marriages, in those states which currently or will ultimately allow them) on, and within Church property.

While part of me finds the idea of the Mormons being forced to allow gay weddings amusing, not only on Temple Square but within the Temple itself, a far bigger part of me feels that the members of a church should be allowed to worship as they please, and that churches should be able to disallow activity on their property that goes against their core beliefs.

I don’t equate a church refusing to allow a gay couple to “marry” on church property because it’s against their religious beliefs, with a restaurant owner refusing to serve a person simply based on the color of their skin … primarily because owning a business isn’t protected as free speech or freedom of religion, as guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Elsewhere in the overall piece is a story about a wedding photographer who was sued for discrimination because his business indicated that they would not photograph same-sex marriages because it goes against the owners’ religious beliefs.

This is a little closer to the restaurant analogy … but it’s still an iffy situation.

I’m afraid that these kinds of legal battles may lead to a backlash against the gay and lesbian community; that groups like the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association will close up their property to everyone, and only allow it to be used for religious purposes. I’m afraid that more states; less enlightened states, will put amendments banning gay marriage into their constitutions.

I’m afraid that society, while making making some huge steps forward right now, will get pushed back even further …

What are your thoughts, dear readers?

Sphere: Related Content

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

State of the State

» by flahute in: Current Events, Utah on January 23rd, 2008 at 14:03:10 UTC |

Salt Lake Tribune - Guv’s priorities: Schools, health-care reform

Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. hailed the state’s vibrant economy and growth, but challenged lawmakers Tuesday to do more to help the Utah’s uninsured and invest in Utah’s schools.

It was Huntsman’s first State of the State speech given in the House of Representatives chamber, which closed in 2004 for a $227 million restoration project.

The governor did not offer many details and did not offer sweeping new policy proposals, but focused on the two items - education and health-care reform - that have topped his agenda for the 2008 legislative session.

Are we sure this man is a Republican? It will be interesting to see what his specific proposals are, and how the Republican-dominated Legislature reacts.

When Huntsman was first running for Governor, against Democrat Scott Matheson, I had to do a considerable amount of thinking to figure out who to vote for. I agreed with more of Matheson’s positions on policy, but there was a fair amount of overlap in Huntsman’s positions as well, and Huntsman is a far more dynamic and charismatic individual, which I think goes a long way towards accomplishing goals.

… ultimately, I did vote Matheson, because Utah needs as many Democratic votes as it can get, but I wasn’t unhappy that Huntsman won; and for the most part, I haven’t been unhappy with his tenure in office.

So now, heading into another gubernatorial election year, I’m looking forward to seeing who runs against Huntsman, and how they really try to distinguish themselves; because if they’re not incredible enough, I just might find myself voting for one Mormon Republican this year.

Sphere: Related Content

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Add to Technorati Favorites PageRank