Gays get marriage licences in Utah on Friday

A federal judge ruling on Utah’s ban on same-sex marriages was deemed to be unconstitutional on Friday, December 20th. Judge Robert J. Shelby, of the United States District Court for the District of Utah, wrote that in his  opinion such a law “perpetuates inequality.”

“The State’s current laws deny its gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry and, in so doing, demean the dignity of these same-sex couples for no rational reason,”  Judge Shelby stated on Friday. “Accordingly, the court finds that these laws are unconstitutional.”

This ruling was released just hours after another southwestern state, New Mexico, became the 17th state to allow same-sex marriage on Thursday.  It's state Supreme Court ruled that a similar ban there was unconstitutional as well.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has softened its stance on homosexuality in recent years, stating that the known origins of sexuality are not fully understood.  The LDS church was not involved in any part of the lawsuit.

"The Church has been consistent in its support of traditional marriage while teaching that all people should be treated with respect," said a LDS Church spokesman.

Nation wide, public opinion on the matter has made an about face over the past 10 years. In 2003, 55%  opposed homosexual marriage, with 37% supporting marriage equality. Today, 58% are in favor with 36% opposing the bans -- this according to data compiled by The Washington Post.

In the state of Utah, public opinion on the issue has been slower to turn with 28% supporting legalizing gay marriage in a February 2012 (Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy), while a poll taken at approximately the same time period (CBS/New York Times) revealed 38% support for gay marriage rights nationally.

The large Mormon population is opposed to homosexual activity while supporting a persons right to live his own lifestyle making use of "agency", the ability to choose for one's self. Nationally, nearly two in three Mormons in 2011 said society should discourage homosexual acts, while only one third of those polled in other denominations agreed, (Pew poll.) 63 % of Utahans are LDS. (2007 Pew Religion & Public Life survey.)

I may or may not agree with homosexuals getting married, But I am not one to stand in their way.  The constitution seems clear.  Humans are born with certain inalienable rights, regardless of religion or public opinion.  As long as these judges are studying constitutional law, the law the LDS as a people say they support, Homosexuals must be allowed to marry.

Churches should still retain their right to allow such marriage in their denominations.  I would fight for that right right along with the gays right to marry.

What do you think?  What do you think the mormon people will do?  The leaders of the LDS church?  I'd love to hear from you.

Slate Magazine wants to know “Why a religion, notorious in the gay community might be “evolving”

In a June article in Slate by Max Perry Mueller, Josh Weed is presented in a photo with his wife and three lovely children under the headline, "Can you be both Mormon and Gay?"

It's an age old question, and one that I have always felt warrants discussion.

Of course the answer people come to is "yes, and let me count the ways, names, faces of those gay and Mormon THAT HAVE COME OUT, let alone those who haven’t."

But that wasn’t what the story was about anyway, so I didn’t get all worked up. The focus was on whether the LDS church is, specifically, “evolving”. The implication: moving into a position of tolerance for homosexuals in full fellowship in the LDS church.

The quick answer is "No," the church is not evolving into a place where it will allow Homosexuals “full rights.”

I say this with important definitions in mind. Let’s run over them quickly…

If a homosexual is a man attracted to and has sex with his own sex, then no. The LDS Church will not evolve on this point. There is no sex before marriage in a stance of morality. Temple marriage privilege will never be allowed for same sex couples.

This is my opinion, though I don’t think it is much of an opinion. I think I was just stating fact.

If a homosexual is attracted to ones same sex, and does not have sex outside standard man/woman marriage (clearly), who remains chaste, morally clean as it were, he may have temple privileges. But, still no marriage of same sex couples. The only evolving here is that the guidelines have been clarified in the last fifteen years so that members and leaders understand that one can be sexually attracted to ones same sex and remain morally clean.

If this is categorized as evolving, then yes, the church has evolved in this regard.

However, this is not what Slate magazine has in mind.

As far as same sex marriage, the church is not in a position of authority (influence, yes) but they can control, and rightly so, temple marriages /sealings. And I think temple marriages /sealings will never be for same sex partners.

This from the article, “Last week, Josh Weed and his wife, Lolly, marked their 10-year anniversary by announcing together on Josh’s blog that he is gay. Josh works as a marriage and family therapist in Auburn, Wash. He and Lolly have three daughters, and claim to have a very successful marriage—one that includes, in their opinion, “a better sex life” than most heterosexual couples.

Weed says that this decision is an entirely satisfying one. “I am gay. I am Mormon. I am married to a woman. I am happy every single day.”

Since Josh had come out, several other men who have previously come out as gay and living their religious ideals have come our nodding their head in affirmation, such as blogger Andrew Sullivan, Catholic, and Ty Mansfield, a Mormon father and husband. His comments from LDS Living. Follow...

“After years of counseling focused on his depression and childhood insecurities—but not, Mansfield insists, on “reorientation” to heterosexuality—he “felt healthy and empowered enough that when I met my wife, it all came together.” Like Weed, Mansfield, who recently had his first child with his wife Danielle, does not identify as “straight.” “Why should I replace one socio-identity construct with another?” he asks. “My goal isn’t to be straight, but a man who is honoring my covenants and [has] a healthy relationship with my wife.” While Mansfield still experiences some attraction to other men, he says, “at some point you decide you’re going to commit to one person you love, just like mature straight men do. I don’t feel like I’m suppressing anything. I focus my energy into my marriage.”

Dear Mr. Mansfield. I have made the same decisions that the two of you -- Mr Weed -- have. Frankly, and I don’t want to put any pressure on you, but please keep your money where your mouth is. There are many LDS holding ya’ll up as an example -- me included.

Did I say, me included?

Thank you for sharing so publicly, and may your freak flag never wave.



Cal Thompson

US passes law allowing SGA couples to marry - PART TWO

Continued from last blog, US passes law allowing SGA couples to marry

Who is it we are talking about when we speak of those who oppose human rights for all? Why does the LDS church pop up in these discussions?

Recently I finished the novel, The Help, which I followed up with Crazy in Alabama and now I am re-reading To Kill a Mockingbird. In these books that focus on  civil rights, sometimes there are clear lines drawn and one grouping of people is placed on one side and another is placed on side two. Good here, bad there.  Also contained are written characters who are conflicted, or don’t know what to think. They open their doors to all in an emergency, but would rather keep the status quo if given their druthers (love that word.)

To lump Latter-day Saints together in any of these characterizations is misguided and inaccurate.   

Sometimes what is not said in a church meeting is said over the back fence, or on an anonymous note in a blog.  Some are closet liberals and others are more conservative than they want you to know.  Others say, lets talk turkey.  What is the truth here?, and I mean, everybody’s truth.  I would like to take some time to hear it all and allow readers the same opportunity.

Based on doctrine, and based on fruits – or results (better said for this blog) - the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been moderate on the subject of equal rights – all things included: slower than the norm with blacks and the priesthood and “not currently” on the women and the priesthood, but fast in every other way.

The LDS church has a policy of not differentiating between OSA and SSA  - has even published its say. Culturally, status, class, background, education,etc. It is commonly believed the church actually seeks out poorer, and the ethnically diverse. 

Yet, the LDS church has come out against Gay marriage by its declaration of marriage being between a man and a woman.

But look at these several statements. There is no question about sexual preference in the temple recommend questions.

The LDS church believes in being morally clean,.  Yet there is a strong support group established – and on the Church payroll – for pregnant mothers and their partners, with choices not as conservative as many think.

Latter-day Saints believe in the word of wisdom, and yet, once again, there are well established programs for alcoholics or those who drink, smokers, drug addict and casual users.  At every turn there is a way in the LDS church to deal with problems that have arisen for a magnitude of reasons.

It believes in being honest in every interaction, yet church meetings are held in jails and prisons in areas of substantial LDS population.

It asks the members to have temple recommends, and has classes and assistance to get members from A to B.

Does anyone who has had interaction with the Church believe that Homosexuals would be left high and dry – without assistance or support simply because of the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman?  Does the LDS church currently support/assist families of every makeup and means?  The answer is yes.

The question then, understanding church policy and procedure, is not necessarily one of why the church gays can't marry in the LDS church, but why, when push came to shove, the LDS church during a state election came out in support of man/women marriage only - essentially casting a "no" vote for gay marriage. 

And, is the assumption that the LDS church was speaking politically for its members individually or collectively, or both?

Or is there a greater question? What say you, reader?

---