Althouse: "The Mormon Church today announced that it will support national and local anti-discrimination laws for gays and lesbians..."

January 27, 2015

"The Mormon Church today announced that it will support national and local anti-discrimination laws for gays and lesbians..."

"... provided such laws also respect the rights of religious groups. Church leaders called the offer a new 'way forward' to balance religious freedom and legal protection for people in the LGBT community."

Says breaking news email from CNN.

At the CNN website: "Mormon church backs LGBT rights -- with one condition."

66 comments:

Quayle said...: Press conference is still running.

Streaming here
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-news-conference-on-religious-freedom-and-nondiscrimination; 1/27/15, 11:17 AM
mccullough said...: Is there a need for federal legislation?

If so, Republicans should agree on the condition that employment discrimination laws be raised to 100 employees from the current 15.; 1/27/15, 11:17 AM
K in Texas said...: mccullogh, why would the employment discrimination laws need the number of employees raised?; 1/27/15, 11:20 AM
Scott said...: If there were truly separation of church and state in America, the LDS position on LGBT rights and legal protections would be irrelevant.; 1/27/15, 11:22 AM
Hagar said...: A fervent belief in an improbable proposition = A fervent belief in an improbable proposition.; 1/27/15, 11:23 AM
Mark said...: Now that the Supreme Court accepted a case that we will lose, we want a truce.

This is joke, right?; 1/27/15, 11:24 AM
jr565 said...: That's the only fair way to do it. DOn't force people to bake the cake,or officiate weddings they find objectionably wrong.
Otherwise, who cares?; 1/27/15, 11:24 AM
pm317 said...: How does it work? If I don't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding, is that religious freedom or discrimination? Or do we expect gay people to be generous enough not to take me to court and go to some other bake shop that does do their bidding. I am sure there are a lot of people who are not religious who will bake something nice for them. Right? Much of such disagreements can be settled without going to court, no? At least as long as there are other bakers willing to bake their cake. Right?

Disclaimer: I am not a baker and I don't bake cakes.; 1/27/15, 11:27 AM
Scott said...: Is the LDS church really asking gays and lesbians to shut up about the hostility of Mormon theology to their interests? Fat chance that will happen, ever.; 1/27/15, 11:30 AM
mccullough said...: K, those numbers were put into law 50 years ago. Companies with 15 employees often cant afford insurance to cover these types of claims and hiring lawyers to defend these claims can be expensive. Employers win more than 90% of employment discrimination suits. Bigger companies can afford insurance and to defend these suits, but many smaller companies can't.; 1/27/15, 11:35 AM
mccullough said...: The Mormons should hold out for repealing polygamy laws.; 1/27/15, 11:41 AM
~ Gordon Pasha said...: LDS Church is playing the long game. When LGBT marriage and other rights are approved by the Supremes then polygamy will be just around the corner.

LDS Manifesto of 1890 (in part):

"Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I heareby declare my intention to submit to those laws, to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.
"There is nothing in my teachings to the Church or in those of my associates, during the time specified, which can be reasonably construed to inculcate or encourage polygamy; and when any Elder of the Church has used language which appeared to convey such teaching, he has been promptly reproved.

And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.
"Wilford Woodruff [signed]
"President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The door to plural marriage will not have been opened by the Church, but rather by the government.; 1/27/15, 11:46 AM
n.n said...: The LDS Church always tolerated the homosexual orientation and behavior. I wonder why they now support exclusion through selective normalization.; 1/27/15, 11:58 AM
DKWalser said...: Is the LDS church really asking gays and lesbians to shut up about the hostility of Mormon theology to their interests?

No. The Church is asking that gay and lesbian groups quit trying to punish people who publicly disagree with the LGBT agenda. In the Church's view it is acceptable to disagree with the Church's doctrines -- loudly disagree if you wish. It's not acceptable to try to get those who agree with Church doctrine fired from their jobs merely because you disagree with those doctrines.; 1/27/15, 11:59 AM
Jason said...: This pretty much the same position as I've held, and of course, the Arizona Legislature held while the gays were calling them bigots and haters and threatening to boycott Arizona and pull the Superbowl out of the state.

Scumbags.; 1/27/15, 12:06 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: Maybe the LDS church always tolerated homosexuality, but it still seems to run against some of their unique tenets. One of the noticeable things from the outside is its family orientation, and the theology that families are together in the afterlife. And, I think that this in part is behind their very strong interest in genealogy. Heterosexual marriage (and, thus, families) is still a big thing with them, and is a driving force for much of Mormon society. Where do the homosexuals fit into this? Obvious, I would think, with the heterosexuals who don't marry, and are thus cut out of a lot of their vision of the afterlife.

There are several reasons why that faith continues to grow. One is a lot of proselytizing. But, another is a high marriage rate with a higher than average number of children. I know a grad student at a Utah university, and they contrast the difference in the grad students they deal with with their significant other at s a such a school in Colorado. In Utah, the Mormons are all pretty much married in grad school, and a lot of the women are showing, while just the opposite is true in neighboring Colorado - few are married, and pregnancy is almost non-existent.

I do wonder though how a gay marriage would work with Mormon theology. Maybe like adopted children - but biological children seem to fit much better in their generational afterlife.; 1/27/15, 12:18 PM
traditionalguy said...: The real world is highlighted once more by a scene of Magnificent Leaders scrambling to get back out in front of their followers. The followers have long since accepted gay equality.; 1/27/15, 12:30 PM
Mark O said...: Stunningly, an American Church agrees to follow the law, not insist on its own theocratic law, and it is news.; 1/27/15, 12:34 PM
rhhardin said...: Freedom of association would be a nice condition, if they ever think of restoring it.; 1/27/15, 12:38 PM
Quayle said...: Traditionalguy again misses the point.

The church is arguing for religion and religious person equality.

And show me where Mormons ever said a fellow person on the earth wasn't equal in the eyes of God and deserving of respect and love as a brother or sister. On this the leaders were always out in front leading.

Your arguments are based on distortions and ignorance.; 1/27/15, 12:43 PM
Think said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/27/15, 12:53 PM
Think said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/27/15, 12:57 PM
Think said...: "Tuesday's offer doesn't change church doctrine -- including its opposition to gay marriage, Mormon leaders said."

This Mormon can't find any Mormon "doctrine" that requires that I oppose gay marriage. The leaders of my church may choose to oppose it, but until it is presented to the LDS Church body and sustained by a majority vote, their personal opinion is not doctrine (despite the common misconception, by some members and leaders, that anything LDS leaders say is LDS doctrine).

I support personal liberty and freedom and the LDS Church's teachings on free-agency support my view that gay marriage should be legal. Not to mention the value of compassion that the Lord taught. If the Church leaders want to hold to the belief that it is immoral to practice gay sex, fine, but it has no bearing on the legal issues at stake. My viewpoint is a growing (but mostly silent) viewpoint in the LDS Church.; 1/27/15, 12:58 PM
Think said...: "The door to plural marriage will not have been opened by the Church, but rather by the government."

Please. Though the veins of the doctrine of polygamy can still be found within the LDS Church, there is zero desire by any mainstream Mormon to practice polygamy. Most LDS people still have a difficult time even coming to grips with the fact that it was practiced at one time in the LDS Church. There isn't even a slight possibility that it will ever be practiced again in the LDS Church.; 1/27/15, 1:02 PM
Think said...: "And show me where Mormons ever said a fellow person on the earth wasn't equal in the eyes of God"

Isn't opposing the equal right to marry just that? Let me guess, you somehow justify that discrimination?; 1/27/15, 1:04 PM
Quayle said...: Think, a question.

How is doctrine decided or set in the Mormon church, and who has the authority to set it and to declare what it is or isn't?

I'm fairly certain it isn't you and me.

While I think the issue of gay civil marriage is mostly a distraction, I also don't lightly blow off a set of statements to which three apostles were present to deliver.; 1/27/15, 1:06 PM
Quayle said...: "Isn't opposing the equal right to marry just that? Let me guess, you somehow justify that discrimination?"

Are you saying all delineations that form the basis of one or another social policy are discriminatory?

Think.

What is a society that doesn't prefer one thing to another, in some way - that can't (by your apparent view) even make a collective statement about what is valued in that society, one more than another preference?

Such a process isn't a society in any sense of the word.

Even your championed "non discrimination" can be overturned in the constitution with votes to amend. Or do you think that an as-prescribed vote to thus amend the constitution would be stuck down by the SCOTUS as unconstitutional?; 1/27/15, 1:15 PM
Fandor said...: The kingdom of God is the ultimate big tent.

All are welcome.

The only requirement for admission is to develop a relationship with Him.

That relationship will most certainly require adjustments in each individual life.; 1/27/15, 1:40 PM
Quayle said...: "That relationship will most certainly require adjustments in each individual life."

And this is the challange for all of us, some more than others.

Most of us want a relationship, but we want it without having to sacrifice some prescious thing we're hanging onto - a habbit, a self image, a need to be recognized for something, a sin we love, our right to haul off and let someone have it when we feel like it or feel we need to.

The story of Abraham is the story of someone willing to put everyting on the alter to have that relationship.

He has put everything on the alter for us, and He invites us to a peer relationshio in which we are a full partner in what was dedicated and devoted to the relationship, even though ours was a widow's mite compated to His.; 1/27/15, 2:09 PM
Think said...: "How is doctrine decided or set in the Mormon church, and who has the authority to set it and to declare what it is or isn't?"

Doctrine is only doctrine in the LDS Church after a three step process is completed: 1) Approval of the First Presidency; 2) agreement of the Twelve Apostles; and 3) acceptance by a sustaining vote of LDS Church members. I can dig up the references for this process if you would like, but I assume I am already boring our non-LDS commenters.

So in a broad sense, assuming you are LDS, you and I both determine what is and isn't doctrine in step three.

As with most things in the LDS theology, it is an orderly process that makes it easy to determine what is and isn't doctrine. But in this case, it isn't me declaring what is and isn't doctrine. It is just a matter of looking at what has gone through this process. Nothing in the canonized LDS doctrine directly addresses the legal/political issue of whether gay marriage should or should not be legal.

But ultimately, according to LDS theology, its members must receive personal revelation for themselves as to whether LDS Doctrine is true. Brigham Young said: ". . .the greatest fear I have is that the people of this Church will accept what we say as the will of the Lord without first praying about it and getting the witness within their own hearts that what we say is the word of the Lord."

I do not "lightly blow off" any statements made by my church's leaders. Instead, I look to official canonized doctrine to see if church talks or statements are in harmony with canonized doctrine (which is sometimes not the case), and then I pray and ponder the issue at hand, using both logic and personal revelation to determine what I believe the answer is. On the issue of gay marriage, I long ago determine that values that I hold dearly, which are consistent with the canonized doctrine of the LDS Church, require that I support equal rights, regardless of gender.; 1/27/15, 2:13 PM
bbkingfish said...: Nice to see the Mormons finally come around to accepting the concept of "fairness for all." Did they offer any explanation for why it took them nearly 200 years to see the light?; 1/27/15, 2:24 PM
Think said...: "Even your championed 'non discrimination' can be overturned in the constitution with votes to amend. Or do you think that an as-prescribed vote to thus amend the constitution would be stuck down by the SCOTUS as unconstitutional?"

I am not sure what your hypothetical proves, and I am having a difficult time understanding the point of your post. Of course I do not believe that SCOTUS could strike down a Constitutional amendment (assuming the amendment went through the proper Constitutionally proscribed process).

Yes, in theory, we could remove portions of the Constitution that require non-discrimination. However, that would never happen, as most American value equal rights. It would also fly in the face of the idea of inalienable rights. Incidentally, altering the basic principles upon which the Constitution is built might even go against LDS theology, which holds the Constitution to be divinely inspired.

As to your broader point, I don't understand why you think society has the right or need to make collective statements through the adoption of laws. If you want to make a collective statement, join a club or something.; 1/27/15, 2:28 PM
The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...: Giving Mitt a helping hand?; 1/27/15, 2:37 PM
Quayle said...: "I don't understand why you think society has the right or need to make collective statements through the adoption of laws."

So what are laws if not collective statements?; 1/27/15, 2:49 PM
Think said...: "So what are laws if not collective statements?"

OK, I'll give you that they may be collective statements. But, long ago, we decided that the supreme law included equality. The principal is easier easier said than done, but it supersedes your desire to make a collective statement on the morality of gay sex through the use of government force.; 1/27/15, 3:01 PM
Alex said...: No. anti-discrimination is unconditional. No negotiation.; 1/27/15, 3:17 PM
Quayle said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/27/15, 3:23 PM
Quayle said...: Think, I am far closer to your thought process that you may realize. (I'm actually a bit afraid that I'm inadvertently arguing with one of my best friends. Do you by chance live in Dallas?)

My point, perhaps poorly expressed, is that we have to leave open a door for the following:

"That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, 'Thou shalt not kill'; at another time He said, 'Thou shalt utterly destroy.' This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.' " [Joseph Smith]

I think under the world-view to which we've bought in, such changes usually come to and from the 12, on whose backs this entire thing rests - yes, admitting that we all should close the loop individually.

But it seems to me that Joseph's statement doesn't really support an "orderly process that makes it easy to determine what is and isn't doctrine" and an "I look to official canonized doctrine to see if church talks or statements are in harmony with canonized doctrine (which is sometimes not the case),.." approach.

In the end, our notions of "fairness" or "inalienable rights" may have nothing to do with what comes under the above structure Joseph articulated. We need to be open to that, is my point.; 1/27/15, 3:24 PM
traditionalguy said...: Quayle... My answer is that a political computation has been made inside Prophet Central in Salt Lake that continued opposition to what most of the younger generation thinks is silly to oppose is not where Mormon's fight for MORALITY should be waged anymore...just stick to opposing caffeine drinks, beer and tobacco products where true sin lies lurking at your door.; 1/27/15, 3:33 PM
LilyBart said...: I've got no problem respecting others' rights to live as they wish, AS LONG as they respect mine.

And this DOES mean that baking the cake is MY choice.

(I think the idea of public accommodation should be narrowed to include only those businesses serving basic human needs - like general restaurants, hotels/models (not including B&Bs), apartment buildings, etc. Other businesses can reserve the right to refuse service. And I can reserve the right NOT to use those business who refuse service); 1/27/15, 3:50 PM
LilyBart said...: LDS Church is playing the long game.

This is almost no argument you can make in favor of SSM that cannot be made for plural marriage as well.; 1/27/15, 3:51 PM
Think said...: "This is almost no argument you can make in favor of SSM that cannot be made for plural marriage as well."

Sure there is. SSM is gender discrimination and plural marriage is not.

1) A man and a woman apply for a marriage license and it is granted.
2) A woman and a woman apply for a marriage license and it is denied.

What made the difference in the two scenarios? The gender of the second party.; 1/27/15, 4:17 PM
Think said...: Quayle,

I don't live in Dallas, though I am sure we do agree on more than we disagree on.

For this particular issue, I have to follow my conscience and principles. Which leads me to support gay marriage.

But, I also believe in freedom of association. Where the two rights collide is where I think the interesting debate is.; 1/27/15, 4:19 PM
jr565 said...: Think wrote:
Isn't opposing the equal right to marry just that? Let me guess, you somehow justify that discrimination?

I think he'd question the word equal right to marry. You don't have a right to equality in marriage if it means redefining marriage. Anymore than a polygamist does to his equal marriage.; 1/27/15, 5:03 PM
jr565 said...: Think wrote;
Sure there is. SSM is gender discrimination and plural marriage is not.

1) A man and a woman apply for a marriage license and it is granted.
2) A woman and a woman apply for a marriage license and it is denied.

But no woman would be able to sign apply for that license so she had the same rights as everyone else. Hence, equality.; 1/27/15, 5:04 PM
jr565 said...: Think, also, since all marriages are made up of men or women denying anyone the right to marriage in a plural marriage would also be sex discrimination too.
A man and a woman and woman would be denied a license. Two women would be discriminated against as opposed to one.; 1/27/15, 5:10 PM
jr565 said...: A brother and sister who are a man and a woman would be denied a license, even though they are a man and a woman. And a sister and a mother would similarly be denied a license even though they are a woman and a woman.; 1/27/15, 5:11 PM
jr565 said...: "1) A man and a woman apply for a marriage license and it is granted.
2) A woman and a woman apply for a marriage license and it is denied."
Your idea of equality seems to be that if its not equal it must be made so because otherwise its discriminatory. If no woman could marry another woman anywhere then its not really discrimination, unless you changed the definition of marriage to mean any two people.; 1/27/15, 5:13 PM
jr565 said...: Think wrote:
OK, I'll give you that they may be collective statements. But, long ago, we decided that the supreme law included equality. The principal is easier easier said than done, but it supersedes your desire to make a collective statement on the morality of gay sex through the use of government force.

But does a ban on gay marriage in fact do that? Gays can still have sex despite not being unable to marry.; 1/27/15, 5:19 PM
jr565 said...: Quayle wrote:

What is a society that doesn't prefer one thing to another, in some way - that can't (by your apparent view) even make a collective statement about what is valued in that society, one more than another preference?

Like the society preferring traditional marriage to pural marriage. Despite people wanting to having plural marriage. Does think think that society can't make that determination about the relationships it wants to codify above others?; 1/27/15, 5:23 PM
jr565 said...: Lily Bart wrote:
I've got no problem respecting others' rights to live as they wish, AS LONG as they respect mine.

And this DOES mean that baking the cake is MY choice.

(I think the idea of public accommodation should be narrowed to include only those businesses serving basic human needs - like general restaurants, hotels/models (not including B&Bs), apartment buildings, etc. Other businesses can reserve the right to refuse service. And I can reserve the right NOT to use those business who refuse service)

The problem is with how society decided to settle the issue.
Prior to gay marriage marriage was both civil and religious. And there was no conflict because it meant the same thing.
Civil society waded in and then changed the definition of civil marriage to also include gay marriage, but still call it marriage.
Thus creating a conflict with people who now have a separate definition of civil and religious marriage, and are now being compelled to do things that are against their conscience simply because society couldn't come up with a different name for gay marriage.
if it was a gay civil union, then people with religious issues to gay marriage would be able to abstain from participating because it would be a religious objection. Because they have the same name society is trying to get religious folks on a technicality.

If a jewish deli only served kosher and people came to the deli asking for non kosher food a deli could say they only serve kosher. If govt created a new pork based product and also called it kosher and then demanded that kosher delis serve it because it's kosher Jews would be offended. Because they are being forced to accommodate not kosher food as kosher simply because society changed the definintion of kosher on them.; 1/27/15, 5:29 PM
Jason said...: Alex:

No. anti-discrimination is unconditional. No negotiation.

You have no clue what you're even saying, you drooling twit.; 1/27/15, 5:39 PM
Think said...: jr565 - Your arguments are so circular, off-the-point, and incoherent that we can't even have an intelligent debate on the issue. I suggest you research the law surrounding gender discrimination to begin with. Because you don't understand the legal analysis at hand.; 1/27/15, 6:06 PM
Think said...: "Prior to gay marriage marriage was both civil and religious."

And there is the problem. It should have never become civil to begin with. But once it did, then it must survive constitutional scrutiny.; 1/27/15, 6:08 PM
Anonymous said...: This is one of those headlines where you are reminded the media, and people like Althouse, don't understand believers at all.

We use the same words but mean different things by them.

The media thinks this is news because they think religious people discriminate, or naturally want to discriminate, against those they believe are sinful.

While I personally wish this were true, it's been my experience most believers hold pretty mainstream belief's on discrimination.

In this case, the Mormon's are just restating what they've already believed, but trying to get people to understand the other side of things also.

It says a lot about Althouse that she shares the headline without comment.; 1/27/15, 7:20 PM
sunsong said...: I live in Utah and have family who are LDS. A lot of the things being said here about the Church are not factual...

But that aside, as far as I'm concerned I have no problem with businesses refusing to serve LGBT folks
AS LONG AS
they have a prominent sign posting just that.; 1/27/15, 7:37 PM
Jason said...: Sunsong doesn't get it either.

A business can be perfectly fine with selling a box of donuts to a homosexual but not with providing a custom wedding cake celebrating a same sex marriage.

And he/she shouldn't be telling people what signs to post unless there's a public safety imperative. Why should people let you mark the stores of believing and practicing christians against their will? What's next, anyway, you protofascist little libtard? Yellow stars?; 1/27/15, 8:27 PM
M-eye view said...: What I think is missing is that the LDS church stance is that they want to be able to maintain standards for their employees.

They have gay employees and have taken action on heterosexual employees because their standard is sexual activity outside of marriage as they believe god has defined it.

This is the ability to enforce their standards within their organization. This is their religious right, and want not to loose the ability to self govern their organization and staff that are employed for the religious purposes they believe in. They have a point there.m

The escalating fight of forcing those of either side where rights are in competition is not healthy for either rights. Trying to reach balance is a worth while endeavour for all citizens rights and freedoms, and maintenance of democracy.; 1/27/15, 11:54 PM
jr565 said...: Mary I meant in terms of a business that caters to marriage. traditional marriage was man and woman and civil marriage was also man woman.; 1/28/15, 6:43 AM
jr565 said...: Think wrote:
jr565 - Your arguments are so circular, off-the-point, and incoherent that we can't even have an intelligent debate on the issue. I suggest you research the law surrounding gender discrimination to begin with. Because you don't understand the legal analysis at hand.

prior to gay marriage no man could marry another man. How then would it be gender discrimination to not allow a man and a man to marry? That was simply not the definition of marriage.; 1/28/15, 6:47 AM
jr565 said...: And further it's like society decided to add something that wasn't kosher to Jews to the list of things that are kosher and then telling them that they have to serve it otherwise they are discriminating.Or getting them on the technicality that they are discriminating because they say they serve kosher but aren't serving the thing that society says is kosher which is not in fact kosher.; 1/28/15, 6:59 AM
jr565 said...: a baker should be able to not bake a cake for polygamists If they think polygamy is not marriage, no? Or is that the equivalent of segregation?; 1/28/15, 7:01 AM
jr565 said...: Even if polygamy was legal, I'd think a Christian baker would have a right to not bake a cake for a polygamous wedding.; 1/28/15, 7:11 AM
jr565 said...: In the case of the baker in Colorado, the state hadn't yet legalized gay marriage when the baker got in trouble for refusing to bake a cake. He further said he would bake them birthday cakes, or cookies or what hav youe, just not a wedding cake. Because he has a religious objection to gay marriage but not to gays per se.; 1/28/15, 7:24 AM
Justin said...: Giving Mitt a helping hand? Bingo! Religion is politics. SBC leaders just called for multiethnic congregations. And the SBC, of course, was formed because of a disagreement over whether missionaries should have slaves. I am constantly staggered by people's unwillingness to see that the positions of religious institutions on social issues are completely untethered to religious doctrine. E.g., interracial marriage is against God's will. Until it isn't.; 1/28/15, 9:49 AM
Anonymous said...: DOn't force people to bake the cake,or officiate weddings they find objectionably wrong.

What if someone is offended by interracial marriages? Or, for that matter, what if they think it is objectionably wrong to let people-of-color to actually sit at the same lunch counter as whites?

A person shouldn't be forced to do anything that their god told them is wrong, should they?; 1/28/15, 1:46 PM