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.
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."
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."
Comments
Churches need to only adjust to be more like Jesus and the Word. You can't change the world by changing the church to look and act like the world. Jesus drew folks through signs and wonders and we are to do the same. Those churches that choose not to do that usually turn to entertainment or taking up some cause to get a crowd. Jesus said to go and do greater works than He did. Don't be PC; be JC (Jesus Christ).
I want Donny Osmond to come on tv and explain this one. Wait till General Conference and Church President Monson tries to explain the abrupt reversal. There must have been threats of lawsuits and revocation of their tax-free status in Utah, just like when they did an about-face on blacks.
Hey Corgi, are Mormons Nazis too, like you said Catholics were?
Do you think there weren't Catholic Nazis? Go visit the Holocaust museum and see their perspective. You need to read your history books. Here's a start: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/pius.html Look at all the citations at the end of the article. Read your American WWII history, too. There have been many books and papers about the role the Catholic Church played in World War II. And it took years for the Catholic Church to apologize.
Absolutely right, corgimom. Even the current Pope is tainted with Nazism.
I don't know, because I'm not Catholic. And because I'm not, I don't care what he is or isn't tinged with. You can't change history, and most of history is filled with people doing things that, in hindsight, is ugly.
Here's the logical deal. I'm not Catholic. However, Catholicism is a Christian denomination. At least that's certainly what they teach. Christianity is absolutely, positively, 100% against murder (hence, the Catholic stance against abortion). If Catholic doctrine rejects murder, then anyone who willfully commits murder or commiserates with a murder has rejected Catholic doctrine, and therefore, is not a real Catholic. Did some who claimed to be Catholic assist the Nazis? Surely so. However, in so doing, they demonstrated that they were in no way a true Catholic (who cannot condone murder). So no, logically, there could not have been any true Catholic Nazis. Oil and water. There were those who claimed to be Catholic who may have assisted the Nazis, but no real Catholic could ever condone murder (that's why I believe that those who so freely support abortion, like Ted Kennedy, are Catholics in name only, but not in reality). It's like so many out there who claim to be "Christian", but don't have a clue. You have to dig under the surface to find the truth, rather than just make assumptions.
Oh no. Howcanweknow, you are one of two AC hero posters of mine. I'm going to have to kindly and respectfully disagree with that logic. Sorry, it's not a proof. Using that same logic, none of us are Christians because we *all* eventually go against what Christianity teaches, you and I included. I don't believe you're going to have any luck with defining "true Catholic" or "real Catholic." And what of all of the Catholic priests raping little boys? Not true Catholics? Catholicism takes the hit. They're going to have to be responsible for their "rogue" representatives, Hitler included. You're still a great guy in my book, though. Keep up the good fight.
On a related note: I was born and raised Catholic but ran as fast as I could from Catholicism when I was old enough to read and think for myself. I've always denounced Catholicism since then. Get this, Hitler can make many public claims to Catholicism, and the Catholics denounce him as ever being a "true Catholic." While I publicly denounce Catholicism, wasn't Catholic after the age of 12, non-denominational ever since, Mr. Michael Roverse, catholic priest here in Augusta, calls me to tell me he's going to have to denounce my marriage to my wife (now ex wife) as not being a "true marriage" in the eyes of the Catholic church because they"claim" me as Catholic, using my communion as basis, and also as the end-run around any possible tribunal. Why? So they could get her and her new fiance doctor married into the church and in on the tithing to pay for the law suits for raping the little boys (they are definitely hurting financially from the law suits, one can't deny that). So please, enough with true Catholic. Those clowns play with too many definitions as it is. If you take the best of Catholics, you're going to have to take the worst of them as well.
I agree, sdfsdf, but what I"m trying to say is that no real Catholic or real Christian can persist in a lifestyle that is so contrary to the New Testament. Sure, we all fall away, at times. No one is perfect. Maybe a Catholic did collaborate with a Nazi under fear of their own safety, but I do not believe a real Christian could consistently practice a pattern of sending others to their death -- even under penalty of their own death. Does that make sense? Of course, I've never been threatened with death myself, so I realize I'm speaking hypothetically here. But, I'd still think that no Christian can willfully and consistently betray the teachings they hold so dear; at least not on a consistent lifestyle basis. The Holy Spirit would not allow such rebellion to go without a terrible plague of consciousness, don't you think? Could a "real" Catholic priest consistently molest a child? I sure don't think so. In my book, that guy gave up his priesthood and turned his back on God's teaching. But again, I'm just voicing an opinion here, and don't speak with first-hand knowledge myself. Thanks for the words.
I hear you. A couple of things here. 1. I know you started with Christianity but Catholicism is a bad example to support what you're saying. Think absolution and the ridiculous confessional. How many times will Jesus forgive the molesting Catholic priest? Only once? 2. Did you mean "plague of conscience?" The problem with that argument is in its premise. For many, there is no conscience. Contrary to popular belief, not everyone was born with a conscience. Are the conscienceless not "true" Catholics/Christians? And don't you think that when you start giving a determination of exactly at what point a Christian went from true Christian to false Christian that you are starting to take the form of judging? I hate to say it, but that may be the closest thing to "judging" that I've seen here at AC. Can you clear that up? I'd like to understand you.
The Augusta Chronicle ©2012. All Rights Reserved.
