The Gay Response To The First Presidency's Call

Not surprisingly, the gay community had no trouble figuring out what the First Presidency's letter meant. The Deseret News reports today that Utah gay and lesbian activists intend to use this weekend's "Utah Pride" celebration to oppose the Church's most recent call to support traditional marriage, between a man and a woman.

In an e-mail to about 4,000 people on Tuesday, Jere Keys, coordinator of Utah Pride, asked those joining the Utah Pride Celebration to "send a message for fairness and equality" to their elected officials by expressing their opposition to a proposed federal marriage amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

The e-mail was in response to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' First Presidency statement reaffirming its support of the proposed marriage amendment, which the Senate could debate and vote on next week.

"Let's not be coy, when the LDS Church says jump, thousands of Utahns ask 'how high?' " Keys' e-mail said.

The church's statement, which was to have been read Sunday to congregations throughout the United States, said in part, "We urge our members to express themselves on this urgent matter to their elected representatives in the Senate."

Let's not be coy here Jere. When you send an email to about 4,000 gay and lesbian activists saying jump, you too want them to jump just as high as you claim LDS members are jumping. Please--as if trying to communicate your message somehow vitiates the message!

Keys said as many as 20,000 people could attend the annual Utah Pride Celebration in downtown Salt Lake City on Sunday and predicted more will watch the Pride Parade.
"I think it is important that people get involved," he said. "There is a real difference that can be made. . . . We are a large and thriving community."

So, it's ok for the gay and lesbian folk to "get involved" but not the LDS folk? Does the First Amendment only protect gay and lesbian activists and their message? I think not Jere.

I find it ironic how many in the "bloggernacle" have wrung their hands so hard over the meaning and intent of the First Presidency's letter that they've essentially tied themselves into knots over this issue. The "Brethren's" meaning doesn't seem to be very lost on the gay pride community.

One final thought. I've always been intrigued by the use of the term pride in this context. It reminds me of the use of the word pride in another ancient context as well. But hey . . . what do Prophets, Seers, and Revelators know anyway?

In Defense Of Traditional Marriage

On May 26, 2006 The First Presidency and The Quorum of The Tweleve Aposltes released the following letter to Church leaders in the United States:

Letter from First Presidency of the Church to Church Leaders in the United States

We are informed that the United States Senate will on June 6, 2006, vote on an amendment to the Federal constitution designed to protect the traditional institution of marriage.

We, as the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, have repeatedly set forth our position that the marriage of a man and a woman is the only acceptable marriage relationship.

In 1995 we issued a Proclamation to the World on this matter, and have repeatedly reaffirmed that position.

In that proclamation we said: "We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."

We urge our members to express themselves on this urgent matter to their elected representatives in the Senate.

As the letter notes, the Church has long supported the traditional definition of marriage, and has recently come out in support of a Constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage. I have sent the following letter to California Senators Feinstein and Boxer:

Dear Senator Feinstein/Boxer:

On June 6, 2006, The United States Senate will vote on an amendment to the Federal Constitution designed to protect the traditional institution of marriage. I believe that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. I further believe that children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Finally, I believe that the marriage of a man and a woman is the only acceptable marriage relationship.

I urge to you vote in support of an amendment to the Federal Constitution that protects the traditional institution of marriage: a marriage between a man and a woman.

I vote in all elections. I will take your vote on this critical issue into consideration when you next run for election.

Sincerely,


Guy W. Murray

If you live in California you may send a similar letter, or a copy and paste of the above if you like to Senator Feinstein here, and Senator Boxer here. If you live outside California you may research the email sites for your respective senators here.

One version of the amendment states:

109th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. J. RES. 1

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

January 24, 2005

Mr. ALLARD (for himself, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. LOTT, Mr. ENZI, Mr. DEMINT, Mr. SANTORUM, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. VITTER, Mr. THUNE, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. FRIST, Mr. TALENT, Mr. BURR, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. KYL, Mrs. DOLE, Mr. MARTINEZ, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. HATCH, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. STEVENS, and Mr. COBURN) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

`Article--

`SECTION 1. This article may be cited as the `Marriage Protection Amendment'.

`SECTION 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.'.

The most recent verison states:

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage. (Reported in Senate)

SJ 1 IS

Calendar No. 435

109th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. J. RES. 1

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

January 24, 2005

Mr. ALLARD (for himself, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. LOTT, Mr. ENZI, Mr. DEMINT, Mr. SANTORUM, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. VITTER, Mr. THUNE, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. FRIST, Mr. TALENT, Mr. BURR, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. KYL, Mrs. DOLE, Mr. MARTINEZ, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. HATCH, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. COBURN, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. BROWNBACK, and Mr. DEWINE) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

May 18, 2006

Reported by Mr. SPECTER, without amendment

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

`Article--

`SECTION 1. This article may be cited as the `Marriage Protection Amendment'.

`SECTION 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.'.

Calendar No. 435

109th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. J. RES. 1

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.

May 18, 2006

Reported without amendment

There are several LDS Blogs where the debate is already raging about how uninformed and backward the First Presidency and Quorum of the Tweleve Apostles are for offering the Saints this wisdom and counsel. Since, I'm not nearly as intellectually gifted and bright as are they who mock and scorn this counsel from our living prophets seers, and revalators, I will do what small part I can, and just write the letter.

America's Finest

To the men and women of America's Military the world over: Thank You, and may God Bless!

Gone Fishin'

Utah's Quarter Design Finally Resolved

Another flash back, Utah has finally decided on the design for its quarter. There was quite a stir when the beehive symbol was suggested. You can read some of the prior discussions here, here, and here. The final design, as reported by the Salt Lake Tribune, is the Golden Spike, Crossroads of the West Design. Governor Huntsman is even participating in a recreation of the "golden spike":

For weeks, Utah leaders have been poised to unveil the design for the state's commemorative quarter.

Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. is supposed to re-enact the driving of the Golden Spike - the completion of the transcontinental railroad - in Promontory today. "Major Announcement Planned," his schedule says.

Hmmmm.

While still coy Tuesday, Huntsman spokesman Mike Mower pretty much confirmed the governor picked the Golden Spike "Crossroads of the West" design over two other finalists.

"It would be a long way to drive to announce the snowboarder or the beehive - and in front of a crowd that would likely be disappointed with that announcement," Mower said.

The announcement will end a three-year selection process that narrowed 5,000 potential designs down to three final drawings. The quarter will be submitted to the U.S. Mint and released in October 2007.

This is actually a good choice; but, the Trib just couldn't pass up a couple of jabs at the beehive symbol that was once considered. Of course, their editorializing the beehive was instrumental in making it the controversy it was--but really shouldn't have been.

BYU Student Protesters Face Disciplinary Action

If you recall, Soulforce, a pro gay activist group recently visited BYU, along with a host of other Christian universities across the United States. At that protest visit, at least five BYU students actively participated in the "die in" protest on campus where they fell down and pretended to die.

The Deseret News reported that these five students now face disciplinary action for possible honor code violations:

The other 24 arrested included four BYU students and two former students, BYU Police Capt. Mike Harroun said. They were arrested April 11 when they staged a campus die-in, a protest that consists of falling to the ground as if dead.

The Honor Code Office review, confirmed by BYU spokeswoman Carri Jenkins, could clear the students or result in punishments that possibly could include expulsions.

"We were supposed to find out (Tuesday)," said Lauren Jackson, a freshman from Baxter, Tenn., "but none of us heard."

Jackson is taking spring classes while she awaits the decision. The other students arrested were Alexander Liberato, 22, Matthew Kulisch, 24, and Timothy Burt, 18. Kulisch told media he is gay and Jackson worried that could lead to a more severe punishment.

"I'm mainly just nervous for Matt, the individual who came out," she said. "He's at the highest risk, I think."

Jackson and Liberato participated in the demonstration to urge other students and members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which owns BYU, to avoid treating gays harshly.

"I feel like (the Honor Code Office reviewers) were very receptive to my message," Jackson said. "I participated to raise awareness or increased understanding for individuals who suffer from problems because individuals isolate or mistreat them."

Haven Herrin, co-director of the Equality Ride and coordinator of the BYU stop, said she understood a fifth student, who marched with the group at BYU but did not participate in the die-in, was under review for a possible honor code violation.

Jackson confirmed that and BYU's Jenkins said five students who participated were under review.

Herrin said the results of the review will carry weight beyond the fate of five student careers at BYU.

"Whatever stand BYU takes will more clearly define where the university stands," she said. "Many of the students I spoke to are not clear on BYU's stance regarding the treatment of gay people or of the church's policy. This will probably be a defining moment for them."

Jenkins expressed surprise at Herrin's statement.

"I was there when they were mingling amongst our students and overheard conversations and our students explained our honor code very accurately," Jenkins said.

Soulforce alleged wrongly in a press release after the BYU arrests that BYU does not allow gay, lesbian, transgender or bisexual students to enroll. The honor code does not ban those students, but bans sexual activity outside marriage and advocacy of a gay lifestyle.

"The honor code is directed toward behavior, not orientation," Jenkins said.

The actual honor code provisions that discuss homosexual behavior, which you can read in full here, states:

Sexual and similar misconduct

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and BYU affirm that sexual relationships outside the covenant of marriage are inappropriate. Examples include but are not limited to the following:

• Extra-marital relations
• Promiscuity or predatory behavior
• Aberrant behavior
• Solicitation of sex
• Homosexual conduct
• Cross-dressing

Any level of sexual or similar misconduct at BYU is significant and may lead to a separation from the university.

Homosexual behavior or advocacy

Brigham Young University will respond to student behavior rather than to feelings or orientation. Students can be enrolled at the University and remain in good Honor Code standing if they maintain a current ecclesiastical endorsement and conduct their lives in a manner consistent with gospel principles and the Honor Code. Advocacy of a homosexual lifestyle (whether implied or explicit) or any behaviors that indicate homosexual conduct, including those not sexual in nature, are inappropriate and violate the Honor Code.

Violations of the Honor Code may result in actions up to and including separation from the University.

There has been a great deal of discussion about what some of these provisions mean; however, I think a legitimate argument can be made that actively participating in this particular demonstration and "die in" violates the honor code. I think the BYU five who, purposely, voluntarily, and actively went out of their way to "die" in this protest were "advocating" a gay lifestyle.

I don't necessarily think this activity warrants expulsion from BYU; but, I do think it warrants some lesser disciplinary action by BYU against these students.

I agree with Haven Herrin's statement to the Deseret News, that BYU's actions will have implications beyond the current five students who participated in this protest. I also think it will help further define, what I also believe are some rather vague provisions in the honor code. Perhaps it will prompt some actual revisions by BYU's administration in this portion of the honor code.