Is it a right to marry?

I started writing this several months ago and thought better of it.  I am not one to fight "against" something as opposed to being "for" something. And I am a card carrying member of the LDS church and I am proud to say that. However, I am now rethinking my rethinking of this post. I will allow you to judge it for yourself. Please comment if you have something to say.

Two weeks ago, on November 4, several Mormons of the US Senate voted for the passing of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) protecting homosexuals in the work environment.

 

A week later, several local stakes of the LDS church in Oahu Hawaii were read instructions in their weekly Sunday meetings in regard to how to go about taking action against local legislation that would secure civil marriage rights for homosexuals in the state.

 

Mormons received what is considered a revelation from God concerning sexuality in the form of the "Proclamation of the Family".  Let me be specific: I consider the Proclamation on the family to be a revelation.  With that in mind, I have made the following correlation:

Mormons believe that is is NOT okay to discriminate against celibate gays, but it IS okay to discriminate against gay people that are sexually active?

I have watched the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- my church -- in our dealing with people who are different.  Gays would be considered different, a minority, a segment of the population of Mormons and non Mormons alike, though I believer that the percentage of Mormon gays in higher than outside of the church.

Felons would be considered another minority. So would smokers, or black people.  The French. Pepsi drinkers. People still sporting a Dorthy Hamel hair-doo. 

Aside from a natural curiosity, an "I-am-staring-at-you-because-you-are-different-from-what-I-am-used-to" sort of a thing, my experience of us Mormons is that we are more accepting of those who are different -- as long as they are sitting on a pew (read: trying to follow the Mormon way of life). 

Homosexuality is not the numeric norm.  But if a gay man came to priesthood meeting, his nice shoes really wouldn't stand out from the well-worn, black Stacy Adams utilitarian dress shoes the married R.M. next to him is wearing.  If his suit is well fitting and there is a little product in his hair, he can still sit by the man with a bit of dried baby formula on his tie.  He might even be asked to hold the baby while daddy searches the diaper-bag for wipes.

If he pickets general conference however, he won't be invited over for family-home evening. 

So, how do we Mormons treat sinners?  You know -- the people who are doing the things that we believe should not be done, like cheating on taxes or mowing the lawn on Sunday;  Shoplifting or having a democrat corrugated plastic signage on the front lawn.

What would we do with a gay couple in sacrament meeting?  

Often, when I see that we Mormons have politically mobilized to fight gay marriage rights, its because we believe that granting those rights will someday mean that our own religious freedoms are at stake.  Granting the right, or acknowledging that gay men have the right to marry -- depending on your belief -- will threaten LDS marriage and temple practices.  Many of us believe that he next logical step, after gays have the rights to marry, is that the LGBT community will demand the right to marry in LDS temples.  

Religious freedom -vs- civil rights?

I have seen supporters of LGBT marriage rights actually roll their eyes when the religious freedom card is played by Mormons -- me.  They tell me that losing religious freedom couldn't happen.  Then I open a history book and get a differing point of view.

Polygamy, anyone? 

The problem with bring up the anti-polygamy crusades by the United States government in the late 1800's is that Mormons have to admit that we believed, abit for a short time, that polygamy was appropriate for that time -- a belief we put much energy into distancing ourselves from. The U.S. government targeted Mormon polygamy and a short time later the practice was effectively eliminated from the body of the LDS church.  Could government action affect such a change again? 

Okay, so it probably wouldn't happen.

Are Mormon willing to take the risk that allowing marriage rights for all those pursuing happiness will also allow for government to affect their religious belief in celestial marriage that is only achieved in a temple by people following the law of chastity?

At the moment, no. However beliefs (not standards or morals) are changing at lighting speed. All this brings me to the following question:  Whether or not we agree with the morality of the practice, does anyone have the right to deny consenting adults the right to marry?

Save our children from ENDA! E-mail your congressman now!

I was happy to see that Arizona Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake become the latest republicans to support the Employment Nondiscrimination Act passed on Thursday, 64 to 32.

They joined Sens. Dean Heller of Nevada, Orrin Hatch of Utah, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Rob Portman of Ohio, Susan Collins of Maine, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, and Ron Kirk of Illinois, who is the bills co-sponsor.

 

Ten Republicans and two Independents joined the 52 Democrats to support the bill. Four Senators abstained from voting. They were getting their hair done by straight hair dressers.

This is the first time in US history that the U.S. Senate had approved any type of legislation to prohibit discrimination in a workplace environment of gay, lesbian and transgender employees.

Passing a non-discrimination law, though I think they should simply add sexual identity to the laws that already protect based on gender, race and religion, does not encourage a gay "lifestyle".  It supports our brothers and sisters, our fellow citizens and keeps them from being hurt.

Opposition in the Republican-controlled House is strong, so there is little chance the measure will become law.  It would be horable if the US  passed laws to protect it's President Barack Obama urged the House to take the bill up and said he would sign it.

"One party in one house of Congress should not stand in the way of millions of Americans who want to go to work each day and simply be judged by the job they do," the President said in a statement. "Now is the time to end this kind of discrimination in the workplace, not enable it. I urge the House Republican leadership to bring this bill to the floor for a vote and send it to my desk so I can sign it into law."

 

The bill would provide the same protections for LGBT workers as are already guaranteed on the basis of race, gender and religion, making in unlawful for employers to discriminate based on a person's "actual or perceived" sexual orientation or gender identity.

 

ENDA's  began in 1994, the first time it was introduced in Congress. Several years later, a version that only protected sexual orientation failed to get by the Senate by one vote. The bill was not brought up again for a vote until 2007 when the House passed the narrower version.

.

"The Speaker believes this legislation will increase frivolous litigation and cost American jobs, especially small business jobs," said House leader Boehner's spokesman, Michael Steel.

 

Chad Griffin, president of the LGBT activist group Human Rights Campaign, had harsh words for Boehner.

 

"The Speaker, of all people, should certainly know what it's like to go to work every day afraid of being fired. Instead of letting the far right trample him again, it's time for Speaker Boehner to stand with the majority of everyday Republican voters and support ENDA," Griffin said earlier this week.

Regardless proponents are applauding Senate action.

 

Opinion: It's 'way past time' for gay rights law

 

Several opponents of the measure have some real concerns, saying that ENDA will  certainly "have a chilling effect on free speech as well as religious liberty" by requiring secular businesses who have a moral objection to LGBT people to not discriminate against them.

 

(Yes, people. There are people who object to LGBT people, and therefore, would not hire them.  Frankly, I have a moral objection to most lawyers, yet I would hire them if I needed one.)

 

Here's another goody: The Traditional Values Coalition said that ENDA would hurt kids, and here's why:

 

"Young students in some states are already being confused by transgender teachers," a fact sheet supplied by the coalition read. "If ENDA passes, students and children in daycare centers all across the nation will be subjected to individuals experimenting with their gender identities."

 

Let me just gag now.