Friday, December 16, 2005

Two No-No's

Somebody posted this news story in the TeachTheFacts Yahoo group this morning, and for some reason it's been running through my head all day. Not just the story, but ... there's something above and beyond it.

OK, you know that Utah is the most conservative state in the US. One hundred thirty five percent of the voters there voted for G. W. Bush in 2004. So you're not really all that surprised to find out that a Utah state senator is on a crusade to stop the formation of Gay-Straight Alliance clubs in the Utah schools.

Here's the lead from the Salt Lake Tribune:
Sara Hardcastle, the president of Hillcrest High School's Gay Straight Alliance club, says people like Utah Sen. Chris Buttars scare her.

Buttars, a West Jordan Republican, is vowing to push a bill through the upcoming Legislature to outlaw gay-straight clubs in Utah high schools. "I will prevail," he says.

"We are being targeted again," says Hardcastle, a senior who has been in the Midvale high school club - known as GSA - for more than two years. "We are always having a finger pointed at us for doing something wrong - and it's just the opposite. We're doing something right."

By the way, the "we" to which Hardcastle refers is GSA's majority of straight members that includes her.

After five years of controversy and lawsuits over gay-straight clubs at East High School, the Salt Lake School Board settled further legal entanglements in 2000 by allowing students to form extracurricular clubs focused on homosexual issues.

But Buttars says the clubs, which exist in 40 Utah high schools, violate state law and promote a sexuality that most Utahns find "perverted." The schools are in effect sponsoring the clubs to avoid costly lawsuits.

State statute allows a school board to deny access to organizations that encourage criminal or delinquent conduct, promote bigotry or "involve human sexuality." Gay-straight clubs under fire - Lawmaker pushes ban on school alliances, vows: 'I will prevail'

So, wow, you can't even have, like, a car-jacking club, or a holdup club, in Utah. At least at school. You have to go off-campus for that. And that condition about "human sexuality," I can just see some Smart Guy thinking that was a great idea. Sheesh, why do these guys want the government to control everything that people do? These are wild and wacky times we live in.
"What do you think they're talking about at their meetings?" Buttars says of the gay-straight clubs. "If you've got a chess club what are you talking about? If you're in a gay-lesbian club, you're talking about sexuality."

Stan Burnett, director of youth programs at the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Community Center of Utah says club members and advisers meticulously avoid discussing sexuality to avoid running afoul of the law, much as biology and health teachers carefully navigate Utah's laws on sex education.

"We're careful. We don't want to cross the line," Hardcastle says. Members talk about intolerance, teen alienation, and destructive stereotypes. "I don't think we've ever had [sexual orientation] come up in discussion."

But Buttars says: "That's another lie of the gay groups."

Yeah, you can recognize the gay groups -- they're the ones with their pants on fire.

OK, that's all interesting, sure, a Mormon politician in Utah doesn't like gay and straight students to have clubs together. (His religion is listed on his bio HERE, in case you wondered.)

But here's what I'm thinking.

There was some talk last year, several news stories pointing out that the Mormons had more than a passing interest in laws regulating gay marriage. If such a law were contested in a certain way, it could open the door for the legalization of polygamy, which is a Mormon tradition that still continues in the deserts of Utah, Arizona, and nearby states. Of course those marriages are not legal, and I imagine the people involved would sleep a little easier if they knew the sheriff wasn't looking for them.

Now -- how do you feel about plural marriage? I mean, really.

Let me tell you what I think: I don't see it. For me, one wife is plenty. How you can love two or three or more women, how you can manage to live together without jealousy and craziness, I just don't understand.

But the fact is, I couldn't care less if some guy wants to marry a bunch of women. If he mistreats them or whatever, different story, I'm not talking about that. If he wants to have a gang of wives, and his culture accepts it, and he can talk some women into the deal, it doesn't bother me in the least.

Not surprisingly, that's exactly the way I feel about gay marriage, too. Wouldn't want to do it, don't care if somebody else does. Hope they're happy.

Most of the anti-gay bull-oney these days ends up quoting some Bible verses. Certain groups read the Bible in such a way that the worst thing you can do is to fall in love with someone of your own sex. Other biblical prohibitions are ignored (how many of the CRC's leadership are divorced and remarried, do you think?), but the Bible absolutely tells these characters that they need to do everything in their power to make life on earth a living hell for any and all gay people.

And this polygamy thing. The Bible is full of it, and never says anything against it. Didn't some of those old-time guys have like hundreds of wives? Never mind a bunch of concubines.

Really -- reading through the Bible you wonder why the Jerry Falwells and James Dobsons of the world are whining about the "murder of Christmas," and ignoring the "murder of a man's right to marry a bunch of women." They shouldn't just accept polygamy, they should insist on it. You'd think.

I am just finding it interesting to compare the two no-no's, homosexuality and polygamy. To insult the gays, these religious nuts pass laws defining marriage as something between one man and one woman, but that's not the biblical definition, clearly. They are re-defining marriage, and in a way that seems to go against the teachings of the Bible.

There is, in all of this, a whiff of hypocrisy, did you notice?

8 Comments:

Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Ok, finally a story I get the first comment one...wow, what else will happen to me today...

I have been reading the Salt Lake Tribune online for years...perhaps since the late 80's. These stories always amuse (yes, amuse) me because these folks (Buttars) have been trying to do what he is proposing for a long time...with limited success. And with times a changing...even behind the "Zion Curtain"...the liklihood of this Yahoo's proposal (and by Yahoo here I mean the characters from _Gulliver's Travels_, not the common association nowadays) getting anywhere are even less today. So, this legislator can huff and puff all he wants for his neighbors, friends, fellow LDS Church members, etc and it still does not mean squat. Besides, I would not live in West Jordan if you bought and gave me a house to live in...

Why? Well, up until August 2001 I was a member of the LSD...err, I mean, the LDS Church. In fact, the only place in Utah I would consider living as a resident (actually, it is a fairly fun place to visit...and yes, it is not too difflicult to get a brew) is in the City of Salt Lake...proper...no Sandy, or gag worse still Jordan burb. It is just too provincial for my tastes...

Anyhow, Jim writes,
There was some talk last year, several news stories pointing out that the Mormons had more than a passing interest in laws regulating gay marriage. If such a law were contested in a certain way, it could open the door for the legalization of polygamy, which is a Mormon tradition that still continues in the deserts of Utah, Arizona, and nearby states. Of course those marriages are not legal, and I imagine the people involved would sleep a little easier if they knew the sheriff wasn't looking for them.

First off, yes, the tradition of polygamy is alive and well...HOWEVER, the fastest way for anyone to get excommunicated from the LDS Church is to practice or even express sympathy for the practice of polygamy. The institutional LDS Church leadership wants nothing...and I do mean NOTHING...to do with polygamy. The Church was nearly liquidated by the Federal Govt when in 1890 they abandoned the practice (though they were still attempting to practice it on the sly...). When LDS Church Pres. Joseph F. Smith prejured himself during the Smoot Hearings, the senior leadership realized they had to make a choice. One, continue the practice of polygamy. Or, two, assure the survival of the LDS Church as an institutional entity.

They choose the latter (for obvious reasons) and have spent the last 101 years attempting to put down and live down the image they received (the official end to LDS polygamy took place in 1890; the unofficial end took place in 1904 with what was referred to as the Second Manifesto).

To be sure, there are no shortage of gay fearing LDS Church members (fewer still are those that are genuine gay hating...and they know to keep quiet because they know if there is something the Church hates more than homosexuals it is bad press). But equally as fearful for senior LDS Church leaders is the prospect that gay marriage would pave the way for the legalization of polygamous marriages, something that the LDS Church has spent good money on PR to live down and put behind them. And this fear is not without reason as it is a well known fact that the ACLU in Utah have legal briefs prepared and legal counsel ready to argue on behalf of the rights of polygamous to marry. And this strikes terror in the hearts of LDS Church leaders.

Why?

LOL...well, as much as they say they believe in the theology of "plural marriage", they do not want the excuse they have for not actually practicing it removed from them. And legalizing gay marriage would make it nearly impossible to resist the claims of Equal Protection on behalf of mormon (note that I did not use the term LDS) polygamist. And if you think LDS Church members scare you, you have never met a Fundamentalist Mormon...Yikes! Now these folks would give Fred Phelps a run for his money.

Attempts to clamp down on this "peculiar institution" (the Republican Party's first platform committed the party to abolishing the "twin relics of barbarism; negro slavery and mormon polygamy") have come and gone with the most imfamous attempt being the raid on Shortcreek, now named Colorado City (AZ), in 1954. The only real reason they are doing anything about it now is that mormon polygamists, besides being good at making babies, have also made great strides in the area of welfare fraud. And if there is anything a majority of Utah residents hate more than a polygamist, it is a welfare cheat.

And the bottomline is this: they, the LDS, do not want to be put in a situation where they would have to give up their hard-earned respectablity, and having no excuse (like it is against "the law of the land") re-embrace "the Principle" (as it was called in its heyday). And just as they are in the middle of a charm and PR campaign battle to be accepted by mainstream Christian churches as "Christian", there is NO WAY they want to give that up. Not a chance...

Jim writes,
And this polygamy thing. The Bible is full of it, and never says anything against it. Didn't some of those old-time guys have like hundreds of wives? Never mind a bunch of concubines.

Yes, the Hebrew Bible is full of it as the biblical law allowed its practice, mostly as a consession to the local cultures. The point missed by many, but especially by the LDS that hold out those Old Testament characters as wonderful pillars of religious committment is that while biblical law allowed the practice, biblical narrative clearly had something different to say due to the fact that every instance of multiple marriage has invariably lead to multiple miseries (this I learned from one of my jewish studies books).

Should this matter to us? Well, perhaps, since the only places that polygamy is practiced now are in those parts of the world nearly all Americans would consider quite regressive.

Jim writes,
They are re-defining marriage, and in a way that seems to go against the teachings of the Bible.

Not really...and a familiarity with jewish literature on the subject bears that out.

Orin Ryssman
oryssman@hotmail.com

December 17, 2005 10:03 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Good comments there, Orin, the insider's view of it.

The LDS leadership has a different view, it seems to me, from the average guy within the church. Polygamy is definitely a PR problem, other Americans don't much like it, and today's polygamists, of which there are tens of thousands, are not officially members of the Church of Latter Day Saints. They are mostly fundamentalists who consider themselves "more Mormon" than the rest.

Admittedly, most of the Mormons I know call themselves "jack Mormons" -- they don't attend services, but they still hide the ashtrays and Coke cans when there's a knock at the door. It always struck me that all of the guys at least entertained the notion of having multiple wives. They don't actually do it, but the idea is definitely more salient for them than for the rest of us. And if it was legal, you'd see a whole lot of it.

Part of my point was that most people, I don't think, would really care if somebody had several wives. How outraged do we get about some Arabian prince with a bunch of wives? It's merely quaint, or strange. But when we think of gay people marrying, hooboy, it's all of a sudden a big moral issue. One man, one woman ... and all that.

JimK

December 17, 2005 1:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting how Jim doesn't think religion should play a part in our attitudes about homosexuality but, yet, he keeps wanting to bring it up.

I agree the scripture doesn't specifically condemn polygamy but I think it presents monogamous marriage as the ideal. By the way, Dana, FMI, what is the orthodox Jewish view on polygamy and how is it supported by the Torah.

In any case, the dichotomy presented by Jim is fallacious. Polygamy is not forbidden by scripture, male homosexual behavior is.

December 19, 2005 10:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"There is, in all of this, a whiff of hypocrisy, did you notice?"

Yes, I did. The last comment summed it up well:

"Interesting how Jim doesn't think religion should play a part in our attitudes about homosexuality but, yet, he keeps wanting to bring it up."

December 19, 2005 10:21 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

First of all, Jim doesn't think religion should play a part in our attitudes about homosexuality... That's a bizarre misrepresentation of everything I've said. I expect that religion plays a part in all of a person's attitudes. I think it's hypocritical to take a couple of obscure Bible passages and turn them into the rationale for a crusade of hatred. Especially if, at the same time, you ignore the big ones -- Jesus actually did speak against divorce and remarriage, which I expect a good part of the CRC leadership has done, without chastisement from the pulpit. Hypocrisy is what I'm against, not religion affecting attitudes.

And this is not offered as a dichotomy, but as a juxtaposition.

JimK

December 19, 2005 10:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Jesus actually did speak against divorce and remarriage,"

Did you ever read that passage? You're right that he said divorce and remarriage are wrong but it's one in a series of examples he gives on how impossible it is to follow the law without fail.

December 22, 2005 3:06 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

It's more than he said about homosexuality.

JimK

December 22, 2005 3:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, Jim, he redefined sin as something other than just breaking rules. He didn't talk specifically about a bunch of rules.

December 22, 2005 3:46 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home