I must take my hat off to Representative LaVar Christensen (R-Draper, District 48) for crafting a bill that looks like another stupid pro-religion bill, but is actually concealing something much more dangerous when proposing HB 109 – Religious Liberty Recognition.

The bill itself states that “the state or political subdivision may not infringe or substantially burden a persons religious liberty, including compel, restrain, or burden a person in their goods and civil capacities.”

Now, on first blush we can just brush this off as Christensen just trying to prove, once again, just how much of a God-fearing man he is and how he clearly has never read the First Amendment to the Constitution stating that Congress (and by extension the states) can pas no law infringing on the free exercise of religion. But to take this sole interpretation of the law is a dangerous one.

What this law would do is allow people to practice what is tantamount to religious bigotry and go unpunished, even if they are violating state law in the process. Take, for example Salt Lake City’s non-discrimination ordinance. If someone were to violate  the equal housing clause of the ordinance, they would be able to say that their religion denounces homosexuals and would, therefore, be protected. Likewise if a pharmacist was opposed to prescribing the emergency contraception, even after a rape had occurred, because the pharmacist’s religion was opposed to the idea of birth control, they would, again, face no repercussions.

This bill, under the guise of religious freedom, is actually encouraging a more theocratic state. It takes away from the rule of law by allowing people to pick and choose which laws they want to follow – so long as they can claim that it goes against their religion to do so. By saying that my “sincerely held religious belief” is to lie cheat and steal, I could get away with anything. This is not good policy, and it is not good governance.

Urgency Score:

Click here to contact Representative Christensen.

I have to hand it to Fox 13′s Max Roth for holding Representative LaVar Christensen’s (R – Draper, District 48) feet to the fire regarding his HB 270 – Family Policy (analysis coming soon).

I want you all to pay close attention to how Christensen dodges every question, hammers the same talking points over and over again, and fails to defend his law without incorporating some statement that sounds like it came from the pulpit.  Furthermore, I want you to note how Christensen feels that his point of view about the family is the only one that has ever been used to create “good” public policy – presuming that the only family unit that ever existed in this country was the relatively new “nuclear family” that came about after World War II.

Good job Max Roth, good, solid journalism. Stay until the end so you can see Christensen walk away in a huff – way to show you trust in your convictions.

AP Photo/Jim Urquhart

So, rather than talk about the protest that took place and if was effective way to improve relations or awareness, I would like to draw your attention to an interesting little tidbit.

Last night I noticed that Channel 2,4, and 13 stated that there were upwards of 4,500 protesters who “circled Temple Square” and Channel 4 said they circled it twice. Organizers stated that it was three and a half times. Ok, impressive, but I found it interesting that KSL trotted out Carole Mikita who stated that there was around 600 protesters.

Hrm, quite the difference there… As an added note, for the two of you who don’t know, KSL is owned by the LDS church, the target of the protests.

So who is correct?

Assuming news outlets mean the area from State to West Temple and from North to South Temple, to circle Temple Square, you would need to travel 4400 feet (thank you Google Earth). Assuming that some people sat while others laid down, it is safe to say that the average person took up 5 feet. 4400/5 = 880. Double that and you have 1,760. At the high end, 3 1/2 “circles” would equal 3080 protesters.

The picture above shows multiple people, however, in the same “spot” – a trend probably repeated around Temple Square. But we can also assume that organizers will probably over estimate, so a number of 2,000 - 3,000 protesters is probably close to accurate. Still very impressive but not quite as high as they stated.

But 2,000 is a long way away from 600, even for the worst of estimators. Now I am not saying that KSL didn’t do an accurate job of reporting, I am saying that KSL out and out lied to downplay the protest.

Shame on KSL. They have a commitment as newscasters to report the news as accurately as possible and they violated the public trust for private interests. I know why they did it, but their position of influence places them in a special position, a position the organizers simply don’t hold. I admit that the protest organizers likely overestimated by 1,500 while KSL underestimated by the same amount, but, again, their position as a news source puts their error in a different classification.

For what it is worth, the Tribune stated that there were “thousands” of protesters and the AP quoted the police as stating there were ”roughly 1,000″ protesters, but cited the 4,500 number as well.

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.

During the past week, we have seen yet another example of the ever present “great divide” between the LDS Church and those who are not part of the dominant culture of this state. Many things have been said by both sides, but what the majority of those backing the LDS church fail to realize is that the church is going to have to make some very difficult, and very public, decisions over the coming years regarding the GLBT community. As of today it appears that the LDS church has won this dust-up regarding same sex relationships, but it does not mean that they will win in the end.

One of the reasons the “Main Street Kiss” received so much attention in the first place is that it seemed so contradictory to the Churches apparent tolerance of homosexuality as a lifestyle – even though they fully admit to not supporting gay marriage.  The churches words of love and inclusion for gay couples were directly contradicted by its actions of detaining a couple for showing that lifestyle.  Furthermore, we have seen many members of the Mormon faith openly hostile to the gay community over the years; this recent controversy served to support these prejudices, not dispel them.

Indeed, the Church must take advantage of these actions to start a dialogue between the GLBT and LDS communities if they do indeed care about seeing equal rights for all the people of this state, nation, and world.

For far to long the Church has attempted to play both sides of this issue, and they are beginning to pay the price for it. Soon the City Creek Center will open its doors to the citizens of Salt Lake City and this Church owned property will have a flood of people wishing to reside in the 20 acres of land it occupies. It is inevitable that a gay couple will wish to live in one of the 750 condominium units to be built.  What then?

As of right now it is not illegal to deny housing to someone because they are gay. The Church would be well within its rights to say no to a couple on these grounds – just as they are well within their rights to expel a couple for expressing their love on Church grounds.  But just because it is legal does not mean that it is right.  The bad publicity the Church has received now and that it will receive when this unavoidable scenario takes place are undeniable – yet the Church still remains mostly silent. Furthermore, Salt Lake City or County will undoubtedly pass an equal rights ordinance that will force the Church to accept GLBT couples into the City Creek Center…or at the very least not deny them housing because of this fact, again placing the Church in a very public and harsh spotlight.

The Church can no longer afford to kowtow to both sides of the isle; it is obvious now, more than ever, that they are being ingenuous to both sides and that no one is happy with their words or actions. Therefore, I challenge the LDS church to come out with a strongly worded statement that either supports gay rights and accept the internal conflict associated with that or to state (what appears to be the obvious) that the LDS Church does not support homosexuality in any form and that they oppose the existence of those who have a different lifestyle from their own – accepting the inevitable blow back and bad publicity this Church has tried to avoid for years.

In many ways,  the Church is a victim of its own success. Its efforts to become part of the mainstream means that they open themselves up to criticism they are not used to. Over the years the Church has evolved with the politics of this state and is, therefore, used to getting its way – now that they are fully entering the national and international stage, they must learn to adapt to the realities that they are not listened to and are not respected…indeed they are openly challenged and criticized. A statement now (along with actions) must take place to either support the growing public opinion that the GLBT community deserves equal rights if the Church wishes to grow outside of the Intermountain West.

And so, LDS Church, get ready.  GLBT issues are going to be your defining moment for decades to come – what decision will you make?

Here is an account of what took place in my previous post from one of the individuals that was at the receiving end of the arrest.

Written by Derek Jones:

My boyfriend and I were walking home from the Gallivan Center concert series and naturally had to walk down the pedestrian mall (it was a direct path to our house and we have walked it many times together).  We were holding hands.

Matt paused to say something to me and hugged and kissed me.

At that moment, several LDS church security guards came up to us and asked us to leave because we were being inappropriate.

Matt moved in closer to me and put his arm around me and asked the security guards loudly “what are we doing wrong?” We were obviously annoyed that they singled us out, especially since we were just passing through and not spending considerable time there. And there were no other people on the easement that we could see.

At this point they said that they wanted us to leave because of the public display of affection and that they do not allow any sorts of public displays of affection on the easement whatsoever. This especially irked the both of us because having walked through on a frequent basis (we often walk to work through there) and every time I have been through there are either marriage ceremonies going on, young mormon [sic] couples cuddling in front the fountain, hugging, holding hands, etc.

Matt then tried to get them to admit they were singling us out because they just didn’t approve of “gay” public displays of affection, baiting them into revealing their bigotry.

As all this was going on, several more security guards began showing up. I didn’t make an actual count but I would guess about 10 security guards were now surrounding us.

One of the security guards then got in Matt’s face and expressed very forcefully that “we (meaning straight people?) don’t come to your house and make-out on our property.” At this point Matt called him on his [expletive deleted] and mentioned that every time he has been through, he’s seen brides and grooms, couples holding hands on the pavement etc.

The security guards then changed their strategy and went the route of telling us that the easement is privately owned by the church and they can basically kick-out anyone they deem being offensive or inappropriate. This is technically true, but at the time I thought that it was a public easement and they had no rights to kick us out for holding hands (I didn’t really follow the controversy back in 2003 when the City ended up caving into the Mormon Church’s request to make the easement private property).

At this point they then split us up and forced me onto the ground on my stomach. They put my face against the pavement and handcuffed my hands behind my back. They then did a search and took everything out of our pockets. They did the same to Matt, although he resisted (not violently) and they weren’t able to get him on the ground because he’s a big guy and it took four or five of their guys to get him handcuffed. Matt remembers asking “what are you doing? Why are you doing this?” Then Matt launched into them verbally, telling them that they were hypocrites and did not have the authority to be arresting us.  Matt never threatened them, nor was he ever violent. He even explicitly told them that we were not being violent and that handcuffing was completely unnecessary. Neither of us are violent people. We were just trying to get them to have a civil conversation with us about the real reasons they wanted us to leave. Matt then asked if what they are doing was legal.  The security guards tried to claim that they were the cops. One of them even pulled out a fake badge and said he used to be a cop.

Matt then asked where the real cops were and they then said we could either leave, or they would get the cops. While we waited for the cops to arrive, the security guards kept trying to take pictures of us with their digital cameras. They also tried to accuse us being intoxicated although we were not. I admitted to have A beer at the gallivant, but that was hours before.

The cops finally showed up and talked to the church security away from while we still sat in cuffs. The police then escorted off the easement and took off our cuffs. We answered their questions and the one cop tried to shame us by pointing out we had been drinking, at which point Matt said “of course I have been we were at the Gallivan and took the responsible route by walking
home.

The cop then dropped that line of attack that [sic].

The cops then issued us both citations for trespassing and let us go.

Update: Some of the commenters seem to be under the impression that I, as author of this blog, was one of the victims of the preceding incidents – I wish to clarify that I am simply reporting the information as I have received it from the two directly.  It is for this reason that I have not answered what I plan to do because I have no direct connection to the case – other than the fact that people I know and care about have been directly affected by it. My appologies for any confusion.

Breaking:

So a friend of mine informed me, by way of Facebook status updates, that he was, he claims, illegally detained and charged with a Class C Misdemeanor for trespassing on the Main Street pedestrian mall in Downtown Salt Lake. The reason, he claims, is that he was holding the hand of his gay partner.

As I said, this is breaking and the facts are not in – however I would not be surprised to hear if it was entirely true.

For those of you who don’t recall, the Salt Lake City approved the sale of a section of Main Street in Downtown in April 1999 to the Mormon church from South Temple to North Temple, effectively connecting the LDS Temple grounds with the LDS Offices. The debate was heated as the land would effectively become private property and events, such as this, could (in theory at the time) be prosecuted. In the end the Church won and we see the symptoms of this victory today – assuming it is true.

But is it right?

Unlike the block housing the LDS Temple, the area is completely open and accessible to the public – indeed, I have cut through the area from time to time with no trouble whatsoever.  The area offers no physical restrictions and to someone who knew nothing of the Mormon culture, would assume it was a park area (all be it with an interesting choice in architecture).  Now these two are long standing residents of the state and city, but my point still stands.

How would we be viewed by the national press if this had been a couple from another city our country? Is this how the Church really wants to be perceived – especially after the the whole Proposition 8 dust up? Furthermore, it should not be forgotten that the Church “does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family.”

One would reasonably assume that holding hands is far less of an attack against “traditional marriage” than, say, allowing gay couples to enter into mutual contracts. Yet, if these allegations are true, here we are.

So what is more important, your First Amendment right to peaceably assemble and pass through an area, unknowingly trespassing, or arresting people because you think they are ookie? I have no doubt that they broke the actual law, but did they break the spirit of it?

P.S. Any posts that reference a religious verse or doctrine directly will be blocked – this is a legal issue and, therefore, requires a legal response. Furthermore, morality is not the dependant on any particular religion, rather it is the concept that we should be good to one another; therefore, replies regarding morality in a religious context, too, will be blocked.

Update: Read the account of this from one of the individuals arrested by clicking here.

Update: Salt Lake Tribune reporting, Deseret News reporting (the only one who acknowledged this blog directly – thanks Clayton), Q Salt Lake reporting, CBS 2 Reporting, ABC 4 Reporting, KSL 5 Reporting, Fox 13 Reporting.

Some you God fearing folks such as myself may not be aware that sin is soon upon our fair state. You see, effective midnight tonight, our great state of Deseret will soon be barraged by unseemly individuals who want nothing more than to take down the very fabric of our society. They claim that they are just trying to improve our image to the outside world – but I know the facts.

You see, at midnight tonight, people would be able to simply walk into a bar and get a drink! Yes, a BAR, not a Private Club for Members (an already intolerable institution); this fine state will be flooded with drunkards who want nothing more than to rob our homes and kill our children – I just know it.

Before we were at least protected thanks to the “private club” aspect of these dens of inequity. The $5 membership fee made would-be criminals think twice before picking up that first drink. Now, they can spend that $5 on what I can only assume is 5 shots of the hardest alcohol you can get, stumbling out much sooner and wandering our gated communities.

But now, now, they can just pony up to the devil and order a drink! These so called “adults” will loose all control without the fine guidance of our very reasonable laws.

What is even worse is that children (I presume) will be able to walk in with out people so much as batting an eye. Where is the control people? Where is the duty to protect our children from reality? Where does it end?

I hear these same sinners want them to put two or more ounces (what users call “shots”) or more of alcohol into their drinks – claiming that some drinks can’t be made because of a recipe. Boy, howdy, sounds like they are cooking up hard-core drugs.

But, alas, the users have won. I, for one, will be having a tall cool glass of water tonight as I sit out on my porch and watch the world inevitably come to an end.

It should come as no surprise that Jason Chaffetz is opposed to the recent action by Washington DC to recognize gay marriages in the district. After all, being the Republican Representative of one of the most conservative districts in the nation will create results such as this with not so much as a bat of an eye from filthy liberals such as myself.

What also does not surprise me is that Representative Chaffetz is an amazing hypocrite when it comes to his stance on big government.

On Chaffetz’s campaign site, one of his big four issues is limited government – stating that “This principal works! I agree with President Regan: “Government which governs least governs best.” He goes on to expand on this point by stating that he is a strong supporter of federalism with the emphasis being placed on the states and that he will “seek to restrict the role of the federal government.”

Ah, but Chaffetz is also the ranking Republican on the Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Post Office, and the District of Columbia and, therefore, is able to rule on all ordinances D.C. comes up with. You see, because Washington D.C. is not technically a state, rather a federal district, the Constitution grants Congress the right to pass all laws regarding the governance of the city. Everything from parking ordinances to the recognition of gay marriage is, technically, left in the hands of Congress.

But I ask Representative Chaffetz, how can you be a supporter of small government and feel that it is ok to intervene in the affairs of Washington D.C.? I understand that D.C. poses unique questions and can be treated differently than Utah – but does that mean that you should? Are the 590,000 of the District less entitled to local government than the 745,000 in yours – if not, do you consider District residents Americans? If so, why do you feel the need to interfere only in their lives but not the lives of residents who live in regular states?

Finally – and most importantly, how did you learn how to so easily speak out of both sides of your mouth?

I propose that you change your website to properly reflect your position – as I see it – to read “I seek to restrict the role of the federal government unless some portion of the population does something that I feel is ookie.” I mean, I think it is only fair to the constituents in the district you don’t live in.

.cc_box a:hover .cc_home{background:url(‘http://www.comedycentral.com/comedycentral/video/assets/syndicated-logo-over.png’) !important;}.cc_links a{color:#b9b9b9;text-decoration:none;}.cc_show a{color:#707070;text-decoration:none;}.cc_title a{color:#868686;text-decoration:none;}.cc_links a:hover{color:#67bee2;text-decoration:underline;}