Nov.10.2009
8:43 pm
by Laura
SLC Council - No discrimation here
Salt Lake City’s Mayor and City Council are considering a couple of ordinances which would ban discrimination in housing and employment based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
The ordinances in question would both ban discrimination and provide a mechanism whereby individuals may file grievance claims.
An LDS Church spokesman, Michael Otterson, spoke in favor of passing the non-discrimination laws, calling them,
“fair and reasonable and does not do violence to the institution of marriage. It is also entirely consistent with the Church’s prior position on these matters. The Church remains unequivocally committed to defending the bedrock foundation of marriage between a man and a woman.
“I represent a church that believes in human dignity, in treating others with respect even when we disagree – in fact, especially when we disagree. The Church’s past statements are on the public record for all to see. In these comments and in our actions, we try to follow what Jesus Christ taught. Our language will always be respectful and acknowledge those who differ, but will also be clear on matters that we feel are of great consequence to our society.”
The story of Salt Lake City’s Human Rights Council is interesting, and their research about homosexuality in the city (which provided empirical evidence that discrimination based on sexual orientation and identification) is summarized in the background information linked to above.
Councilman Eric Jergensen (District 3) said, “Someone tonight said, ‘Voting against this is morally wrong; the Bible speaks against homosexuality.’ I just need to address this for a moment. Nowhere in the Bible have I ever read that discrimination is acceptable from one human being to another. Not in one place. We may choose to disagree, and eliminating discrimination is not eliminating disagreement, it is enshrining respect. We decide to focus honestly and sincerely together upon those things which we do have agreement. We can find a society that cares.”
Councilman JT Martin (District 6) said, “More than anything, [as councilmembers] we’ve learned compassion and respect. We cannot make decisions in ignorance. Tonight we have an opportunity to vote on something that does bring equality and does defend the Constitution [of the United States]. I want to thank my church for this effort. There’s going to be those tonight that are going to say that the church somehow blinked or succumbed under great pressures. That’s not the case, I don’t believe so. This has been ongoing for as long as I’ve been a councilmember. This is a big subject for them. They have compassion and they have church members with gay sons and daughters and they believe like we do. It’s not hard to make the right decision - just do the right thing.”
Council chair Søren D. Simonsen (District 7) said, “Other local governments and perhaps the state will follow suit. There is still a need and we can do something about it to end discriminatory practices.”
The city council received a standing ovation from community members present when it voted unanimously against discrimination on both counts.
Filed in Uncategorized |
I fail to see how LGBT couples “do violence to the institution of marriage.”
I’m sorry to have to say this, but I see this is a huge PR move on the part of the LDS church to try to retrieve the black eye they’re getting for their involvement in Prop 8 and Question 1.
Fiona, although it’s easy for some to take that stance (I’ve been having the same discussion with a few people of Facebook) it’s really important that we all honor this step forward regardless of the motive. Having my roots in Mormonism and my family still firmly planted there, I know this move is from the purest place of their heart. It may have been the backlash that got them to this point, but no matter, they are here, and it’s a VERY good thing. If people push back against them now, how will progress ever be made? Now is the greatest test of whether we who are fighting for equality can pracitce the tolerance that we preach.
Hi, Sheri. I don’t deny for one second the importance of the move. I apologize that I was not able to make that clear.
I am tremendously offended at the idea that equality under CIVIL law somehow “does violence to the institution of marriage.”
LDS Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland told the Salt Lake Tribune that “Anything good is shareable,” indicating that other communities (perhaps even the state of Utah?) could certainly look to Salt Lake City’s new non-discrimination ordinances - both the process leading up to the agreement and the ordinances themselves - as exemplary.
Conservatives who opposed the ordinances say in the same article that, of course the church supports the ordinances - it is exempted from complying with them, but the “rest of us” are being discriminated against because of our religious beliefs.
Neither the church nor any of its wholly owned subsidiaries (including its universities, schools and at least portions of the new City Creek condo/shopping complex) are required to comply with the nondiscrimination ordinances.
Hopefully the Church will keep to a minimum the places where it might deny housing or employment to members of the GLBT community and seek to put its actions where its words are and open more doors than it closes and nurturing the relationships that are being made between two disparate communities.
Certainly there is a place for restricting student housing on a religious college campus, or employment within the Church Office Building, but there appears to be less reason to restrict housing or employment in the larger community represented by places like City Creek Center or Deseret Book. Particularly when church policy is to accept fully and completely celibate GLB members wherever they may be.
Hi Fiona, If I were to pick out every policy of the church that I find offensive I could write another book, but the truth is, change, regardless of how slow it comes, must happen with the first step. I think this is a first step in the right direction.
Yes, this is a good step in the right direction, but I have to agree with Fiona here. It is offensive to imply that same-sex marriage somehow causes violence. And you know darn well they intentionally conjured up this phrase for that purpose. They could have left it out, but no, they just couldn’t leave it alone. To me it indicates that this extraordinary step was made possible because of all the heat they’ve been getting. But it is a good baby step forward.
Fiona and Dave,
I guess I just read that statement wrong. I thought they were admitting that giving equality to the gay community does NOT do violence to the institution of marriage; implying to me that they had changed their minds and no longer see equality as a threat to marriage? Am I reading it wrong?
Sheri
Typical Libra, I can see both sides to the statement about giving equality to the gay community does not do violence to the institution of marriage.
It certainly is a step in the right direction to pass laws against discriminating on the basis of one’s sexual orientation. And to admit that passing those laws does not threaten marriage. However, I also think that statement in someway states that this equality will not be extended to the marriage laws.
And, let me add, that the church was too much emphasized for a political issue. It implies that the church runs the city. While SLC may or may not be predominantly LDS, there are other religions with large populations in SLC.
Just my take,
Sheryl
Interesting comment by Andrew Sullivan:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/11/the-mormon-move.html
From CowboyII’s link:
For this is not something that many other churches, including my own, have been able or prepared to do. I wish, of course, that Michael Otterson, who is also a decent and sincere man, had not framed the position in such a defensive way:
“The church supports these ordinances because they are fair and reasonable and do not do violence to the institution of marriage.”
That’s a lamentably inflammatory way to describe gay citizens’ genuine attempt to seek equality in civil marriage - which we certainly don’t see as “violence” in any way at all. But the extremity of that quote may well have been necessary to avoid a backlash among conservative Mormons. And I would much rather focus on the positive gesture than the back-handed swipe that accompanied it.
—–
I do think that the statement is inflammatory. I suppose its purpose might be interpreted as the writer does here (that it was necessary to avoid backlash).
Again, I agree that it is important that the LDS Church supported this legislation — because, I am sorry to say, I don’t think that Utah (and SLC in particular) has very effective separation of church and state. :-/
I fail to understand how civil marriage does any “violence” to the institution of marriage, because the LDS church will no more be forced to marry gay men or lesbians or any non-member than it does now. There was no real need that I can see for making that statement in those words.
Good points, Fiona64.