The Church and Gay Marriage: Are Mormons Misunderstood?

[Starry Messenger]

My question for all of you today, why is TIME writing homey paeans to the bigotry of the Mormon Church Leaders and several of its members? Please take a look at this article and see if you can spot the problems.



The Church and Gay Marriage: Are Mormons Misunderstood?

Last November, Jay Pimentel began hearing that people in his neighborhood were receiving letters about him. Pimentel lives in Alameda, Calif., a small, liberal-leaning community hanging off Oakland into the San Francisco Bay. Pimentel, who is a Mormon, had supported Proposition 8, the ballot initiative banning same-sex marriage. And that made him a target. "Dear Neighbor," the letter began, "Our neighbors, Colleen and Jay Pimentel" — and it gave their address — "contributed $1,500.00 to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign. NEIGHBORS SHOULD BE AWARE OF THEIR NEIGHBORS' CHOICES." The note accused the Pimentels of "obsessing about same-sex marriage." It listed a variety of local causes that recipients should support — "unlike the Pimentels."

Pimentel, a lawyer and a lay leader in the small Mormon congregation in Alameda, is markedly even-keeled. Yet the poison-pen note still steams him, even though in May the California Supreme Court validated Prop 8 as constitutional. He is bothered less by the revelation of his monetary contribution, which he stands by, than the fact that the letter's author didn't bother to find out that every other Saturday for 15 years, he or someone else from Alameda's 184-member Mormon ward has delivered a truckload of hot meals to the Midway Shelter for Abused and Homeless Women and Children — one of the organizations the Pimentels allegedly wouldn't support. "The church does a lot of things in the community we don't issue press releases about," he says. "And when people criticize us, we often just take it on the chin. I guess you could say I'm not satisfied with the way we're seen." (See pictures from inside a Mormon ward.)

Across the country, that's the dilemma facing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. With 13 million members worldwide (by its own count), the LDS is the fourth largest church in the country, the richest per capita and one of the fastest-growing abroad. The body has become a mainstream force, counting among its flock political heavyweights like former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and Democratic Senate majority leader Harry Reid, businesspeople like the Marriotts and entertainers like Glenn Beck and Twilight novelist Stephenie Meyer. The passage of Prop 8 was the church's latest display of its power: individual Mormons contributed half of the proposition's $40 million war chest despite constituting only 2% of California's population. LDS spokesman Michael Otterson says, "This is a moment of emergence."

But that emergence has its costs. Even as Mormons have become more prominent, they have struggled to overcome lingering prejudices and misrepresentations about the sources of their beliefs. Polls suggest that up to half of Americans would be uncomfortable with a Mormon President. And though the Prop 8 victory was a high-water mark for Mormon political advocacy, it also sparked a vicious backlash from gay-rights activists, some of whom accused Mormons of bigotry and blind religious obedience.

The face of bigotry is hiding in plain sight. (Please take some time to read the whole article. The last line on page four is especially ironic/horrible.)

[konnichi wa]

1. I understand them very clearly...they're fucking dirtbags.

:puke:

[Solly Mack]

2. Delivering meals to a shelter doesn't mitigate your bigotry

Actively seeking to deny people their rights isn't just one aspect of Pimentel's character. It's a reflection of what he really is...a bigot.

[Starry Messenger]

7. So many bigoted groups use charitable actions as protective coloration.

Bigoted people too. I was surprised that this article was so slanted. TIME used to do really good exposes of destructive religious movements like their big Scientology article from 1991. What the hell happened?

[Solly Mack]

12. David Van Biema writes about religion doesn't he?

Maybe that's his bias?

[Starry Messenger]

14. It looks like it.

I just don't like the fact that TIME allowed him to paint Prop 8 as a political problem that the Church attacked with fierce grit and determination against all odds. I feel like he's trying to paint the organization as a feisty group of well-wishers who can accomplish anything in the face of adversity. This reads like an article from the Mormon Times.

[Solly Mack]

15. Yep..that's exactly how it reads

The poor put-upon and persecuted Mormons...just striving to do what's right.

[TexasObserver]

52. Besides, some religious groups see outreach programs as marketing events.

They want to minister to the needy AND recruit them.

[NMMNG]

55. Indeed

I'm sure plenty of KKK members do nice things here and there. It doesn't undo the harmful and hateful things they do to others.

[old mark]

3. I see - they gay rights activists are "viscious" - and the Mormons are

misunderstood.....

Who owns TIME now, anyway?

Certainly explains a lot about Glen Beck, though.


mark

[Gormy Cuss]

4. I think that too many of us understand the political actions of the LDS church all too well.

I don't care what faith or creed -- the organized faiths need to stay out of secular matters. It's one thing to remind members of the tenets of the faith and quite another to call them to action. The latter is only appropriate to preserve individual freedoms, not to prevent them.

[konnichi wa]

5. Hell, they aren't satisfied with prevent, they go right for destroy.

motherfuckers
\

[Starry Messenger]

6. Well, those of us in California certainly do.

What about other casual readers of TIME magazine? I was shocked that TIME produced this article. It seems to be promoting this "Thomas Kincade" view of bigotry that I've never seen before in a mainstream periodical.

[Gormy Cuss]

8. It reads like a P.R. piece from SLC.

Those poor misunderstood Mormons blah blah blah. Where's the critical analysis of what the reporter learned?

[Starry Messenger]

11. That's a really good question Gormy Cuss.

I just thought to look up the author. I wonder who this guy is? This isn't his first offense, either.

Here he writes glowingly of Rick Warren:
http://www.faithinpubliclife.org/content/news/2006/12/the_real_losers_in_the_obamawa.html
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1830147,00.html

He seems to have risen through the ranks and is now the TIME "religion" writer. I think some letters to TIME are in order. I don't know how they could have put their seal of approval on this article. It's incredibly insensitive.

[paulsby]

28. rubbish

i of course disagree with LDS church on gay marriage, but NO faith "needs to stay our of secular matters". they have the same right to fight for (what they perceive to be) justice, as anybody else.

the history of the civil rights movement is FILLED with people of faith, and "organized faiths" fighting for causes, from bad stuff (temperance movement leading to prohibition) to good stuff (MLK etc.)

[Gormy Cuss]

29. Re-read the post.

Please read the entire text. There's a difference between advocating for rights and advocating against them. There's also a difference between informing your adherents of the faith's stance and plowing money into campaigns to influence the vote on an issue that doesn't affect your faith's ability to coexist peacefully in the society.

[paulsby]

30. the problem is the line is blurred depending on the viewpoint of the advocate

for example. an anti-choice advocate doesn't see themself as advocating AGAINST a woman's rights, she sees it as advocating FOR a fetus' rights.

a temperance movement person would argue they were fighting for the rights of children and relatives of drunks, etc.

etc.

i don't see it as a real distinction, merely one that seems more or less valid depending on which side you come down on.

for example. i am pro RKBA. i see a person fighting againt the civil rights of gun owners as advocating AGAINST rights. but they have every RIGHT to do so, as do other anti-gun types.

people of religious faith, even when they are organized into groups do NOT lose the right to advocate for what they perceive to be justice and the common good.

[Gormy Cuss]

32. People of faith have that right. The institutions do not.

The people of faith who are advocating for rights suppression also must be prepared to take the flak for doing so.

[paulsby]

33. institutions

most definitely do. religous or otherwise.

MLK didn't fight this fight alone. numerous churches organized parishioners to advocate TOGETHER for justice.

unions have the right to advocate.

groups don't give up their rights to advocate for justice. religious groups too

i totally agree they must be prepared to take flak. of course. that's the entire point of free speech. bad speech is countered with good speech.

[Gormy Cuss]

39. Nonprofit and religious institutions can risk loss of tax-exempt status when doing so.

In that respect they are different from people advocating for one side or the other.

[paulsby]

42. correct, in the case of candidate advocacy,

but not issue advocacy, if i understand the law correctly

[Starry Messenger]

44. It's a gray zone.

Section 501(c)(3) of US Code Title 26, which governs tax-exempt organizations, reads (emphasis added):

(3) Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.

(The “otherwise provided” clause does not apply, as the LDS Church, being a church, is a disqualified entity as described in subsection (h).)

This is the point in dispute. The Church *itself* got around this by using shell organizations and non-profits to funnel donations (like ProtectMarriage). But there's some evidence that this was barely legal and possibly illegal.

[paulsby]

46. thanks for the reference

i have it on my hard drive now. good info

[Starry Messenger]

35. The institutions can advocate for issues, just not for candidates.

There's some fine lines, but it is legal.

[Gormy Cuss]

40. Yes, that's true.

Crossing the fine line into influencing outcome can cost them tax-exempt status.

[Starry Messenger]

41. I know there is work being done on this front.

It will be interesting to see how it comes about. I don't know if the Fair Political Practices Commission can exact penalties for the fraud they are finding. I certainly hope so.

[Starry Messenger]

34. Well, I come down on the side that gives people more rights.

Not less. I know you are pro-marriage equality, too. There does seem to be a growing trend of some churches who are using their right (which I grant is technically legal) to wedge open large amounts of funding in a very short time that goes quite a bit beyond advocating and supporting. Our laws have not quite caught up with the new technology of internet communication. Hopefully now that we are more aware that churches that are anti-equality are mobilizing very quickly and stealthily, we can be more jonny-on-the-spot on neutralizing their tactics with our own avalanche of cash. Unfortunately we got blindsided.

I myself think the amount of funding they pulled down in the way they did it (shell organizations and possibly blind donations through church members) needs to be regulated. I have some stuff in my journal about it.

I'm always glad to see people who are interested in protecting the second amendment take up the cause of marriage equality. It's always seemed to me there were good points of overlap as far as the issue of protecting inherent rights.

[paulsby]

36. i'll be honest

i support RKBA

i support marriage equality.

however...

the former i support as a matter of constitutional law AND as a matter of policy.

the latter i support as a matter of policy. iow, i will vote for marriage equality, advocate for it, etc. but i do not think it is mandated by the constitution (i have read a few EPC arguments to the contrary, but i find them non-compelling).

i would support a constitutional amanemdnet fwiw, supporting marriage equality. i just don't think the constitution is written such that it is constitutionally required.

i do agree there are issues with funding, but not just for religous institutions, but for all sorts of institutions.

on the one hand, i think there are serious problems with money dictating policy. otoh, i recognize that in some respects, donations to a cause are a form of speech.

i am thus not a huge fan of mccain-feingold, although i am not quite sure whether i agree if it is unconstitutional

[Starry Messenger]

37. Ok, fair enough.

Hopefully it will all come about one way or another before too long.

[LooseWilly]

38. You have a point of sorts regarding the civil rights movement.

But... and I may be wrong here... I don't think the religious organizations involved were financing ballot initiatives... rather they were mobilizing warm bodies in an attempt to put pressure upon legislators to change laws. I think that there is a subtle difference which, in light of the special status of churches (tax exempt, separation from state... ) I do think is actually rather problematic.

I am fine with them mobilizing warm bodies in an attempt to shame legislators into taking rights away from people... but when they begin employing lawyers and begin funding and coordinating ballot initiatives, which is a form of de facto legislating... then, in my opinion, they should... in the interest of separation of church and state... have their religious status rescinded (as I believe Germany has done to the Scientologists)... and they should start paying taxes (then maybe they'll leave the GLBT community alone and go start hassling Republicans over having to actually pay taxes). Further, they should be required to file for 527 status (or whatever that code's digits are)... and be required to conform with all transparency standards.

Ohh yeah, and they really should stop complaining when people shun them for funding efforts to take peoples' rights away... and National News Magazines really shouldn't be willing to run such a story without making sure that there is some voice of the other side of the issue.

[gratuitous]

51. Exactly right

What irks me is the "oh poor me" whingeing from the likes of Pimentel. You pay, you play. You want to jump into the political arena, spend money, and then run away when the people you're turning the apparatus of the state and its law against object? Sorry pally; that dog won't hunt.

[WeDidIt]

9. Sorry, but leaders in the Mormon church are on the same moral playing field

as any other leaders of bigotted organizations.

[imdjh]

10. TIME Magazine employing the dated notion that "fairness" means giving the KKK a microphone too.

I don't care if the Mormons house, feed, and clothe the homeless, even if they don't try to convert them, even if they do it out of the goodness of their hearts- which they don't. Nothing the Mormons do offsets the bad that they do. Nothing ANYONE does offsets the bad that he does. If I drive down MLK Street yelling "Nword! Nword! Nword!" at children playing on the sidewalk- does anyone care if I work in a soup kitchen on Saturdays and supervise at-risk youth at the community center? Of course not.

[kevinbgoode]

13. Next week: Time will write about how misunderstood Rev. Jim Jones

was. . .and how it was the flock's fault that they drank the kool-aid because society prevented them from having Mountain Dew.

It continues to amaze me how the mainstream media cheerleads for organizations who actively work against the rights of other Americans, including their right to worship according to their own conscience. The largest problem with "religious" groups who insist that everyone must embrace THEIR line of interpretation in order to be "saved" (the "everlasting life" bribe) is that they are incapable of accepting the rights of other free Americans to freedom of worship and interpretation.

In that respect, these organizations are pointedly anti-American.

[LooseWilly]

16. This article is painful. The bias jumps out at me from the second sentence...

"... Alameda, Calif., a small, liberal-leaning community hanging off Oakland ..."

You pretty much have to be as far Right as FOX News to think that Alameda is a "liberal leaning community". It's an island of SUV-with-McCain/Palin-bumperstickers drivers whose police force tickets anyone driving over 26 mph (literally... I've talked to many people who've gotten tickets for driving 27 in a 25 zone) in order to deter anyone from Oakland, on the other side of the bridges/tunnels from coming to their town.
I know a cab driver who won't go to Alameda because of a combination of the strict enforcement of the letter of traffic laws, and because he's black... and he doesn't believe that won't be a factor in any encounter with the police there.

To call it a "liberal-leaning community" is a tip off that the author of this fucktardic article has no insight into his own bias... and a tip off that the reader had better brace him/her self for a ride through a Fox-esque fantasy ride.

Maybe Time is trying to "reach out" to a religious readership... so afraid of declining readership because of the internet that they're willing to lease their professional pride for the price of some waaaaay right readers that might like this author's toolmanship?...

[Starry Messenger]

17. The more I read this, the more it bothers me.

This article is painful to read, especially in light of the polls that different news organizations do to try to create the perception that minorities are the overwhelming deciding factor in voting on issues of marriage equality. It looks highly suspicious that this article tries to give the same minority status to a group of very privileged white straight people. I've lived in Oakland too and you are correct, Alameda is very prosperous and more conservative.

http://www.eightmaps.com/

This map shows the bulk of donations from the East Bay for Yes on 8 coming from Alameda and in the Oakland Hills area. (The Mormon Temple cited in the article is located in the Oakland hills).

[JerseygirlCT]

18. So, supporting Prop 8 wasn't vicious, but arguing with those who

took away your civil rights - that's a vicious backlash?

Screwed up.

[Starry Messenger]

21. That's the way the religious groups have been framing this.

The churches who threw their support into Yes on 8 created this story that they were being oppressed and they needed to struggle against the government and "the gay agenda" for their right to exist. They've been really successful in using the internet and the court of public opinion to gain sympathy. I never thought TIME would "go there", though. :( I could see this article being used to support funding for other anti-equality bills.

There's an effort being launched in Maine right now to try to overturn marriage equality:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090618/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage_maine


It's the same players from Prop 8. They're like the Terminator.

[hulklogan]

19. TIME has published some horrible articles about LGBT teens in the past few years.

I'm not surprised by this article at all.

[Starry Messenger]

20. :(

Wow, I didn't know that. This is the first time it's come on my radar. I will definitely be writing to them and keeping a closer eye on this. The rightward trend in mainstream print media is certainly very entrenched. I usually expect to see crap like this on fundie websites.

[bliss_eternal]

22. Kicking...

and recommending, as promised! ;):hi:

[Starry Messenger]

23. Thank you!

:) :hi:

[TexasObserver]

24. No, they're understood all too well.

[Dappleganger]

25. Even if the guy gave an organ transplant to a GLBT person...

one 'good' thing doesn't offset the denial of basic civil rights.

Fuck him. Sorry, but my mother's entire family is Mormon and I know them well and they are NOT being misunderstood.

[Starry Messenger]

26. Thank you. I totally agree.

I'm looking for an address for the author or his editor. I think I found the main one for TIME. This paragraph here is totally complicit with the right wing agenda. I don't know how they get away with sugarcoating this:

Politics — or Persecution?

Proposition 8 won by less than 5% of the vote. Individual Mormons contributed $20 million of its $40 million war chest. Asked whether the belief in prophecy, transmuted into funding and activism, could have been decisive, David Campbell, a University of Notre Dame political scientist (and a Mormon) who has studied LDS political activity, says, "I think that's arguable, in the positive sense of the word." Many Alameda congregants who had initially refused Stewart's fundraising efforts changed their mind; she exceeded her goals. Mormons made calls, placed flyers and planted lawn signs. They thought they were being good citizens.

Says Stewart: "I hear they threw bags of urine at a temple. If we had lost, it never would have occurred to me to react that way." Three months after the election, she says, "I don't feel quite the same way about our community." She felt frozen out of conversations among other parents. "You think, This will go away. But it doesn't seem to. I think about my kids in school," she says. "I want them to be accepted, to feel it's O.K. to be different." Of course, this is precisely the sentiment motivating the gay-marriage movement.

A) I've been to that temple to protest. Bags of urine were not involved. I can't speak for everyone, but the hostility was definitely coming from the temple staff. Their security looked like the secret service.

B) Being shunned by the community you voted to take rights away from is a perfectly healthy reaction from that community. Spinning this as persecution really tans my hide.

[TexasObserver]

53. Many churches have bigotry as a central theme in their dogma.

That "hate the sin, not the sinner" nonsense is one of their more grand rationalizations, too.

These people want to embrace and promote their bigotry, but be free of those who will call them for their massive bigotry.

[glitch]

27. Ugh. nt

[BlooInBloo]

31. Nope, I understand the bigots perfectly well.

[mitchum]

43. Grifting bigots

[LAGC]

45. "As Man is, God once was; as God is, Man may become,"

The worshippers of Mormo clearly believe they will one day become gods. And the best way to do this is to procreate and have as many spirit-children as possible in the real-life-that-we-know, before passing on to the Eternal. Homosexuality conflicts with this world-view, and thus must be stopped at all costs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormo

[fishwax]

47. yes, that article is definitely too generous

to supporters of bigotry.

[Starry Messenger]

48. The article was horrible enough.

The when it got to the photo essay, I was really furious.

http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1903792,00.html

It's an interesting contrast to the memories of my day there. Elders and security watching the protest.






Here's one of the gay "persecutors":

[Stellabella]

49. No, they are not misunderstood.

Bigotry is bigotry. It's quite simple.

[shimmergal]

50. Yeah, the article--

and certainly the photo-essay, makes a big effort to present Mormonism in a positive light. But instead of just venting, we need to read a little closer. This paragraph:

..But in figuring out if it should pick up the gauntlet again, the Mormons, who feel they have so much else to offer, must consider whether the issue is becoming a referendum on Mormonism itself...

seems to be hinting that, if Mormons get too much backlash for their campaign for Prop. 8, they might not be willing make the same effort next time.

I don't have any idea if the Mormon hierarchy is thinking this way, or it's just a rhetorical touch by the author. In any event, I doubt the Mormons counted on the kind of reaction they got. So maybe the backlash is working.

[elmaji]

54. I think it's a good article

Take those who support Proposition 8 and representing them as the really are. People. With all their good points and bad points.

I think it's wrong for people, including many in this thread, to try and dehumanize people who voted for Proposition 8. It's wrong for us to just point and scream, "That's a bigot."

Facts are there is a lot more to a persons personality than that.

Sure these people are certainly bigoted towards Homosexuals. But when we let one single issue define who someone is I think we set ourselves on faulty foundation for what we are trying to do.

We can't walk around and paint the faces of Proposition 8 supporters as faceless bigots, because they aren't. They're your neighbors, they're your fellow churchgoers, they're the person you pass in the grocery store.

If we continue to take this to the extent where we just flat out refer to those people simply as bigots what solution does it bring? How does applying a subhuman kind of moniker to a person and basing their identity on one thing really stop them from voting for prop 8. I think it only helps alienate themselves further from us.

Also it brings us to a much more dangerous place, consider Bill O'Reilly, who called Tiller a Baby Killer and Murder for years on the air. He didn't treat him as a human being, he didn't treat him as a person with a family who was born and had lived life. He characterized him as a character, the character of a baby killer, and that characterization became so infused into the brains of a fervent base that there were strong consequences to the characterization.

We must not characterize people who support prop 8 as simply bigots, we are never going to change them that way. We need to deal with them on a personal basis. That simple.

[Starry Messenger]

56. I think most people can make the distinction between what we say here

and what the dialogue is out in canvassing IRL. This isn't about individuals anyway, it's about PR by the church. And the article also points out that many of these "folks" live amongst neighbors who are gay or allied and are disappointed with the fact that voting against the rights of their neighbors has created an environment where they no longer feel welcome. I say "good". Maybe that's the personal basis that will be a foundation for learning. The nice neighbor method didn't seem to work.

And bigot isn't "name-calling" equivalent to "baby-killer". Nice try though! :hi:

[Ikonoklast]

57. Hard to tell which of your neighbors are racists, either.

But it sure is handy of them to out themselves.

Nice try at apologizing for the bigots, though.


After all, they are mostly nice people, until they decide to interfere in my personal life.