The SLC ordinance: LDS church's multiple strifes
Personally we're not all the impressed with the mainstream LDS church's support for Salt Lake City non-discrimination, since they made sure to "does no violence to marriage" to justify how they could possibly support basic fairness. But you know who is even less impressed than us, both with the support and the ordinance itself? That would be the uber-conservative, largely-Mormon Sutherland Institute:
There's also this, from Sutherland's Paul Mero:
And then there's this article from the American Family Association's One News Now, where Sutherland's Stan Rasmussen vows to seek the repeal of the new ordinance:
So now the LDS church finds itself in an off predicament of its own making. The gay community is not about to forgive and forget, because it's going to take MUCH, MUCH MORE than support for basic protections (something everyone should support without question) to make amends for the considerable hurt they have brought to our lives. And at the same time, the conservatives are not going to tolerate anything that's even remotely pro-LGBT, as the hardline "pro-fams" find it unacceptable for one to even say the word "Gatorade" if they place too much emphasis on the first syllable.
It's a rock/hard place situation for sure. One that the LDS church (and nobody) would ever find themselves in if they would simply do the right, fair, and easy thing: Support full LGBT equality in all matters governed by civil law. It is the only outcome that will meet the test of history.
**Chino Blanco has more [Kos]
I wish Paul Mero was an illusion.
Posted by: Sam | Nov 12, 2009 2:56:07 PM
Here's the OON poll question: "Why most likely did the Mormon Church decide to support a local ordinance providing special treatment based on sexual orientation?"
Special treatment??? Like being able to live and work where it best suits you? There's really no depth that these people wouldn't sink to, is there?
Posted by: Bill Ware | Nov 12, 2009 3:23:35 PM
Bill: It doesn't seem like it, no.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Nov 12, 2009 3:25:57 PM
Mero very deliberately sidesteps the protected (suspect) classification of religion, and national origin. And the reason he does is that in both cases, irrational bigotry is leveled toward persons based on those meaningless classifications, and solely based on those meaningless classifications. There is nothing inherently different about a person from Ireland that makes them better or worse than anyone from anywhere else. Yet and still, there are bigots who hate the Irish simply because they are Irish.
As far as the religious bigotry goes, not only is it immaterial, it is also HIGHLY MUTABLE, and PURELY A CHOICE / SELF IDENTIFICATION, and is perfectly defined only by BEHAVIOR. While there is a substantial body of evidence that suggests that same-sex attraction is immutable, and not a choice, and simply a recessive trait, even if it was a perfectly corollary to religion, the fact that the religious fall into a suspect classification is perfect justification for adding same-sex attraction to the list of protected classes.
The lying liars cannot win an intelligent argument, because there are no arguments that pass the test of rational reasoning. And that they simply repeat the same tired nonsense doesn't make their arguments any more credible. They depend on the ignorance of the masses, and they craftily and purposefully word their arguments to ensure that the masses remain ignorant.
Posted by: Dick Mills | Nov 12, 2009 3:42:51 PM
Jeremy, I'm actually really happy about this, but not for the reason the Mormons would probably like.
This half-concession toward fairness and equality, combined with the shunning of Peter and Bam Bam and Mike Heath and whatever other SPLC hate group in Maine are exposing and exacerbating a growing right in the "pro-family" anti-gay activist community. We've reached the point where, regardless of where the polling comes down on a specific issue, it is no longer palatable to the majority of the country to be perceived as being insipidly anti-gay (like Peter). So he's persona non grata, and if you've been to his little corner of the internet lately, you've seen that it's about to make his head explode.
This new era of groups making concessions, making an effort to look like something other than rank bigots, will most likely be brief. Peter is right about one thing -- the concessions by the Mormon church, the sugarcoating of the effect of the repeal in Maine, etc., are the beginning stages of the "pro-family" forces conceding our point, and ceding the moral high ground.
So is the Mormon church still a buncha dicks in Utah who need to butt out of other peoples' lives? Sure. And the Catholic church looks like it's going to be a lot more melodramatic as they flame out on the issue of human equality. (Who would expect any less from they of the fancy dresses and hats?)
Maggie Gallagher even looks like it's starting to get to her. The paroxysms of joy that come with each small battle she wins will never fill the black hole she calls a soul, and she's starting to betray her darkness, and well...you saw the Catholic video she did. If she was feeling a true sense of joyous victory, she wouldn't be sounding like more of a hateful haint than ever.
They know we've won the war. It's finally starting to sink in. You can only play the Bigot Whack-A-Mole for so long before it's time to take your toys and go home.
Posted by: Break the Terror (Evan) | Nov 13, 2009 2:42:31 AMcomments powered by Disqus