The majority of the people in the room were stunned to hear Michael Otterson issue an official statement from the LDS Church stating that, officially, the Church had no objection to the Nondiscrimination ordinance being discussed that eventing. To be sure, this statement represented a policy shift within the Church.
It soon became clear that the discussions that took place prior to the announcement were a direct result of both the backlash created by the LDS Church’s stance on Proposition 8 and the public relations nightmare resulting from the Main Street Kiss. Both sides, despite living in the same city, had no idea how the other side felt about the issues surrounding these contentious issues; both sides felt that they had the high road; both sides refused to budge.
Now, being the filthy non-Mormon, liberal Democrat that I am, I naturally felt that the Church should be willing to bend more – but that is exactly the same thought pattern that caused these tensions in the first place. As I discussed in an earlier post, the LDS Church and the GLBT community needed to use the heated debate surrounding these issues to talk rather than shut down, and I am happy to see that both sides did just that.
But don’t get too excited GLBT community. The Church made it all too clear that they still feel that marriage should be between a man and a woman and that they will fight to keep the sanctity of marriage in tact. Furthermore, they acknowledged that the issues being discussed (fair housing and equal employment) are basic rights, but they still remain silent on issues such as hospital visitation, adoption, and the grand-daddy of them all, civil unions.
Tuesday was also marked with a very vocal (and very small) minority of people opposed to the ordinance. Rich Piatt of KSL accurately noted that objections focused more on the concept of homosexuals and homosexual conduct when discussing the law, and not legal ramifications of the ordinance. This truth echos a growing trend around the nation that either consciously or unconsciously knows that it can no longer fight laws such as the Nondiscrimination ordinance through legal means and must, therefore, appeal to peoples fears. Though this is not new, the idea that one avenue has been closed means forces opponents to use less civilized ways to get their point across. In short, things are going to get ugly, and I can’t discount more extreme as well. As members of the GLBT community rightfully become recognized as a class that needs protection from hate speech and action, the more they are going to need it from hatemongers.
But please don’t become too depressed from this post. The fact that as dominant of a power as the LDS Church not only changed their views marks a huge step both locally and nationally. Keep in mind that the Church did not have to say anything if they didn’t want to; their choice to speak shows that they are willing to focus the flock on the teachings set forth in the New Testament, rather than one line in Leviticus, when it comes to discussing homosexuality – for this, I applaud them.
Finally, I would be remiss if I did not discuss the political ramifications from Tuesdays landmark passage. Already Park City and Salt Lake County are considering passage of similar measures. Moderate legislators on Utah’s Capitol Hill who may personally want to vote for equal rights measures but can’t politically now have more legitimacy when reporting to their constituents while more conservative members have lost the smoke screen excuses the LDS Church used to provide. Finally, and perhaps more importantly, large numbers of individuals within the LDS Church now have an official statement to discuss openly and honestly with other members – by removing some ambiguity on this issue, many people within this state may be more tolerant towards their fellow man.

The church didn’t change their tone on gay rights this week. This is exactly the same thing they have been saying for a long time – they issued a statement with this identical position in June of 2008. The only difference is that the SLC ordinances were compatible with their position while gay marriage isn’t.