As many of you are already aware, the LDS Church recently endorsed a number of Salt Lake ordinances banning discrimination against gays in housing and employment. Now, I don’t think this is penance enough for the untold pain the church and its rhetoric has caused the LGBT community (both within and outside the church) over the past few decades. But nevertheless, this is a positive development and one for which the LDS Church and Equality Utah deserve our thanks.
Andrew Sullivan is a conservative, Obama-supporting, homosexual, Catholic blogger—oh, and a walking contradiction. Last year, he wrote at length about Proposition 8 and the Mormons’ involvement in it.* What Sullivan wrote today in response to the LDS Church’s support of non-discrimination laws expresses my sentiments exactly. Below are some excerpts, but be sure to read the article in full.
It is possible to be cynical or begrudging in reacting to the LDS Church’s unprecedented public decision to support civic protections against discrimination in employment and housing with respect to homosexuals in Salt Lake City. I think that is a temptation to be resisted.
What the LDS church has done in Utah is an immensely important and positive step and places the Mormon church in a far more positive and pro-gay position than any other religious group broadly allied with the Christianist right.
…
I believe that there are forces of discrimination and bigotry within the Mormon church – and they have recently been ascendant. But that is true of most churches and most institutions. And what I have long observed among Mormons – unlike some other denominations – is also an American decency that tends to win out in the end. I’ve never met a nasty Mormon. They put many Christians to shame in their practice of their faith and the civility and sincerity with which they live their lives. And this decision in Salt Lake City – not an easy or inevitable one – to make a clear distinction between civil marriage and other civil protections is one worthy of respect.
I do not agree with it. I see no reason why civil marriage for non-Mormons should be banned because Mormons find it anathema to their doctrines – just as I see no reason why civil divorce should be banned because it violates the Catholic church’s doctrines. But I can respect that position because I can respect the sincerity of that religious belief and see in this stance a genuine attempt to reach out and respect the rights of gay citizens in certain basic respects. Gays should and must reciprocate.
For this is not something that many other churches, including my own, have been able or prepared to do.
*Here were my thoughts on the Proposition 8 debate.
I think this is an important article for a number of reasons. Sullivan’s tone is particularly noteworthy. I hope his conciliatory efforts do not go unnoticed by those who should be very impressed by them. I’m optimistic that this new form of discourse will slowly become the norm and not the exception in the future. I can always hope.
Great article by Sullivan. I really appreciate his tone on this one. While it’s obviously not enough, it IS a great step given the church’s history.
I guess I am an outsider on this issue. While I do not like bigoted discrimination, as a free-market capitalist and Burkean conservative, I don’t feel comfortable with the anti-discrimination legislation.
First, when we support such policies, we have to assume that they are capable of eliminating or at least significantly reducing something as ugly as discrimination. As a skeptic of government-led social engineering, I don’t believe that this is possible… and furthermore, such policies may in fact reinforce bigotry.
Second, I think that employers and business owners should be allowed to discriminate based upon whatever correct or incorrect assumption they have, and government should mostly refrain from injecting any kind of morality when it comes to property rights. Surely, discriminating against a homosexual employee and terminating him simply because of sexual orientation is offensive to most, myself included. Yet which is more fragile and valuable, the employment of an individual, or the fundamental treatment of property rights? I feel that the latter is ultimately more valuable to any free society. If we want to see discrimination disappear, why not let public opinion and private initiatives naturally drive it out? For example, if I know of a business which openly discriminates against a certain group, an action which I find morally reprehensible, how likely is it that I will frequent that business?
Thirdly, discrimination is an integral part of hiring, and as a manager, I employ some level of discrimination to practically every aspect of my relations to my employees (hiring, training, incentives, discipline, firing, ect.)… protecting certain groups from “discrimination” takes the entire operation into the abstract and in this case, brings sexuality itself and our relationship to it into question. How capable is a judge or lawyer in determining my true motivations and biases? If I am pushing for a work environment in which any expression of sexuality is discouraged, how should I deal with someone who is protected who is also guilty of violating this norm? What we will see is that such relationships will be defined by lawyers and judges instead of employers and employees (private individuals).
While I don’t like many forms of discrimination, I feel that this particular form should be protected.
Marc, I’m so happy to see you disagree with your church on something (the anti-discrimination measure)! Your heresy is always welcome here. Indeed, it is encouraged.
Also, should I take your remarks to mean that you disagree with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed racial discrimination in employment?
Wow, if I have any desire to eventually enter a life of politics, I need to make sure that this particular opinion remains on the “down-low.” You know, I have a number of disagreements with the way in which government has attempted to legislate egalitarianism. Despite the fact that I personally have a strong distaste for racism and other forms of bigotry, at the expense of federalism and private property rights, I cannot agree with such policies.
Generally, I feel that government, especially the federal government, is incapable of social engineering. Such changes in culture and norms should be allowed to take place organically. My view in no way condones heinous institutions like slavery, nor does it place any moral value on discrimination. Instead, it realistically evaluates the success government has had in centrally planning social change.
I could understand your argument were it just that the government shouldn’t involve itself in or is bad at “social engineering.” But is your argument really that the government is incapable of it? It seems absurd to me to argue that an institution as powerful as the government doesn’t have the ability to enact social change. Do churches have this ability, and if so, why not government?