Log in

No account? Create an account
Punish supporters and Mormon church, but not Utah, for Prop. 8 - Accretions

Fata Morgana
2008-11-11 14:07
Punish supporters and Mormon church, but not Utah, for Prop. 8
Like many, I'm ashamed of the very slim California majority who voted Proposition 8, which amends the California constitution to discriminate against same-sex couples in not allowing them to marry. Similar propositions were passed in Florida and Arizona, and anemone has told me about a new law in Arkansas that prevents same-sex couples from fostering or adopting children (and the group in favor has the hubris to claim that it doesn't discriminate because non-married hetero couples also can't foster, never mind that same-sex couples don't have a *way* of marrying in Arkansas!).

And like many, I'm angered by the Mormon Church's large and heavy-handed role in the "Yes on 8" campaign and other similar discrimination campaigns around the country. The Mormon Church has done these sorts of things for years in Utah politics, and I grew up often feeling helpless frustration as the church "unofficially" encouraged their members to prop up intolerant policies or support bigoted, closed-minded politicians. So I'm so happy that the church is finally being called to task for it on a large scale, and support both calls to challenge their legal standing in getting involved in political campaigns as a church and nonprofit (though they've been rebuffing these arguments for years) and their moral and ethical right meddling with topics that arguably don't really concern them. I encourage challenges or boycotts of the Yes on 8 donors. As the bloggers at Bitch, PhD put it,
Their protestations that they are within their "right" to participate in the Democratic process just infuriates more. Of course they are within their rights. That's not the point. The point is that they nakedly used the people they lead, people who put trust and love in them, to further a political goal that is hateful. In an organization that talks about love more than any other I've ever known.

But I adamantly don't support a boycott of the entire state of Utah. One reason is that boycotting Utah tourism would ironically most hurt the most liberal parts of Utah, particularly Utah's three primary tourist destinations: Salt Lake City (Utah's capital and the gateway to most of Utah's ski resorts), Park City (the site of many ski resorts and of Sundance Film Festival, which the Mormon church would probably be happy to see fail), and Moab (the town just outside of Arches National Park). Salt Lake City had one of the most liberal mayors in the country, Rocky Anderson, from 1999 to 2007 (and he probably would have been re-elected had he decided to run for a third term). Rocky has come to the anti-war protests (including one for which I was in town) and has been consistent in his criticism of the Bush administration (and support for impeachment of Bush). He supports the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, and gay marriage rights. And he was supported by the majority of Salt Lake City residents. I don't know as much about the politics of Park City or Moab, but I know they support liberal policies and politicians when voting, just like Salt Lake City does. And so I ask the boycotters, is this really what you want to be punishing?

By boycotting Utah, you'll hurt the most liberal parts of Utah much worse than the Mormon church. Boycott the actual Proposition 8 supporters (or support the detractors), put political and moral pressure on the Mormon Church, and, of course, work to ensure that Proposition 8 gets thrown out as the discrimination that it is, but don't misguidedly boycott the tourist destinations -- which are also the most liberal areas -- of an entire state.
Comment | 8 Comments | | Link

Matthew Jones
2008-11-12 00:52 (UTC)
(no subject)
I agree... and besides, it's not possible to boycott Moab. There isn't a more beautiful or exciting place on earth.

I just wish there was a better way to boycott only those responsible... We can continue the legal action, but what else can we do that will really affect the church?
Reply | Thread | Link

2008-11-12 01:06 (UTC)
(no subject)
Yeah, I'm pretty surprised that people think boycotting an entire state would be a good idea from either a moral or a pragmatic standpoint.
Reply | Thread | Link

"..I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...": ponder
2008-11-13 12:00 (UTC)
(no subject)
I can't wait until the election fever fades and then the rest of the country will remember how they hate California again.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link

2008-11-12 03:29 (UTC)
(no subject)
Too many links in your post - what's a practical way to boycott a church?
Reply | Thread | Link

"..I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...": laughing man
2008-11-13 11:59 (UTC)
(no subject)
picture_keywordlaughing man
Historically? Declare the other guy a heretic and burn their followers at the stake.

Reply | Parent | Thread | Link

2008-11-13 01:39 (UTC)
(no subject)
Unfortunately, the Mormon church is quite good at and used to resisting moral pressure, and it's very difficult to bring real financial pressure against them because they have a tremendous income stream (tithing) which is largely insulated from the outside world.
Reply | Thread | Link

2008-11-13 01:45 (UTC)
(no subject)
Personally, I think of "marriage" as a religious sacrament - that being said, it's up to the churches of one's faith to perform the rite however they choose fit. Given that theoretically there's a strict separation between Church and State, any state or federal laws defining marriage should be illegal, period.

Supposedly this is the idea behind creating "civil unions," but in a way, I think all marriages should be considered civil unions from the perspective of government. Any legal document should strictly ban the term, and use a term like "partnership" instead.

If one church doesn't approve of marriage of homosexuals, its power should be strictly limited to that religious order. If Mormons don't condone gay marriage, they don't have to perform any such ceremonies. However, one religious group should have no power to tell another what how to operate.

Sorry if this sounds naive.
Reply | Thread | Link

"..I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes..."
2008-11-13 11:57 (UTC)
Why don't they think first?
The way that people are implementing "no on prop 8" is seriously turning moderates like me off from their campaign. Blanket hate of minorites, states, etc, seriously turning me off from wanting to give a damn about it.

Esp the new comments i hear now about "it's all those breeders (heteros) faults."

I mean so they can't get married, I'm starting to not care, we have other important things coming up: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/24012700/the_new_trough

If bailout 2 goes bad and bailout 3 gets proposed then we'll all be too poor to enjoy weddings, or even have them.
Reply | Thread | Link

my journal
September 2013