15 replies to this topic

[Daniel2]

Given the timing of this election season, this news is surprising to me.  I imagine many won't find it too surprising, though.

It's worth noting that the article clarifies that the church is not institutionally involved--rather, the "Mormons" mentioned in the headline are individuals acting of their own accord, as well as indicating that there's a coalition of churches also engaged in the effort.

Daniel


Mormons working to overturn Md. marriage law
http://www.washingto...d-marriage-law/
April 6, 2012


LDS Temple (photo from wikimedia by Joe Ravi)

Members of the Mormon Church in Maryland are working to overturn the state’s recently passed marriage equality law, according to an email obtained by the Washington Blade.

In the message dated March 29 sent to D.C. and Southern Maryland-area church members, the writer states that a coalition of inter-denominational Maryland churches has joined to place a referendum before voters in November on the marriage law before it goes into effect.

“We need to collect approximately 200,000 signatures by the end of May,” the email states. “We are looking for people to gather signatures within the LDS community.”

LDS refers to the church’s formal name, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Those involved with the effort have told the Blade the message isn’t an official message from church leadership either at the local level or from its headquarters in Salt Lake City, but is rather part of a local ad hoc effort to challenge Maryland’s marriage law.

The email says the “important effort” is being led by Martha Schaerr, an LDS member who’s organizing signature collection within Montgomery County and within the church. Another named organizer in the email is Teressa Wallace.

An informed source said the email was sent to the entire congregation in D.C. and Southern Maryland, which consists of between 500 and 1,500 church members and former members. According to the source, the author is Wallace, one of the named organizers in the email and wife of one of the junior pastors of the congregation.

Only 55,736 valid signatures are needed to force a ballot measure in Maryland. The stated goal of obtaining 200,000 signatures is likely an attempt to over deliver in case the validity of some signatures is challenged.

According to the email, church members interested in organizing training sessions are required to attend a 30-minute training session, “due to the stringent Maryland laws concerning referendums.”

“There will be several training sessions offered, but if transportation to them is a problem for you, a trainer would be happy to meet with you at a more convenient time and location,” the email states.

The email says the Mormon Church is “neutral on matters of party politics,” but asks that members take an active role in civic duties.

“The Church does encourage its members to play a role as responsible citizens, including becoming informed about issues and voting in elections, and becoming engaged in the political process in an informed and civil manner,” the email states. “Please consider helping with this very important effort. Every signature is important and every little bit helps!”

In an email to the Blade, Schaerr said she’s organizing against the Maryland marriage law not out of any guidance or pressure from the church, but on her own accord.

“My understanding of the religious principles taught by  the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in ‘The Proclamation on the Family,’ the scriptures and numerous statements by church leaders has informed my conscience, and I am seeking to follow my conscience,” the email states.

Schaerr also expressed concern that the same-sex marriage law in Maryland would stifle those who want to speak out against homosexuality.

“I believe the Maryland law extends beyond providing rights to gay couples and actually seeks to silence religious objections to same sex relationships by changing the definition of marriage,” she said.

A history of anti-gay politics

The LDS member named in the email as leading the effort, Schaerr, who failed in her bid to win a seat in 2010 on the Montgomery County School Board, isn’t a stranger to anti-gay activism.

In 2007, Schaerr was reportedly a board member of the Fairfax, Va.-based Family Leader Network, an organization that — along with Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum and Parents & Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays — led the effort against a Montgomery County law instituting lessons for 8th through 10th grade students on safe-sex practices that included gays.

According to the Gazette, Schaerr downplayed her involvement in the lawsuit against the curriculum while pursuing a seat on the school board two years ago, reportedly saying other board members wouldn’t support efforts to change the curriculum.

In an op-ed submitted to the Washington Post at the time she was running for the seat, Schaerr disputed the notion she’s anti-gay. However, she said she disagreed that schools should teach homosexuality is “inevitably innate” because she said there are other views to the contrary — even though those views are disputed by major medical and psychiatric professional associations.

“If we’re going to talk about **** sex in a health class or a condom video, it’s irresponsible not to warn students — especially gay students — about the medical evidence showing the heightened health risks of **** sex compared with vaginal sex, even with a condom,” Schaerr said.

Wallace, the other named person in the email, was also involved in the fight against the curriculum. According to an LDS publication called Meridian Magazine, Wallace objected to the gay-inclusive Montgomery County sex ed curriculum, and attended a school board meeting while holding a sign expressing her opinion. The article is no longer on the magazine’s website, but has been reposted on a Mormon online forum.

Carrie Evans, executive director of Equality Maryland, said she isn’t surprised that Mormon Church officials are playing a role in the effort to rescind the Maryland marriage law, but doesn’t think the LDS Church is the lead organization in the effort.  “We were not aware of this email, however the Mormon Church has been very vocal in its opposition to marriage equality so it is not surprising,” Evans said. “We have no reason to believe they are taking a lead role in efforts to overturn the Civil Marriage Protection Act in Maryland.”

Church disavows involvement

The Mormon Church is disavowing any involvement in the organizational effort proposed in the email.

Dale Jones, an LDS spokesperson, said the church has no direct involvement in the effort to overturn the marriage law in Maryland.

“While the Church’s position in support of traditional marriage is well established, the effort in Maryland is not being organized through the Church’s headquarters in Salt Lake City,” Jones said. “Members, of course, will make their own decisions regarding their involvement in local issues.”

But the message recalls the Mormon Church’s lead role in passage of Proposition 8 in California in 2008. The First Presidency of the Church, or its governing body, publicly backed the initiative and reportedly encouraged members during church services to take an active role in contributing money and get-out-the-vote efforts to support the ban’s passage.

According to the New York Times, Protect Marriage, the organization responsible for Prop 8, estimates that nearly half of the $40 million in donations to the initiative came from LDS members and made up 80 to 90 percent of the volunteers who walked door-to-door in election precincts.

The Mormon Church has maintained that its direct involvement with the initiative was minimal — its total contributions amounted to nearly $190,000 — and church members were supporting Prop 8 on their own accord.

The Mormon involvement in Prop 8 was largely seen as public relations setback for the church in terms of public perception.

An LGBT rights supporter, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said he’s spoken to senior church leaders and was told they want no involvement in future initiatives on marriage.

In January, a statement affirming marriage should remain between one man, one woman was reportedly read to Mormons in Minnesota as the state prepares to vote on a marriage amendment this fall. But according to Affirmation, a gay Mormon group, the statement was also read on an ad hoc basis and not under direction from church leadership.

Moreover, with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney — a Mormon — looking like he’ll be the GOP presidential nominee, many suspect the church doesn’t want to take an active role in politics to avoid the perception that Mormon officials will tell Romney how to govern if he’s elected.

Randall Thacker, senior vice president for Affirmation, said his group intends to oppose efforts within the church against same-sex marriage — whether they’re part of a church effort or an ad hoc initiative.

“Our main stance is that we’re very, of course, pro-marriage [equality],” Thacker said. “We will take a stand wherever we have to, including even ad hoc groups, but we typically are more focused on directing and confronting the church when it acts officially.”

The email comes just weeks before the Open Stories Foundation conference is set for LGBT Mormons in Washington, D.C., called ”Building Bridges of Understanding,” from April 20 to 22. Guest speakers will include Carol Lynn Pearson, an author who writes about gays in the Mormon Church, and Mitch Mayne, a gay Mormon who serves as the executive secretary in his congregation.

The full text of the email message follows:

Attention Registered Voters who are Residents of Maryland:

As you have probably heard, the Maryland legislature passed a same sex marriage bill last February. A coalition of inter-denominational churches throughout Maryland has joined together to try to get a referendum on the November ballot that would allow the residents of Maryland to vote on this bill before it becomes law. Martha Schaerr, who is a member of the LDS Church, is organizing signature collection within Montgomery County and within the LDS Church.

We need to collect approximately 200,000 signatures by the end of May. We are looking for people to gather signatures within the LDS community. If you are willing to help with this important effort please contact Martha Schaerr as soon as possible at [email protected] or Teressa Wallace at [email protected].

If you would like to volunteer, you must attend a 30 minute training session due to the stringent Maryland laws concerning referendums. To register for a session please contact us as soon as possible. There will be several training sessions offered, but if transportation to them is a problem for you, a trainer would be happy to meet with you at a more convenient time and location.

The LDS Church is neutral of matters of party politics. The Church does encourage its members to play a role as responsible citizens, including becoming informed about issues and voting in elections, and becoming engaged in the political process in an informed and civil manner. Please consider helping with this very important effort. Every signature is important and every little bit helps!

Edited by Daniel2, 06 April 2012 - 02:02 PM.

[kolipoki09]

 Daniel2, on 06 April 2012 - 01:56 PM, said:

An LGBT rights supporter, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said he’s spoken to senior church leaders and was told they want no involvement in future initiatives on marriage.

I'm wary of "anonymous informants."

However, I'd be happy if it was true. Prop 8 was (in my own view) an overreaction based on a great deal of misinformation about what proponents of marriage equality were trying to do. I initially supported it, and defended it after it was passed for over a year. But I've come to change my views on the issue and hope others might be open to reconsidering it.

I hope Martha isn't using ward membership lists to make phone calls, or using a pulpit to advocate a political agenda. If she is, the Church either needs to fess up that there's involvement in the political process or provide disciplinary action against Martha.

[calmoriah]

Quote

An informed source said the email was sent to the entire congregation in D.C. and Southern Maryland, which consists of between 500 and 1,500 church members and former members. According to the source, the author is Wallace, one of the named organizers in the email and wife of one of the junior pastors of the congregation.

I don't see how they could have managed this without using ward membership lists. I was thinking that means disciplinary action against the two women and any others involved as well or at least an announcement one is not supposed to use them.

Edited by calmoriah, 06 April 2012 - 05:36 PM.

[jwhitlock]

 calmoriah, on 06 April 2012 - 05:36 PM, said:

I don't see how they could have managed this without using ward membership lists. I was thinking that means disciplinary action against the two women and any others involved as well or at least an announcement one is not supposed to use them.

You underestimate the e-mail chain that exists in wards outside of the official membership list.  The Facebook friendings alone in any ward will probably cover a good portion of the active membership, and e-mail forwarding will cover the rest.  All you need is a very small group of members to make contact with virtually everyone in the ward.  Given that, it is very, very possible to target ward members without using membership lists.

To address the op, I'm not surprised at all.  There are a fair number of very politically active (on both sides) members of the church in the DC area. I'm familiar with the ultra-liberal Montgomery County school board and the things they were trying to foist on the schools as far as curriculum was concerned; there was a fair amount of opposition to what they were trying to do.  I think that Maryland could well become the next battleground when it comes to SSM; Virginia appears to me to be even more polarized on the subject, and given its proximity to MD, there could be some support for SSM opponents in MD coming from that area.

This could get very interesting. And I suspect that the church will become a lightning rod for attacks by SSM supporters given its high visibility in the DC area, the main symbol of which is the temple sitting right off the Beltway in a very, very liberal section of Maryland, even though its members will hardly be the only or perhaps even the main contingent of SSM opponents.

[ERayR]

 kolipoki09, on 06 April 2012 - 04:39 PM, said:

I'm wary of "anonymous informants."

However, I'd be happy if it was true. Prop 8 was (in my own view) an overreaction based on a great deal of misinformation about what proponents of marriage equality were trying to do. I initially supported it, and defended it after it was passed for over a year. But I've come to change my views on the issue and hope others might be open to reconsidering it.

I hope Martha isn't using ward membership lists to make phone calls, or using a pulpit to advocate a political agenda. If she is, the Church either needs to fess up that there's involvement in the political process or provide disciplinary action against Martha.

She is not supporting a candidate nor a political party but is working on a moral issue. She is not engaged in partisan politics.

[Log]

Bravo to Srs. Schaerr and Wallace!  They are examples of bravery and courage.  They certainly did not have to be commanded in all things.

Edited by Log, 06 April 2012 - 10:07 PM.

[kolipoki09]

 ERayR, on 06 April 2012 - 09:04 PM, said:

She is not supporting a candidate nor a political party but is working on a moral issue. She is not engaged in partisan politics.

I define "political agenda" to include, among other things, actively attempting to influence public policy to conform to a specific conceptual scheme of morality and societal order. No, she isn't endorsing a particular candidate or party, but she is using her membership in the church as a means to influence fellow church members to sign the referendum. It's one thing to encourage people to become involved in the political process (which I think is a good thing), but it's an entirely different story when a person tries to use the church as a means to advocate a highly divisive political platform. Until the church starts sending out missionaries to lecture on political issues, I don't think Latter-day Saints should play the game that way.

A few years ago our former Bishop decided he'd like to run for the state legislature. Our address is unlisted in the phone book, so the only way to really know our address (at least for our neighbors) was to pull out the old membership directory. He used a self-addressed stamped envelope and mailed it to everyone in our ward asking for donations. Had we known at the time that this was against church policy we would have said something. Either way, we didn't vote for him - though he was still elected (and retains his seat to this day).

I'm all for having Mormonism influence our thoughts, actions, and political decisions. I just think it should be a private thing.

[BCSpace]

Quote

In an email to the Blade, Schaerr said she’s organizing against the Maryland marriage law not out of any guidance or pressure from the church, but on her own accord.

“My understanding of the religious principles taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in ‘The Proclamation on the Family,’ the scriptures and numerous statements by church leaders has informed my conscience, and I am seeking to follow my conscience,” the email states.

Teach them correct principles and they will govern themselves.

[ERayR]

 kolipoki09, on 06 April 2012 - 10:58 PM, said:

I define "political agenda" to include, among other things, actively attempting to influence public policy to conform to a specific conceptual scheme of morality and societal order. No, she isn't endorsing a particular candidate or party, but she is using her membership in the church as a means to influence fellow church members to sign the referendum. It's one thing to encourage people to become involved in the political process (which I think is a good thing), but it's an entirely different story when a person tries to use the church as a means to advocate a highly divisive political platform. Until the church starts sending out missionaries to lecture on political issues, I don't think Latter-day Saints should play the game that way.

A few years ago our former Bishop decided he'd like to run for the state legislature. Our address is unlisted in the phone book, so the only way to really know our address (at least for our neighbors) was to pull out the old membership directory. He used a self-addressed stamped envelope and mailed it to everyone in our ward asking for donations. Had we known at the time that this was against church policy we would have said something. Either way, we didn't vote for him - though he was still elected (and retains his seat to this day).

I'm all for having Mormonism influence our thoughts, actions, and political decisions. I just think it should be a private thing.

It is not your definition that counts.  The regulations for not-for-profit entities allow them to actively support of oppose issues but not candidates or parties.  I think members should be involved in supporting or opposing moral issues.  If we stand meekly by we are giving the opposition control over our communities and our lives.  It only makes sense to support issues to improve our communities.  This is a moral issue that has been politicized.

Why is it not a private thing if they are not using church facilities and mailing lists.  They are on their own time, not church time.  They represent themselves, not the church.

Oh and the Bishop who violated church policy should have been called on it.  The GA's don't look favorably on breaking those rules.

Edited by ERayR, 08 April 2012 - 07:20 PM.

[kolipoki09]

 ERayR, on 08 April 2012 - 07:10 PM, said:

It is not your definition that counts.  

I never claimed it was the only definition.

 ERayR, on 08 April 2012 - 07:10 PM, said:

Why is it not a private thing if they are not using church facilities and mailing lists.  They are on their own time, not church time.  They represent themselves, not the church.

If you're able to mobilize thousands of Mormons in a largely non-Mormon state, I find it hard to believe that mailing lists weren't used at any point. My problem is that they're using their membership in the church as a means to advocate a political position. Sure, they may be speaking on their own behalf and not on behalf of the church, but they're still using their affiliation as church members to publicize their opposition to a marriage equality law.

It's one thing to talk about it as a group of friends after church (group soup luncheons are a personal favorite of mine), but to go on the record and say that you're trying to mobilize Mormons to vote a certain way without a church sanction is bothersome to me. It becomes especially problematic when one's faithfulness to the church and to the gospel is brought into question when one fails to heed the rallying cry to "support issues" deemed to "improve our communities." What if I believe that marriage equality won't cause society to crumble? What if I believe that I can be a good Mormon and be tolerant and accepting of my LGBT neighbors, both in and out of my faith? What if I believe marriage equality can be and is a force of good? These are all rhetorical, but I know I'd be personally upset if "so and so from the ward" called me urging me to vote a certain way, regardless of whether I supported or opposed the issue at hand.

[ERayR]

 kolipoki09, on 09 April 2012 - 12:36 AM, said:

I never claimed it was the only definition.





If you're able to mobilize thousands of Mormons in a largely non-Mormon state, I find it hard to believe that mailing lists weren't used at any point. My problem is that they're using their membership in the church as a means to advocate a political position. Sure, they may be speaking on their own behalf and not on behalf of the church, but they're still using their affiliation as church members to publicize their opposition to a marriage equality law.

It's one thing to talk about it as a group of friends after church (group soup luncheons are a personal favorite of mine), but to go on the record and say that you're trying to mobilize Mormons to vote a certain way without a church sanction is bothersome to me. It becomes especially problematic when one's faithfulness to the church and to the gospel is brought into question when one fails to heed the rallying cry to "support issues" deemed to "improve our communities." What if I believe that marriage equality won't cause society to crumble? What if I believe that I can be a good Mormon and be tolerant and accepting of my LGBT neighbors, both in and out of my faith? What if I believe marriage equality can be and is a force of good? These are all rhetorical, but I know I'd be personally upset if "so and so from the ward" called me urging me to vote a certain way, regardless of whether I supported or opposed the issue at hand.

Again you call it a political issue.  It is a moral issue that has been politicized.  Also you are assuming they have used church directories to make contact lists without any evidence.  I say that using the internet and contacting friend and having them contact friend, etc, etc, that in a week the contact list is compiled without church lists.

You have the right to believe what you want about "marriage equality" and have the right to direct your efforts to supporting your position in any legal way you want.  Please allow others the same prerogative.  If you get that call from a ward member just politely ask them to refrain from calling you.  I get calls all the time from people from various organizations wanting my support.  Some I agree with some I don't.  For those I don't agree with I politely ask to be removed from their calling list. It is only after the 5th or 6th call that I get testy.

[Jeff K.]

 kolipoki09, on 09 April 2012 - 12:36 AM, said:

I never claimed it was the only definition.





If you're able to mobilize thousands of Mormons in a largely non-Mormon state, I find it hard to believe that mailing lists weren't used at any point. My problem is that they're using their membership in the church as a means to advocate a political position. Sure, they may be speaking on their own behalf and not on behalf of the church, but they're still using their affiliation as church members to publicize their opposition to a marriage equality law.

It's one thing to talk about it as a group of friends after church (group soup luncheons are a personal favorite of mine), but to go on the record and say that you're trying to mobilize Mormons to vote a certain way without a church sanction is bothersome to me. It becomes especially problematic when one's faithfulness to the church and to the gospel is brought into question when one fails to heed the rallying cry to "support issues" deemed to "improve our communities." What if I believe that marriage equality won't cause society to crumble? What if I believe that I can be a good Mormon and be tolerant and accepting of my LGBT neighbors, both in and out of my faith? What if I believe marriage equality can be and is a force of good? These are all rhetorical, but I know I'd be personally upset if "so and so from the ward" called me urging me to vote a certain way, regardless of whether I supported or opposed the issue at hand.

You make a number of assumptions.  Among them being the judgement of faitfulness of members who decline to participate.  Such a thing is private between the person and the Lord.  Your assumption implies that somehow the church has no real connection with God and therefore is like any organization with a system that responds to members and not to God.  I think this is a fatal error.  Political systems do indeed respond to people/leadership (ie an oligarchy), but the church responds to God, and the acts are then affirmed by the people (for those who question such a position), I suggest a review of conference tapes).

Also I can tell you that most of my memos/emails and such are not through a ward list, but through a series of other sources such as facebook, tweets, following, and so on.  If one is isolated from society, then one can be excused for not knowing.

Political groups and moral issues often coincide and sometimes differ.  When churches fought against slavery for instance, they did so based on biblical principles, as did those who opposed freeing slaves (though one must admit the Old Testament allowed only a 7 year period for which one might be a slave, not a lifetime).  So did that make slavery merely political or did it make it moral?  In the same sense, the sanctity of marriage between a man and woman is the result of a moral understanding of stand, biblically rooted.  Not politically.

In politics the parameters are utilitarian, however in regard to marriage, the question is moral.

[Avatar4321]

You're surprised that Mormons would get involved on issues of morality during an election season? When are they supposed to get involved, when their vote doesn't matter?

[Daniel2]

 Avatar4321, on 09 April 2012 - 02:44 PM, said:

You're surprised that Mormons would get involved on issues of morality during an election season? When are they supposed to get involved, when their vote doesn't matter?

I'll clarify my original statment by adding the italics, below:

Given the timing of this election season in which a Mormon is running for president, the church has endured a lot of negative PR over it's invovlement in Prop 8 and it's efforts over the last few months to portray itself as politically neutral, this news is surprising to me. I imagine many won't find it too surprising, though.

Perhaps that will make more sense with regards to the mild surprise I expressed.

Daniel2

Edited by Daniel2, 09 April 2012 - 03:11 PM.

[Jeff K.]

If PR were the primary concern of the church, you would be correct.  But it isn't a primary concern, or even an important one.  PR exists to explain our message, not to change it.  We cannot take into consideration that a Mormon running for president is a reason not to preach morality, or stand for moral issues.  Whether Mitt Romney or Harry Reid the message remains the same.

Edited by Jeff K., 09 April 2012 - 03:17 PM.

[Avatar4321]

You really dont understand the point of the Church, do you?