Article: Mormon Church Abandons Its Crusade Against Gay Marriage

[jwhitlock]

As much as I would like to be proven wrong on that score, time will tell.

I don't think we're going to have too long to wait.

[Stone holm]

I keep having to correct you, evidently. I did not say that you were inaccurate, I said that I suspected that your perception of what happened was colored by your perspective, and so was suspect, at least in my mind.

Making an accusation against the church of being anti-gay means that you have to provide concrete evidence that gays are actively persecuted and that rights available to others are denied them. Opposition to agendas pushed by gay activists does not in and of itself brand any organization or person as being anti-gay, though gay activists want us to believe that it does. The fact remains that gays have all the rights available to anyone else within the structure as currently established. The church, as far as I am aware, has not ever been a party to denying gays any right available to anyone else. That is significant evidence that they are not anti-gay.

What we have a problem with - and this applies to any special interest group - are demands that existing rights be restructured only to benefit narrow special interest groups. Such social experimentation creates elite categories of protected classes that have rights above anyone else.

SSM, for instance, is a special right being demanded only by certain narrow, but very vocal, activist groups within the gay community. From what I am reading, there appear to be far more gays who either don't care or are actively opposed to SSM. Where SSM has been legalized, marriage statistics for gay couples remain well below those of the general population by any standard of comparison. Indeed, there are more gays in mixed gender marriages by far than there are in same sex marriages - another indication that gays do have and do take advantage of rights available to all of the rest of us.

I reject your claim that legislative activity by the church amounts to imposing our religious beliefs on others. That's a rationalization whose only purpose is to try to push the church and its members out of the political arena so others can have free reign to impose their own agendas and beliefs on us. The situation with the BSA is instructive on what the real agendas of certain gay rights groups are, and those agendas intend to be far more of an imposition on us than anything I have seen.

Laws impose a certain morality on the population all the time. Don't kill. Don't steal. Don't swindle others. The list is endless, but in the end they represent adherence to a certain moral and ethical standard. What you rationalize as imposing our values in order to restrict religious liberty - a ludicrous claim no matter how you look at it - is really nothing more than parroting the talking points that certain gay activists would have us believe. As the OP has shown, those talking points are based on misrepresentations of the church, and I for one reject those talking points as leading only to contention, and not to any real discussion or understanding.

I see the church today making great efforts to reach out and to understand. I see that in no way reciprocated by what I'm reading coming out of gay groups.

I think bikeymikey has responded to this, and I believe the Church position is evolving. But during the period I mentioned, I would just have to disagree. I remember reading awhile back in an Ensign article that the Church never had a problem with racism and remembering that I almost choked. Hopefully, if the science continues to support the idea that gayness isn't a choice, in 30 years from now someone will be able to write with a completely innocent, if historically ignorant, pen that the Church never was anti-gay, right now past history is not sufficiently past to utter such things.

[jwhitlock]

The Church has historically been anti gay... The church has opposed every legislative policy in every nation that sought to change the status of homo-sexual activity. They have actively been against legislation that aimed to move homosexuals acts from the status of illegal to legal, they have been opposed to civil-unions and other legally binding relationship documents that are recognized by the govts. They have been and still are opposed to both Gay marriage and adoption rights to Same Sex relationships.

None of this is a judgement. None of this is a criticism.

The church views homosexuality as sin and has been opposed to every effort to remove legal penalties against homosexual behavior. They have also stood in the way and actively opposed of every effort to provide homosexuals access to the same State protections and benefits provided committed married hetrosexual partnerships.

Again, I am LDS and am not saying this with any level of judgement or criticism. This is simply my understanding of the history that I have observed.

Does this mean the church has been anti-gay? I don't know...

Are they militant and physically violent towards the homosexual community? Not as an institution as far as I am aware.

I guess this comes down to what the meaning of anti-gay is.

I'll reiterate; unless someone can come up with some concrete evidence of the church systematically denying gays rights afforded to the rest of us within the same structure that exists today, the observations in your first paragraph are irrelevant. Since there are plenty of gays who make the choice to live within that existing structure, including mixed gender marriages, opposition to legislation designed to grant special rights and privileges only to certain narrow interest groups within the gay community doesn't qualify the church as being anti-gay.

From what I've seen, the church has always limited its opposition to legislative and judicial attempts to implement gay agendas. It has not sponsored legislation to remove rights from gays that are available to everyone else within the current structure of things. I see no one providing concrete evidence that the church has systematically done so.

[jwhitlock]

I think bikeymikey has responded to this, and I believe the Church position is evolving. But during the period I mentioned, I would just have to disagree. I remember reading awhile back in an Ensign article that the Church never had a problem with racism and remembering that I almost choked. Hopefully, if the science continues to support the idea that gayness isn't a choice, in 30 years from now someone will be able to write with a completely innocent, if historically ignorant, pen that the Church never was anti-gay, right now past history is not sufficiently past to utter such things.

Evidently it's time for a CFR on your Ensign article. Please provide.

[Bikeemikey]

I am concerned also with what I observe within the church. However, my concern is more with those who seek to mold the church in their own images - no matter what their political or social beliefs may entail - and in making sure the church is not falsely accused from within. Making a claim that the church is anti-gay, thus lumping it in firmly with such groups as Westboro Baptist, requires far more evidence than what I've seem presented here. I have doubts that such evidence exists, especially since I know a few Mormons myself, and have talked with them about their attitudes towards gays. While not perfect, the church is hardly a hotbed of anti-gay activism, as has been claimed. Instead I see a great many people evaluating their existing beliefs, many of which are the product of the influences of the societies they live in, and seeking to strike the right balance between concern for the deterioration of society and love for fellow men.

That is hardly the material that anti-gay organizations are made of.

Your objection to the church being defined as antigay is semantic.

Please define what you take antigay to mean so I can understand how you view the churches historical stances as not meeting that criteria.

[california boy]

SSM, for instance, is a special right being demanded only by certain narrow, but very vocal, activist groups within the gay community. From what I am reading, there appear to be far more gays who either don't care or are actively opposed to SSM. Where SSM has been legalized, marriage statistics for gay couples remain well below those of the general population by any standard of comparison. Indeed, there are more gays in mixed gender marriages by far than there are in same sex marriages - another indication that gays do have and do take advantage of rights available to all of the rest of us.

You are so delusional on this issue. When a MAJORITY of Americans approve of gay marriage, it is hardly a "narrow, but very vocal activist group within the gay community." Not all gays wish to marry. Not all heterosexual couples that support gay marriage wish that all gays marry. But what the majority of Americans do believe and insist is the equal opportunity for gays to marry.

When you start rationalizing that gays have the same right as straights to marry then you either are completely ignorant on what this issue is about or you are pretending in some fantasy world. That argument was NEVER tried in a court of law when this issue was being addressed. Can you figure out why? When gay marriage is finally legal, then I can also say, there is no narrow special right. All straights can now marry someone of the same sex if they want. Get a clue.

The situation with the BSA is instructive on what the real agendas of certain gay rights groups are, and those agendas intend to be far more of an imposition on us than anything I have seen.

Let's be a bit honest here. This whole current BSA discussion about including gays was not started by "gay rights groups" but rather by BSA itself. When corporate sponsors stopped supporting groups that discriminate, then it was the BSA that tried to figure out a way to change.

You seem to constantly want to blame some "gay activist group" for all of these changes. The truth is, most Americans are against discrimination in any form. You are not fighting the opinion of some "narrow gay group", you are fighting the majority of the citizens of this country. So quit blaming this all on some gay agenda driven group. If you want to place blame on someone, you will have to put that blame on the majority of the population of this country.

You are out of this thread. Do not call others delusional.

[Bikeemikey]

I'll reiterate; unless someone can come up with some concrete evidence of the church systematically denying gays rights afforded to the rest of us within the same structure that exists today, the observations in your first paragraph are irrelevant. Since there are plenty of gays who make the choice to live within that existing structure, including mixed gender marriages, opposition to legislation designed to grant special rights and privileges only to certain narrow interest groups within the gay community doesn't qualify the church as being anti-gay.

From what I've seen, the church has always limited its opposition to legislative and judicial attempts to implement gay agendas. It has not sponsored legislation to remove rights from gays that are available to everyone else within the current structure of things. I see no one providing concrete evidence that the church has systematically done so.

In New Zealand the church actively requested that local members participate in a door to door campaign to oppose the move of homosexual acts from illegal to legal.

Please clarify if you would classify this at anti-gay. Please help me understand how you define anti-gay.

It sounds to me that you are trying to claim that the church has never tried to take anything away from the gay community and have simply defended the cultural status quo, and as such have not really engaged in negative right reducing action... Therefore the church can not be considered anti-gay.

Is that how you are defining things?

[jwhitlock]

Your objection to the church being defined as antigay is semantic.

Please define what you take antigay to mean so I can understand how you view the churches historical stances as not meeting that criteria.

I did so quite clearly in the post you quoted when I referenced Westboro.

[jwhitlock]

In New Zealand the church actively requested that local members participate in a door to door campaign to oppose the move of homosexual acts from illegal to legal.

Please clarify if you would classify this at anti-gay. Please help me understand how you define anti-gay.

Before I can respond to this, you need to provide more specific information about what the campaign entailed, and why the church found it necessary to oppose the change.

[Bikeemikey]

Before I can respond to this, you need to provide more specific information about what the campaign entailed, and why the church found it necessary to oppose the change.

The request was very simple.

1) funds to oppose the legislation

2) door to door activity to ask people to oppose it

3) members to vote against it

The stance was homosexuality is morally wrong and should not be legal.

[jwhitlock]

You are so delusional on this issue. When a MAJORITY of Americans approve of gay marriage, it is hardly a "narrow, but very vocal activist group within the gay community." Not all gays wish to marry. Not all heterosexual couples that support gay marriage wish that all gays marry. But what the majority of Americans do believe and insist is the equal opportunity for gays to marry.

Oh please. The demand for SSM originated with narrow special interest groups within the gay community, so quit frothing at the mouth and trying to make it sound like American society suddenly wanted it to happen. The only reason a "majority" of Americans are ok with SSM is that they've bought into the sound bites that they've been inundated with in the media. Most Americans don't think particularly deeply about what they support, and your "majority" hardly insists in this "equal opportunity", which is actually a special privilege. Most of your claimed supporters are actually just people saying "sounds ok to me, whatever" who don't think about it any further than that.

When you start rationalizing that gays have the same right as straights to marry then you either are completely ignorant on what this issue is about or you are pretending in some fantasy world. That argument was NEVER tried in a court of law when this issue was being addressed. Can you figure out why? When gay marriage is finally legal, then I can also say, there is no narrow special right. All straights can now marry someone of the same sex if they want. Get a clue.

This response of demonizing those who disagree with you is pretty much standard in how you and other active SSM supporters address the fact that gays have all the same rights anyone else does. In reality, I have never seen a cogent response from you or other SSM supporters in addressing this issue. All I ever get in return is a diatribe denigrating my intelligence. I think it's pretty clear to anyone who thinks at all about the issue that your narrow special interest groups are demanding what amounts to special privileges, since they won't be used by anyone else.

On the other hand, there are already hundreds of thousands of gays who are in mixed gender marriages. That must really drive you nuts, since it undercuts your argument that gays don't have the right to marry. They do, and they exercise that right.

Let's be a bit honest here. This whole current BSA discussion about including gays was not started by "gay rights groups" but rather by BSA itself. When corporate sponsors stopped supporting groups that discriminate, then it was the BSA that tried to figure out a way to change.

Oh brother. You're claiming that gay rights groups didn't pressure corporate sponsors to quite supporting the BSA? This is a pretty blatant piece of misrepresentation. The whole BSA situation was initiated both directly and indirectly through gay activist groups pressuring corporate sponsors and political agencies to quit supporting the BSA and not allowing them access to public facilities. Let's acknowledge what's really going on here, if you want to be honest.

You seem to constantly want to blame some "gay activist group" for all of these changes. The truth is, most Americans are against discrimination in any form. You are not fighting the opinion of some "narrow gay group", you are fighting the majority of the citizens of this country. So quit blaming this all on some gay agenda driven group. If you want to place blame on someone, you will have to put that blame on the majority of the population of this country.

As I have noted, most Americans really don't think much about discrimination. They are so influenced by media sound bites that if someone comes on TV and tells them that a group is being "discriminated" against, they go "oh, I guess that's what I should believe". Gay special interest groups realize this and mold their public communications accordingly. It's absolutely disingenuous to claim that demands for SSM are somehow something that spontaneously came about because the majority of Americans are actively tuned into correct all forms of perceived discrimination, and that gay rights groups didn't drive this. That's just absolutely ridiculous.

[jwhitlock]

The request was very simple.

1) funds to oppose the legislation

2) door to door activity to ask people to oppose it

3) members to vote against it

The stance was homosexuality is morally wrong and should not be legal.

More information than that is needed. Was the legislation worded in a way to repeal previous laws against homosexual behavior, or did it actually define it as legal behavior?

[Tacenda]

Evidently it's time for a CFR on your Ensign article. Please provide.

I believe the Ensign would most definitely have purported that. To this day the church denies racism.

[jwhitlock]

I believe the Ensign would most definitely have purported that. To this day the church denies racism.

Then I'm sure you'll be able to provide a link or reference to the article.

[Tacenda]

Then I'm sure you'll be able to provide a link or reference to the article.

So in your thinking you believe the church believes they've been racist in the past? That's where I'm going with it.

[Bikeemikey]

More information than that is needed. Was the legislation worded in a way to repeal previous laws against homosexual behavior, or did it actually define it as legal behavior?

The intent of the law was to move consenting sexual acts between men 16 years and older from an illegal to decriminalized status. It was in 1986.

[jwhitlock]

So in your thinking you believe the church believes they've been racist in the past? That's where I'm going with it.

I'm not assuming anything at this point. I'm looking for a reference.

[jwhitlock]

The intent of the law was to move consenting sexual acts between men 16 years and older from an illegal to decriminalized status. It was in 1986.

I hate to be a stickler on it, but I need to understand better what the intent of the church really was in opposing the law, and in order to do that, I need either an official statement from the church, or a look at how the law was written. Without that, we don't have any concrete evidence about the church being systematically anti-gay.

For instance, I can go back to the church's opposition to the ERA. I can read why they opposed it, and I can read the amendment itself. I can then come to the conclusion that the church had valid concerns for opposing the ERA, and that claims that the church was against equal rights were simply bogus. That same methodology needs to be applied in they situations you and others are referencing.

[Tacenda]

I'm not assuming anything at this point. I'm looking for a reference.

That could be cleared up in one fall swoop with the newest heading in our scriptures. I don't believe the church will admit to racism, below is the newest heading:

The Book of Mormon teaches that “all are alike unto God,” including “black and white, bond and free, male and female” (2 Nephi 26:33). Throughout the history of the Church, people of every race and ethnicity in many countries have been baptized and have lived as faithful members of the Church. During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, a few black male members of the Church were ordained to the priesthood. Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice. Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice and prayerfully sought guidance. The revelation came to Church President Spencer W. Kimball and was affirmed to other Church leaders in the Salt Lake Temple on June 1, 1978. The revelation removed all restrictions with regard to race that once applied to the priesthood.

[Calm]

I hate to be a stickler on it, but I need to understand better what the intent of the church really was in opposing the law, and in order to do that, I need either an official statement from the church, or a look at how the law was written.

http://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/consol_act/hlra1986246.pdf

[jwhitlock]

That could be cleared up in one fall swoop with the newest heading in our scriptures. I don't believe the church will admit to racism, below is the newest heading:

The Book of Mormon teaches that “all are alike unto God,” including “black and white, bond and free, male and female” (2 Nephi 26:33). Throughout the history of the Church, people of every race and ethnicity in many countries have been baptized and have lived as faithful members of the Church. During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, a few black male members of the Church were ordained to the priesthood. Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice. Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice and prayerfully sought guidance. The revelation came to Church President Spencer W. Kimball and was affirmed to other Church leaders in the Salt Lake Temple on June 1, 1978. The revelation removed all restrictions with regard to race that once applied to the priesthood.

It neither admits or denies a judgment of racism. However, it is a basic summary of what happened. I don't see how it justifies your belief.

[jwhitlock]

http://www.nzlii.org...hlra1986246.pdf

Thanks for the reference. The repeal of sections 2 and 3 of the act of 1961 appears, from the short description we have, to be troubling. I'd need to know what the wording in those sections that were repealed was.

[Bikeemikey]

http://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/consol_act/hlra1986246.pdf

Bet me to it.

As for an almost 30 year old request to local stake presidents and bishops I have only my fathers recollection to rely on... He was a bishop at the time.

It should also be noted that many stakes refused to even pass on the request to participate, many however did.

[Bikeemikey]

Thanks for the reference. The repeal of sections 2 and 3 of the act of 1961 appears, from the short description we have, to be troubling. I'd need to know what the wording in those sections that were repealed was.

There online.

[jwhitlock]

Bet me to it.

As for an almost 30 year old request to local stake presidents and bishops I have only my fathers recollection to rely on... He was a bishop at the time.

It should also be noted that many stakes refused to even pass on the request to participate, many however did.

Wonder where the request to oppose the legislation originated from? It sounds like we don't know.