« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Mormons prove marriage separate from discrimination laws

The institution of marriage vs. housing/employment discrimination and hate crime legislation

From the category of headlines the Drive-by media has conditioned us to deem unfathomable comes this from the AP:

Mormons back gay rights in Salt Lake City

It looked like a stunning reversal: the same church that helped defeat gay marriage in California standing with gay-rights activists on an anti-discrimination law in its own backyard.

On Tuesday night, after a series of clandestine meetings between local gay-rights backers and Mormons in Salt Lake City, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced it would support proposed city laws that would prohibit discrimination against gays in housing and employment.

The ordinances passed and history was made: It marked the first time the Salt Lake City-based church had supported gay-rights legislation.

The Mormon church — which continues to suffer a backlash over its support last year of Proposition 8, the measure banning gay marriage in California — emphasized that its latest position in no way contradicts its teachings on homosexuality…

It is not a reversal, even if it is a bit stunning.

There is absolutely no contradiction between protecting individuals from housing and employment discrimination as opposed to maintaining the 5000 year old definition of the, civilization creating and preserving, institution of marriage. [Although, I do think that Maine's recent referenda that vetoed an act of the legislature legalizing same-sex marriage did violate small "r" republican principles.]

I and most conservatives (especially including social conservatives) do not favor any government imprimatur of approval for any sexual behavior outside traditional marriage. Moreover, conservatives generally favor that rights protected by the constitution be of the individual variety, rather than group rights, especially those of a “mutable” variety such as what one Delores one’s particular “orientations” to be, as opposed to the immutable characteristics of race and gender/sex.

But, we do favor prohibitions of discrimination based on religion/free speech, so in that sense people of faith could justify the Salt Lake City ordinance as prohibiting mind control. One can believe anything one wishes and still expect to be able to rent property and get a job one is otherwise qualified for. Of course, if the particular beliefs and/or speech rise to the level of advocacy that interferes with the workplace environment and/or property owners’ maintenance of a habitable environment for families, then one could distinguish.

We particularly like to avoid such group distinctions when one would seek to mete out civil penalties and criminal punishments for free speech against certain behaviors or seek to diminish the value of the lives of certain groups by making it a more serious crime to harm people in other groups, especially when accompanied by a requirement to determine an “intent to hate”.

The criminal law has functioned quite nicely for 500+ years as passed down from the Common Law of England with the only intent being that of the men rea, criminal intent to harm, no matter the particular reason.

devine gamecock law

DeVine Law (pictured) is not sure he favors the particular discrimination law passed in Salt Lake City. We are sure that Mormons are not contradictory in opposing same-sex marriage and that their is nothing “intolerant” about such opposition. We find the most intolerance on the left, many of whom seek to make it a crime, via hate crime laws, discrimination and marriage laws, to make it a crime to advocate the traditional values of chastity, etc found in the Bible.

We also think discrimination laws are better tailored to behaviors and not orientations, and so would not deem it “intolerant” to oppose the Salt Lake City law. But we haven’t made our judgment yet on whether we favor it.

Still thinking and more later…

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer and Minority Report columns

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all verification links may be accessed.

COMMENTS

  • revivefederalism

    Let’s all start a movement to demand that the government keep track of who our best friend is, whether or not it’s a platonic relationship. People who sign a best friend contract with witnesses in front of a justice of the peace will be given special benefits. If one of your co-workers tells you that its wrong for you to be friends with your official best friend, you can get them fired for discriminating against you. Doesn’t this sound preposterous? It would waste the resources of the state for no discernible benefit. Gamecock might be able to run a side business as an unfriending attorney, but how would it help society at large?

    Marriage is the bedrock of our society and all others around the globe. If we hadn’t thought of it, we wouldn’t have any of our advances. Children would not have a permanent man in their lives who took ownership for the development into productive members of society. To the extent that we see the breakdown of marriage in various segments of our society today, we observe poverty, crime, educational deficiencies, and underage pregnancy, thus sowing the seeds for the loss of another generation.

    Sodomy, on the other hand, is of limited social utility. It is practiced by a small proportion of the population that is naturally incapable of reproducing. If no human had ever thought of sodomy, it would have no impact on the lives of the vast majority of the population. The sliver of the population who currently indulge their proclivities for it would just be bored, or be taking matters into their own hands, if the concept had never been conjured and promulgated. Without considering the moral or public health aspects of it, sodomy is at best a decadent activity for consenting adult participants, much like the sharing of cigars. There’s no massive downside to a decrease in the frequency of sodomy (smoking), and there certainly isn’t a large upside to society resulting from the government provision of public recognition and economic benefits for a pledge of repeated sodomy (smoking).

    The people direct the government to endorse contracts between parties because they are important. Marriage and pledges of repeated sodomy are demonstrably different. The former furthers the successful continuation of our species. That latter is just a minor piece of civil society that should revel in the fact that it can be practiced without the intrusion of government supervision.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • Leopard1996

    There is a total difference between making sure the rights that are already given for individuals are protected regardless, and I always had issues with some who would allow government and people to discriminate based on any reason (I call it the difference between prejudice and racism).

    As far as the marriage front, I do believe that what is wanted is a special right of marriage which will in turn be allowed to use that right to crap on the rights of churches and church orgs. (Catholic charities), their rights to practice their religions as they see fit. If they made it so that marriage just allowed the benefits that the state grants it and leave it at that, I would not have a problem but like with everything else it is a give an inch take a mile mentality that makes me withhold my support for gay marriage as it seems to be pressed at this time.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • revivefederalism

    I think it had to do with a church getting sued for refusing to rent itself out for an alternative lifestyle ceremony. I’m not really up to date on how this is working its way through the courts. I also recall a similar lawsuit against eHarmony that forced them to start offering homosexual matchmaking services. If a terrible result like this stands, then there is a silver lining. Such a precedent must be applied equally against all faiths. It would be a real hoot to watch Farfour & Khalid sue to rent out a mosque for their ceremony!

  • Leopard1996

    The religion of peace would be all over allowing a homosexual marriage stand in their mosque /sarc.

    I do believe there would be a little resistance, and the fundamentalists would probably cause some bodily harm.