So here's what ended up being the big statement coming from the Church. Basically, a spokesman states that the Church supports protections for LGBT citizens in Salt Lake City in matters regarding employment and housing. However, as always the Church is extremely limited in their backing of these basic rights. Reading over the article, as well as this one, it is clear to me that the Church issued the statement more for PR, rather than for any intentional peace offering to the LGBT community. Just something they can do now, so that later they can deflect attention on how they attack gay families, making a reference to today's statement as proof of their innocence.
Affirmation applauded the Church's statement of support for the ordinance...but that left me wondering this: Am I supposed to applaud the Church for supporting an ordinance that should have been passed years ago? Am I supposed to applaud the Church when it's statement is laced with a reminder that they haven't changed their mind about attacking our families?
Definitely not the sort of thing I'd call groundbreaking. This gay still doubts any sort of olive branch of peace can be expected from the great and spacious building.
8 Hate-notes and/or Giggles:
this doesn't seem very new to me. It seems like the Church and the LGBT community are still very much in the same spot.
It also shows that Utah law-makers are too chicken to do anything unless the Church has its stamp approval on it.
It's very much like the disney movie Pollyanna isn't it?
Smokescreen alert: this announcement is mostly about helping Mitt Romney in 2012. Romney has complained that the Church's Prop 8 activities have hurt his presidential chances.
Apparently, the Church accommodated him.
I'm thinking this concession is something they've been willing to give up for a long time but have held it in reserve until it suited them to relinquish it.
Why now? For Romney's presidential bid perhaps. An attempt at regaining PR ground. Stealing wind from the sails of the upcoming film 8: The Mormon Proposition. Probably a combination of reasons.
What is sad is that there doesn't seem to be any indication the Church decided to support the ordinance simply because it was the right thing to do. I have a problem with a Church that acts like a political organization, playing its cards to optimize PR.
Here's why I'm not buying it: if the Church was serious about supporting limited gay rights and treating homosexuals like Christians should, the statement would have been delivered by someone other than a Church spokesperson. Hafen and Oaks just kicked gays to the curb, and it's going to take a lot more than a Church spokesperson for me to buy into the idea that the Church wants to offer a hand of Christ-like fellowship to us.
And even the statement was laced with wording and tones that show that they don't plan on actually being kind to us anytime soon...
Yes, this was a somewhat advantageous turn events for any gay folks up in Salt Lake...but I have a feeling that not much has changed.
I have a problem with a Church that acts like a political organization, playing its cards to optimize PR.
The LDS Church is extremely political. It's a big corporation that lives or dies by how people perceive it. The church pays for public opinion polls (which they don't release) to keep tabs on its image. They are well aware of the cost of their image as persecutors of gays.
Christlike? Not so much. But then Jesus didn't have a 6 billion dollar per year annual budget and a professional PR department.
I agree with Chester that the timing of this is probably due to a number of factors. It will be interesting to see of the Prop 8 movie gets much play.
Post a Comment