metta8 saidMormon bishop calls church’s treatment of LGBTQ people an ‘atrocity’
The Mormon Church is interesting to me. I've met many Mormons, and am out to several I call friends. They are typically younger than 30, so maybe its an age thing, but they have absolutely no problem with my being gay.
Overall, I think the Mormon Church has really pulled back from politics following Prop 8. They sunk a lot of cash and had a big PR issue with that election, and now simply are focused more on giving a good background for Romney and Huntsman. (And avoid the Kennedy-style assumptions that they'd be taking orders from Utah )
Partly because of the relative age of their church, they've had to adapt and or incorporate different viewpoints far faster than say the Catholic Church. Additionally, the Church has given its blessings to non-discrimination statements in the State of Utah (Salt Lake City's now includes gender identity and sexual orientation, for housing and employment.) This is compared to the Catholic Church's refusal to offer services for the homeless following DC's legalization of same sex marriage.
I had a Mormon bishop who told me he thinks the church will "soften in time" as relating to homosexuality. I was stunned, to say the least. I didn't believe him, though it was somewhat nice to hear of the possibility.
Prop 8 in California, Church Attempting to Secure the 1st Amendment
As for the Prop 8 deal, I think the LDS (Mormon) Church got a bad rap. Did the church move forth to have "domestic partnerships" and "civil unions" disbanded? No. Left that alone, which as one of the California Supreme Court justices cited, give gay people just as much right before the law as "marriage" does.
From the Church's standpoint, the Prop 8 thing has to do with religious freedom and putting into law language the protects them. Remember the 1st Amendment to the Constitution? It begins---and this is rock bottom first thing in the Bill of Rights:
QUOTE AUTHOR GOES HERE"Congress Shall Make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Congress was forbidden to make laws regarding religion. But was there such a barring on the courts? Well, no, cause there was no reason to spell out a prohibition of lawmaking on the courts by the US Founders, for the courts weren't authorized to make laws. Yet today, courts do so all the time.
With a Mormon background, I had ancestors murdered, left orphaned, hunted by dogs and federal marshals, houses burned, they were driven out of the boundaries of the United States, then later US Armies (Johnston's Army) marched into the Utah Territory with the intent to destroy the church or have it "comply" with "marriage" as the government wanted to define it.
Sound Ironic? Sure. But think about it. It's not hypocritical as many would give a knew jerk reaction to say. I think Elton John had it right when on the Prop 8 issue, he said "give them the word marriage" and conceded it didn't change a damn thing for him in terms of his rights as a legal "domestic partner."
Prop 8 will be overturned in time. The LDS church knows that. And mark my word, when it is overturned there will be lawsuits and court rulings coming against the church that are going to be in vicious violation of the 1st Amendment. The Mormon church will not be left to practice it's religion or marriage as it defines it (and marriage is a religious contract historically, not one by the state), but will be mercilessly persecuted as it was in the late 19th century. Eastern establishment folks were hostile to Mormons for their plural wives, which was only a minority of men who had such families, whereas the moralists back east in D.C. had their mistresses in many cases. All this helps us see what a joke it is to get up on our high horses in condemnation of each other, for we are all tainted, who is there without sin ready to cast forth the first stone, right?
The truly righteous answer is to get the damned hand of government out of such affairs, get government back into its constitutional straightjacket. It is then churches could be free to do as they pleased without fear of the 1st Amendment needing additional protections in law, such as Prop 8 sought to do for church people not wanting to or believing in marrying gay couples in their temples and churches---a real fear that lawyers warn will be an issue down the road when Prop 8 is overturned.
Gay churches can marry gay couples. Straight only churches can do as they please, and people can attend either or none. All are left free from government interferance and coercion. Such would be the ideal way, and the Constitutional way.
That said, I concede today is complicated. Such things are no longer as black and white as they would seem, as there can be a role for the state in looking at the definition of marriage, as there are divorces, custody battles, etc. Yet, leave marriage as it is to the religionists, and give homosexual couples the full rights of the same through domestic partnerships---which is as it now stands, as the California judges acknowledged upon review of the prop 8 case.