Violence against Marriage???

Thanks to Steve Greenstreet for this perspective…  I’m with you 100%

Mormons Endorse Not Leaving the Gays To Rot.

Stop the presses! The LDS church, via spokesman Michael Otterson, held a special news conference today to announce to every soul in the entire universe that they support “the right of people (gays) to have a roof over their heads and the right to work without being discriminated against.”

Wow… what a stance.

A truly groundbreaking day in the progression of civil rights. Gays can now have a roof over their heads and not be fired from their jobs thanks to the stamp of approval from the Mormons.

C’mon, really? How is this even news? Did gay folks really need the church’s nod of approval to have what Otterson himself admitted are “common-sense rights”?

Now I’m sure all the national press is eating this up with a spoon printing headlines of “WHOA! MORMONS ENDORSE SOMETHING THAT HELPS GAYS” and so on. Because that’s the angle the church wanted and that’s the easiest angle to fit into 250 words or less. And that’s just lazy journalism. Copy / Paste.

Because if you read the church’s statement, it’s really full of the same old mumbo jumbo.

Starting with this zinger:

“The Church supports this ordinance because it is fair and reasonable and does not do violence to the institution of marriage.”

Violence? Against the institution of marriage? Seriously? Has no one else called “crazy” on this yet?

I’ll tell you what, Michael Otterson Official Spokeperson for the Mormon Church, violence is exactly what your church’s policies have enacted over the past couple decades. Violence? How do you address the high suicide rate among gay Mormons? In our film, we tell the story of Stuart Matis who, after sitting through countless church meetings listening to gay bashing, stood on the steps of his Mormon church in California and put a bullet in his brain while holding note saying, in essence, “I’m sorry”. Stuart, sadly, is one of many. Or what about the countless scores of homeless teenagers roming the streets of Utah because Mormon bishops told their families to throw them to the curb? In our film, we followed a group of them around as they slept on filthy mattresses in abandoned warehouses. “There is no hope”, one of them said, “I’m surprised I’m not dead.” How does that fit into “fair and reasonable”?

I’d really like to know. Which is why I asked you a few months ago. I spoke with Kim Farah, another spokesperson with the Mormon church. I asked, “The church raised millions of dollars and engaged entire communities in helping pass Proposition 8 in California. How much of the churches efforts are being used to help the gay members, within your church, who are suffering suicide and homelessness in Utah and nationwide?”

She stumbled a bit before candidly saying, “I’m not familiar with any specific programs the church has for that. I’ll have to… I’ll have to get back to you on that.”

She never did.

The fact of the matter is that the press conference held today was a desperate attempt by the Mormon church to curb the relentlous bad press they’ve had since Proposition 8 passed. They lied about their financial reports, they coerced church members into donating exorbitant dollar amounts (some even gave their kids’ entire college savings), they ended up donating 30 of the 40 million dollars for “Yes on 8”, and then, when it was all over, they helped strip a civil right from tens of thousands of Americans.

Oh, but it’s “not an issue of civil rights”, Kim Farah said in my interview.

And the Mormon leaders know a thing or two about civil rights. Just ask Dallin Oaks, who said that the backlash his church has endured because of Prop 8 is equal to or more than the lynchings, fire hoses, police dogs, beatings, and utter chaos that blacks endured during the civil rights movement.

I could go on, but I shouldn’t have to. This was a ruse from the Mormon church. Plain and simple. And most of us should see right through it. You can’t strip rights from thousands and then endorse “um, ok you can have a house” and then call yourself a champion of civil rights.

Otterson ended his comments by saying that “In these comments and in our actions, we try to follow what Jesus Christ taught.”

Well, Jesus taught, “By their fruits, ye shall know them.”

Mr. Otterson, our film is full of your church’s fruits. Lies, tears, misery and death.

“Ye shall know them.” Indeed.

6 thoughts on “Violence against Marriage???

  1. Duwayne Anderson

    Folks, it’s worth mentioning that while the Mormon Church has graciously (there’s sarcasm in that word) agreed to allow Salt Lake City to make discrimination against Gays (in housing and employment) illegal, the church retains for itself a specific exemption that allows it to continue (as it surely will) to discriminate for virtually any reason with regard to employment.

    The news wire really should have mentioned that.

    Duwayne Anderson

    Author of “Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and science”

    Reply
  2. Christina Brown

    The church can look magnanimous while still retaining their right to discriminate. Once again they can have their cake and eat it too.

    Reply
    1. Moms Post author

      Awh yes, for now… but thanks to the internet, with its plethora of perspective and insights from credible people like Steve Benson their bigotry is exposed.

      Reply
  3. Christina Brown

    topic image
    Wednesday, Nov 11, 2009, at 07:25 AM
    The LDS Church Again Lies About Its History: Its Opposition To Housing/employment Equality For Gays
    Posted By Steve Benson
    HOMOSEXUALITY IN MORMONISM -Guid- ↑
    Mormon Church self-backpatting over its supposed support of equal protection under the law for gays in housing and employment is unquestionably undeserved, no matter what its PR hacks are hired to say in scripted press releases.

    The freshest, most odiferous case in point:

    Michael Otterson, managing director of the Mormon Church’s public relations department, forthrightly fibbed out of both sides of his mouth when, according to the LDS-owned “Desert News,” he claimed that the LDS Church’s recent “statement of support [of two proposed ordinances protecting gay and lesbian residents from housing and employment discrimination] is consistent with the Church’s prior position on such matters . . . .”

    (“Mormon Church Backs Protection of Gay Rights in Salt Lake City,” by Scott Taylor, in “Desert News,” 10 November 2009, at: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/70

    Once again and with a straight face (no pun intended), the LDS Church serves up a hot, steaming plate of its world-famous Mormon meadow muffins. But since when has the LDS Church shirked from falsifying its own history in the name of advancing its poisonous political agenda?

    As former Mormon and respected historian D. Michael Quinn demonstrates, the LDS Church has a clear and reprehensible track record when it comes to fighting against protection of gays in housing and the workplace.

    Quinn writes:

    “Gays and lesbians are the glaring exception to President [Gordon B.] Hinckley’s public-relations statement to the LDS general conference in 1995: ‘We must be willing to defend the rights of others who may become the victims of bigotry.’

    “With regard to homosexuals, this is a slogan which LDS headquarters tries to subvert in every possible way.”

    Let us count those ways:

    –The Utah Mormon Church’s Discrimination Against Hiring Waiters in Its Restaurants Who “Seem” Gay–

    “When the Joseph Smith Memorial Building opened in 1993 as added office-space for the LDS bureaucracy at headquarters, this multi-story building had two fine-dining restaurants for the general public.

    “The human resources director instructed the manager of these church-owned restaurants not to hire as waiters any males who ‘seem gay.’ . . .

    “Similar to visual profiling for racial discrimination, LDS headquarters apparently denies employment on the basis of stereotypical views about masculine appearance and homosexual characteristics, or stereotypical views about feminine appearance and lesbian characteristics.

    “. . . [T]his has nothing to do with ‘morality’ or the actual sexual behavior of persons who are subjected to this discrimination. In fact, completely heterosexual persons may also be misidentified as lesbian or gay on the basis of speech or appearance, and then suffer employment discrimination in Utah.

    “This contributes to the climate of fear, which is why anti-discrimination laws are necessary.”

    -Source:

    “My [Quinn’s] telephone interview on 4 September 2000 with a person who has asked to remain anonymous, but who had direct knowledge of the hiring practices in the Joseph Smith Memorial Building’s new Roof Restaurant and Garden Restaurant in 1993.”

    –The Utah Mormon Church’s Successful Opposition to a Salt Lake City Anti-Discrimination Ordinance That Would Have Included Protection of Gay Sexual Orientation–

    ” . . . [A]fter President Hinckley’s [allegedly pro-gay rights] statement, Mormon leadership successfully opposed adding sexual orientation to Salt Lake City’s anti-discrimination ordinance.”

    -Sources:

    –“Editorial, ‘S.L. Should Protect All Equally,’ in ‘Deseret News,’ 8 December 1997, A-10 (despite the title, this spoke out against Salt Lake City Council’s proposal to protect gays and lesbians from civil discrimination);

    –“Editorial, ‘Don’t Repeal Gay Ordinance,’ in ‘Salt Lake Tribune,’ 11 January 1998, AA-1;

    –“‘LDS Leader Urges Attendance at Meeting,’ in ‘Salt Lake Tribune,’ 13 January 1998, B-6 (requesting local Mormons to express their opposition to including gays and lesbians in the city’s anti-discrimination ordinance);

    –“‘Anti-Gay Bias Ordinance Has A Short Life,’ in ‘Deseret News,’ 14 January 1998;

    –“John Harrington, ‘Morality Plays: Repealing Salt Lake City’s Gay-Protection Ordinance Is an Outcome of Mormon Politics,’ in ‘Salt Lake City Weekly,’ 15 January 1998, 6-7;

    –“Editorial, ‘Bringing Sense Back to City Hall,’ in ‘Deseret News,’ 17 January 1998, A-8 (congratulating the Salt Lake City council for removing sexual orientation from the city’s anti-discrimination law.”

    –The Utah Mormon Church’s Active Opposition to Equal Rights for Gays in Housing and Employment Under Gordon B. Hinckley’s Political Campaign Direction–

    “After he began directing the LDS Church’s anti-ERA campaign nationally in 1977 . . ., Gordon B. Hinckley was also on the executive committee of Seattle radio station KIRO when it supported anti-gay Initiative 13, which would have revoked Seattle’s city ordinance protecting gays and lesbians from civil discrimination in housing and employment.

    “The co-sponsor of this ballot initiative was a Mormon policeman, who said he and his John Birch Society partner-policeman had launched the anti-gay petition for it because a ‘homosexual applied for a job as a King County police officer.’ (See ‘The Cops Who Lead the Fight Against the Gays,’ in ‘Seattle Post-Intelligencer,’ 6 August 1978.)

    “‘The Blade'(Washington, D.C.), October 1978, also commented: ‘KIRO, the Mormon-owned station, continues to broadcast anti-Gay ads, and the local station manager has editorialized against Gays, even calling for Gays to be placed in “concentration camps,” according to a source in the Seattle mayor’s office.’ . . .

    “For Hinckley’s role as KIRO director and member of its executive committee, see also Sheri Dew, ‘Go Forward With Faith: The Biography of Gordon B. Hinckley’ (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1996), p. 304.”

    –Summary: The Utah Mormon Church’s History of Active, Immunized Job Discrimination Against Gays–

    “[There are] reports that LDS headquarters actively discriminates against gays and lesbians in employment. With no claim of due process, this discrimination extends to completely secular jobs and requires no proof of ‘inappropriate’ sexual behavior.”

    (D. Michael Quinn, “Prelude to the National ‘Defense of Marriage’ Campaign: Civil Discrimination Against Feared or Despised Minorities,” originally published in “Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought,” 33:3, pp. 1-52; reposted with permission at: http://www.affirmation.org/learning/p…)

    How can you tell when the Mormon Church’s Prophets, Seers and Public Relations Regulators are lying for the Lord?

    Yup, you got it: When their latter-day lips are moving.

    Reply
  4. Vanessa

    “…Violence to the institution of marriage.” Wow! Un-f-in-believable! I don’t understand how me and my honey getting married would cause “violence to the institution of marriage.” What does that mean, really?! Good grief!

    Reply
  5. Duwayne Anderson

    Folks:

    Here’s a letter I sent to a newspaper editor. Might have some interesting factoids for readers of this blog:

    ———————————–

    Tammy:

    Here is some useful and pertinent information:

    1) The Mormon Church was responsible for the Supreme Court decision in the late 1980s which established that churches are immune from Title VII liability. In other words, the LDS Church took the extraordinary step of seeking a decision from the highest court in the land, giving the church the *right* to discriminate. Here is a useful link:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=RZ7rFC6pL0kC&pg=PA206&lpg=PA206&dq=the+Mormon+Church+Title+VII+liability.&source=bl&ots=urXAL-Xc5T&sig=ftSnEpNI5XV7y2GNaiDaMUho8vw&hl=en&ei=2T78Sv-SO4mwsgOR5oWEAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CA8Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=&f=false

    2) Mormons and the Mormon Church are far more likely to be defendants in discrimination suits that plaintiffs. Here is a website that discusses relevant statistics in that regard:

    http://mormonmatters.org/2009/09/12/the-surprising-truth-about-mormon-employment-discrimination/

    Here are just two high-profile examples of the Mormon Church fighting for the right to discriminate in hiring:

    1) in a 1987 Supreme Court case dealing with Title VII, the Court ruled that a gym operated by the Mormon Church could require its janitor to be a Mormon in good standing. http://openjurist.org/483/us/327

    2) Michael Quinn, a professor at BYU, was fired for being Gay. His story: http://www.lds-mormon.com/wsj_quinn.shtml

    The LDS Church has suffered some obvious negative publicity lately, with their support for Proposition 8 (which they tried desperately to keep out of the news) and their involvement in the defeat of Gay rights in Main. Their “support” for the SLC non-discrimination law is a thinly veiled attempt at fixing some of that public relations nightmare. If the church was *truly* committed to non-discrimination in hiring and housing, however, they would petition for legislation that requires *all* organizations to abide by the law, instead of arguing (as they did) that the LDS Church should be *immune* from the law.

    That is the real story here, and (unfortunately) nobody has covered it.

    Duwayne Anderson
    Author of “Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and science”

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *