Apparently still pumped over their victory with Prop 8 in California, Mormons appear to be going after civil unions in Illinois now.
According to Jim Burroway who blogs at www.boxturtlebulletin.com, The Illinois House will begin considering a civil unions bill this week that has been assigned to the Youth and Family Committee, which will hold a hearing on Thursday.
Burroway says: “We’ve received word that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has engaged its private communications network to bombard state legislators with phone calls in opposition to the bill.”
He said “a trusted source” sent him a copy of an e-mail authorized by Bishop Chris Church of the Nauvoo, Illinois 3rd Ward, which was sent out by that Web site’s ward administrator. Here is part of that e-mail:
“The Civil Union Bill (HB 2234) has been scheduled for a hearing in the Youth and Family Committee this week on Thursday, March 5, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. in Springfield. If the bill is voted out of committee, it becomes eligible for a vote before the full Illinois House of Representatives. This bill will legalize civil unions in the state of Illinois, and will treat such civil unions with the same legal obligations, responsibilities, protections and benefits as are afforded within marriage. In other words, civil unions will be different in name only from marriage. As has already been seen in Massachusetts, this will empower the public schools to begin teaching this lifestyle to our young children regardless of parental requests otherwise. It will also create grounds for rewriting all social mores; the current push in Massachusetts is to recognize and legalize all transgender rights (An individual in Massachusetts can now change their drivers license to the gender they believe themselves to be, regardless of actual gender, which means that confused men and women are now legally entering one another’s bathrooms and locker rooms. What kind of a safety issue is this for our children?). Furthermore, while the bill legalizes civil unions, it will be used in the courts to show discrimination and will ultimately lead to court mandated same-sex marriages.
“To help defeat this bill, please call your state representative and state senator and ask that they support traditional marriage and vote against the civil unions bill. If you are unsure who your legislators are, please see the link at the end of this email.
“Also, please take a moment and call the following members of the Youth and Family Committee to encourage them to vote no on this bill. We need 4 votes to keep it from passing out of the committee. And – as always, please pass this on to all who believe in protecting our families and our children.”
Go on over to Box Turtle and check it out.
13 Comments
In November 2008, Elder Whitney Clayton, one of the Mormon’s veteran same-sex marriage strategists, was quoted in the LDS-owned Deseret News , the Boston Globe, as well as California newspapers, claiming the LDS “does not oppose civil unions or domestic partnerships.” (See https://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=3689.)
It appears that the LDS (Mormon) Church is being less than truthful in their public statements; they appear to have one set of “politically correct” statements for public consumption and their “real position” for internal communication for members.
This story is mushrooming fast….ABC 4 out of Salt Lake City has picked up on it. Here is the full article:
“SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 News) – It appears a LDS Church Ward in the midwest is now getting involved in another state’s battle over gay rights and doing so using what might be considered very unusual language.
ABC 4 has uncovered a purported LDS Church Ward email dealing with Illinois’ new proposed law dealing with civil unions.
The LDS Church, of course, played a significant role in passing Prop 8.
That California ballot measure banned gay marriage there.
And Thursday – about the same time the California Supreme Court hears a landmark case about Prop 8 – the Illinois legislature takes up the issue of gay civil unions.
Once again, the LDS Church is involved.
Reportedly, an email was sent out via a LDS Church ward website to all members of the Nauvoo, Illinois 3rd ward.
It asks Nauvoo 3rd Ward members to help defeat Illinois house bill 2234.
This bill would create legal civil unions in Illinois.
And it has a big committee hearing before Illinois legislators Thursday morning.
But what’s unusual about the email is some of the strong language it uses.
“As has already been seen in Massachusetts, this will empower the public schools to begin teaching this lifestyle to our young children…”
and later the email goes on to say,
“It will also create grounds for rewriting all social mores; the current push in Massachusetts is to recognize and legalize all transgender rights (an individual in Massachusetts can now change their drivers license to the gender they believe themselves to be, regardless of actual gender, which means that confused men and women are now legally entering one another’s bathrooms and locker rooms. What kind of a safety issue is this for our children?)
But what presumably was meant just for Nauvoo Illinois 3rd Ward LDS members, is now appearing on the internet.
ABC 4 will have more on this story as it develops.”
The term “Bishop†in Mormondom is the name for the local leader in charge of one congregation. The congregations are often very small. My current one is about 80. My largest was 600. From the statistical information on the L.D.S. Church newsroom there are 54,424 members currently in Illinois in 129 congregations. That averages to 422 people per congregation. There is no way to determine how many inactive members that represents or how many children which would make them currently non-voters. The number of non-digital members would reduce the number still further. Any way you slice it the number of people the email could reach is very small. Bishops cannot authorize email to be sent to anyone other than their own congregation. As a 7th generation lifetime Mormon who most recently served as the web site administrator in my congregation I am simply astonished the Bishop is authorizing email to ANYBODY. I can’t get anybody to use the system. In frustration, I finally asked to be released from my obligation because the stress was aggravating my health problems. Calling this email a massive effort by the entire Church is pretty farfetched in my opinion.
Ms. Cook:
Thank you for your perspective, but do you actually know the size of the ward in question? Averages can be helpful, but it very likely that some congregations are very large and some are small…
It is also possible that similar e-mail messages (or other written communications) were sent to other wards in Illinois by the LDS Church or the bishops…Given the substantial efforts by the LDS (Mormon) Church in California in support of Proposition 8, such an effort seems possible…even probable.
Jasper
If I was still serving as the web site (and email) administrator and my Bishop asked me to send out the email in question, I would have refused. I would have shown him where the Church policy/procedure and guidelines prohibited this type of email from going out over the Church’s email system.
Some other points I want to make Jasper. (By the way, thank you for responding logically and rationally to my points. Emotional attacks achieve nothing. I wish there were more like you.) You are assigned to a congregation in Mormondom based on geography. You do not choose which congregation to attend. Put your address into the following web site and see were you would be assigned: https://maps.lds.org. There are organizational and administrative reasons why congregation numbers are kept within a certain range. The 600 member congregation was too large. A short time after I moved into the area the congregation was split leaving us with about 400 members.
Bishops can only authorize email to their own congregation. The next level up would be a Stake. A Stake is made up of about 10 congregations. If an email is sent out to the entire Stake, then a Stake President through the Stake Web Site Administrator would have to authorize it. A bishop cannot sidestep the controls set up in the Church’s email system and have it sent out to anything but his own congregation. If I were the Stake Web Site Administrator I would also refuse to send the email out. I would show the Stake leader where the Stake Web site guidelines prohibit this type of email from going out over the Church’s email system.
Since I have a Ph.D. in government, the leaders would have an additional reason to believe me. Personally, I wouldn’t even send out the email the Nauvoo 3rd Ward (Congregation) Bishop did from my own personal email service. I refer people to neutral, non-partisan, credible sources like Project Vote-Smart https://www.votesmart.org/ and encourage people to vote their conscience.
We all need to clean up our own personal information behavior and not perpetuate untruths and myths. I am trying to address these issues in Mormondom.
I appreciate this publication allowing me to post these comments. This comment forum in moderated and my comments have been posted. I do think that shows its commitment to open dialog. Thank you!
Ms. Cook:
Thank you for your message.
I appreciate your comments that it would have been more appropriate to send out an (arguably) partisan message on the church’s official e-mail system. While I absolutely agree that everyone can (and should) vote their conscience, it has been difficult for those in the gay and lesbian communities when large religious institutions (such as the LDS Church and the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic-related institution) have taken such an active role in working to take away the rights of gays and lesbians to marry in California.
I hurry to add that I understand why these institutions (and others) may feel compelled to support the ban on gay marriage (having grown up in a very conservative religious home, I know the arguments!); however, it has made the loss of our rights even more painful and challenging.
Thanks again for your perspective and input.
I think you mean “less” appropriate, rather than more “more”. I’m not trying to nit pick here. I suspect what you typed was not quite what you meant. I think we would all agree that church officials should not use their title and position to strong-arm people. Believe it or not, occasionally when LDS leaders do use their position to affect political outcomes it can backfire. I will give you an example. When Joe Cannon and Bob Bennet were vying for an open Senate seat in Utah, my Stake President had a letter hand-delivered to every residence, presumably in his Stake boundaries, encouraging people to vote for Joe Cannon. The letter was on his own personal stationery and did not invoke his title of Stake President. This was entirely a personal effort. However, I was enraged. We all knew he was the Stake President whether he invoked his title or not. I was teetering back and forth in my own personal deliberations. This act of his caused me to cast my vote for Bob Bennet. Bennet is still in office. Other people within the Stake boundaries also thought the Stake President’s action was inappropriate. It affected their vote as well. There is no way to tell for sure, but this act may have lost Cannon the election.
“Marriage” existed before governments existed. Marriage existed before this government existed. I do not believe that the current controversy can be characterized as “discrimination.†Marriage has always been understood as a union between a man and a woman. Your rights to enjoy marriage have always been exactly the same as mine. If, in the future, marriage includes members of the same gender, instead of just opposite genders, then this will be an addition to our rights. You will have the right to marry someone of either gender and so will I. This will be an addition to our rights, it will not be redressing a deprivation of a discriminated group. I think we need to be honest that this will expand all of our legal rights.
One of the reasons I read the alternative press is so that I can better understand your concerns and beliefs. I don’t like to invoke this, but I have a very close family member who is homosexual and married — the marriage took place in another country and the spouse is a resident of that country so the marriage is legal there. My husband and I accept these family members fully as FAMILY. Our personal beliefs about this lifestyle have not changed. Because of our personal financial condition, we were unable to attend the wedding. But, we did attend the wedding reception held in a major United States city. It was party held in a gay bar. We had a very good time and are very glad we went. Yes, we looked and felt a little out of place and we had no cocktail attire. We did the best we could. My husband wore his wildest shirt and tie.
Jasper, it is quite evident that you understand a conservative religious perspective to this so I will just thank you again for such a civil and heartfelt interchange. I exchanged emails recently with a man who wrote/writes for The Bay Area Reporter. We didn’t have much common ground but the dialog we exchanged was civil and respectful. We all benefit when we can discuss these issues without emotional and personal attacks. Thank you!
Krista:
Thanks for your message…you were right that I meant “less” instead of “more”.
I appreciate the support of your family member who is gay or lesbian. I think the best way to break down barriers between groups when you actually get to know someone of another religion, ethnic group, sexual orientation etc. It is then much easier to see them as a person rather than as a member of a group that you don’t like, disagree with etc.
Thanks again for your openness and candor.
Jasper.
LDS elders have attempted to deny gays and lesbians EVERY Human Right, in Hawaii, in California, and now illinois…….ENOUGH!
The most aggregious denial of rights just occured in Utah where meager MINIMAL rights for gays and lesbians were killed, even the right to visit a sick partner in a hospital, or not be discriminated against in HOUSING or your JOB.
They want to take on LGBTs globally, we will BANKRUPT their hateful CULT.I was raised by a Mormon mother who converted to the Lutheran faith when I was 4yo, and have many non observant Mormon relatives, who love me as openly gay, but that isn’t who is trashing our Constitutional Rights, It’s MONSON and the other elders. They began this fight and queers will END IT!
One of the fouler ex Bishops Chris Buttars who tortured gay teens in his brutal “Boys Ranch” now West Ridge Academy, recently called gays and lesbians the BIGGEST THREAT to America.
I think it might be time to show Buttars, you give us that name, we’ll do our best (worst) to EARN IT. June is when we’ll hear prop 8 decision, which coincides with LGBTs gathering to celebrate PRIDE by the millions in nearly every major city. July 24th is Mormon’s big festival Pioneer Day, in Salt Lake City…I think MILLIONS of us paying Salt Lake City a visit might be a WAKE UP CALL for Monson, of how large a population they are trying to antagognise.
It is interesting that it was somehow wrong for gays and lesbians to launch boycotts because of Proposition 8, but it is “O.K.” for the Mormons to call for boycotts because of “Big Love” — the HBO series. Although the article (from the official church website) states that the church
as an institution does not call for boycotts, they are sure promoting. Can we say “double standard”?
The Publicity Dilemma
SALT LAKE CITY 9 March 2009
Like other large faith groups, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sometimes finds itself on the receiving end of attention from Hollywood or Broadway, television series or books, and the news media. Sometimes depictions of the Church and its people are quite accurate. Sometimes the images are false or play to stereotypes. Occasionally, they are in appallingly bad taste.
As Catholics, Jews and Muslims have known for centuries, such attention is inevitable once an institution or faith group reaches a size or prominence sufficient to attract notice. Yet Latter-day Saints – sometimes known as Mormons – still wonder whether and how they should respond when news or entertainment media insensitively trivialize or misrepresent sacred beliefs or practices.
Church members are about to face that question again. Before the first season of the HBO series Big Love aired more than two years ago, the show’s creators and HBO executives assured the Church that the series wouldn’t be about Mormons. However, Internet references to Big Love indicate that more and more Mormon themes are now being woven into the show and that the characters are often unsympathetic figures who come across as narrow and self-righteous. And according to TV Guide, it now seems the show’s writers are to depict what they understand to be sacred temple ceremonies.
Certainly Church members are offended when their most sacred practices are misrepresented or presented without context or understanding. Last week some Church members began e-mail chains calling for cancellations of subscriptions to AOL, which, like HBO, is owned by Time Warner. Certainly such a boycott by hundreds of thousands of computer-savvy Latter-day Saints could have an economic impact on the company. Individual Latter-day Saints have the right to take such actions if they choose.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as an institution does not call for boycotts. Such a step would simply generate the kind of controversy that the media loves and in the end would increase audiences for the series. As Elder M. Russell Ballard and Elder Robert D. Hales of the Council of the Twelve Apostles have both said recently, when expressing themselves in the public arena, Latter-day Saints should conduct themselves with dignity and thoughtfulness.
Not only is this the model that Jesus Christ taught and demonstrated in his own life, but it also reflects the reality of the strength and maturity of Church members today. As someone recently said, “This isn’t 1830, and there aren’t just six of us anymore.†In other words, with a global membership of thirteen and a half million there is no need to feel defensive when the Church is moving forward so rapidly. The Church’s strength is in its faithful members in 170-plus countries, and there is no evidence that extreme misrepresentations in the media that appeal only to a narrow audience have any long-term negative effect on the Church.
The “authority” to marry a man to one wife is not the same as the “authority” to marry a man to more than one wife. No Mormon since the 1890 change has had the authority to marry any man to more than one woman. So, in the Mormon view, none of these so-called polygamist marriages are valid, religiously or legally. None of these “polygamists” are Mormons. Membership in the Mormon (L.D.S.) is not a vague identification or feeling of alliance it is an actual membership record. You either have a membership record or you don’t. You either are a Mormon or you are not. There is no gray area. If you try and practice polygamy your membership is canceled and you are kicked out of the Church. Polygamists are not Mormons period. Since their marriages are neither valid nor legal, real Mormons consider their lifestyle not only illegal but immoral as well.
In the very early days of the Church, polygamy was not something you chose to practice. You had to be allowed to practice it and the marriage had to be done by proper Church authority. There was only a small contingent of top level Mormons that were allowed — of which my ancestor was one — Thomas Bullock. He had three wives. I descend from his first wife.
I was born, raised and educated in Utah and I am a 7th generation Utah Mormon. Do you want to know how many polygamists I have personally known in my lifetime? (drum roll) ONE! I’m only certain because her mother told me her daughter was a polygamist. I have to rely on the news media for any other exposure. They shine a magnifying glass on a handful of isolated, obscure polygamist groups and give the illusion that it is common.
“The Associated Press Stylebook states, “The term Mormon is not properly applied to the other Latter Day Saints churches that resulted from the split after [Joseph] Smith’s death.” This is a rule the news media has adopted for itself. When current news operations claim these polygamists are Mormons, then they are not following their own rules. This is very sloppy journalism.