Discussion for article #234232
Why do I feel suspicious? Like there’s some sort of sneaky provision in here.
I’m going to try to take it at face value. Thank you, Mormons, for taking a step in the right direction. And thanks to the Republicans who supported the bill for showing that, at least at the state level a Republican can take a reasonable stance on something.
1 Like
As a gay person I’m actually ok with the provision that allows individual clerks to opt out of performing a gay marriage…as long as there is a requirement that they designate someone who WILL perform the marriages.
The last thing I would want on a special day is for a justice of the peace to grudgingly perform the ceremony.
1 Like
Agreed. I’m okay with it on face value, as long they aren’t sneaking something into the bill somewhere that is being missed.
I’m not sure about the main group in Utah, but my experience from the marriage equality debate in Hawaii (where there is also a significant Mormon presence - the temple here was set up in 1867, only 20 years after they got to Utah and the first one outside the US) is that they aren’t nearly as bad as others. I accidentally joined an anti-marriage group on FB (thinking from the title that it was pro-) that was moderated by a group of Mormons, and found they were mostly interested in ensuring the church didn’t have to do anything related to gay marriages. One of the reasons I suspect it will be difficult to get a full public accomodations clause passed is that the church itself owns a lot of for-profit commercial entities that would be affected; though it does mean the employment clause is somewhat significant.
The really interesting thing was that as the vote in the legislature came closer the arguments on the FB group became more acrimonious (there were a few pro-equality people on there, trying to get the antis to question why they believed what they did, and some wanted to kick us all off). Eventually the Mormons who ran it left and moderation was taken over by a group of evangelicals, and that was when the real hate came out all over. It was quite a striking change.
1 Like
Because the Mormons have no room to pretend that they are above controversial issues.
The church controls liquor sales including the large profits. The church is anti-caffeine and yet owns considerable amounts of stock in PepsiCo.
The bigamy/polygamy thing is a bit outside of the main church but stems from Mormonism and the big/poly people practice Mormonism so it is a Mormon thing.
Protecting LGBT citizens is right in the Mormon wheelhouse truthfully. Even the practice of Mormonism is viewed as outside of mainstream religion. Just ask the fundies or many everyday Christians. Knowing Romney’s lack of tact, there is likely some 47% number that connects to Mormons.
The church’s support for the measure comes as the faith’s leaders have softened their tone in recent years regarding same-sex attraction.
The church got rightfully blasted for its role in passing Prop. 8 in California. They felt some pain from the reaction. I still bring it up with every fresh-faced twosome that appears at my door, and they aren’t comfortable dealing with it as individuals, either. The church is a fringe religion almost everywhere outside Utah, and it relentlessly recruits, so being labelled as “haters” was both shocking and worrisome to church leadership.
I appreciate that the Mormon church has enough pragmatism to back off support for discriminatory laws. I also know that the church made its changes out of self interest, and is far from accepting LGBT individuals as they are.