The anti-Mormon backlash after California voters overturned gay marriage last fall is similar to the intimidation of Southern blacks during the civil rights movement, a high-ranking Mormon says in a speech to be delivered Tuesday.
Elder Dallin H. Oaks refers to gay marriage as an “alleged civil right” in remarks prepared for delivery at Brigham Young University-Idaho, a speech church officials describe as a significant commentary on current threats to religious freedom.
In an advance copy provided to The Associated Press, Oaks suggests that atheists and others are seeking to intimidate people of faith and silence their voices in the public square.
“The extent and nature of religious devotion in this nation is changing,” said Oaks, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, a church governing body. “The tide of public opinion in favor of religion is receding, and this probably portends public pressures for laws that will impinge on religious freedom.”
Oaks’ address comes as gay-rights activists mount a legal challenge to Proposition 8, the ballot measure that overturned gay marriage in California. His comments about civil rights are likely to anger gay rights activists who consider the struggle to enact same-sex marriage laws as a major civil rights cause.
In an interview Monday before the speech, Oaks said he did not consider it provocative to compare the treatment of Mormons in the election’s aftermath to that of blacks in the civil rights era, and said he stands by the analogy.
“It may be offensive to some – maybe because it hadn’t occurred to them that they were putting themselves in the same category as people we deplore from that bygone era,” he said.
The Salt Lake City-based Mormon church, or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, has shied from politics historically but was a key player in the pro-Proposition 8 coalition. The LDS First Presidency, its highest governing body, announced its support for Proposition 8 in a letter read at every California congregation, and individual Mormons heeded the church’s calls to donate their money and time.
After the measure prevailed, its opponents focused much of their ire on Mormons, organizing boycotts of businesses with LDS ties and protests at Mormon worship places. While some demonstrations were peaceful, in others church windows were shattered and slurs were hurled at the church’s founding fathers.
Some of the most pointed comments in Oaks’ Tuesday address focus on Proposition 8. Oaks said the free exercise of religion is threatened by those who believe it conflicts with “the newly alleged ‘civil right’ of same-gender couples to enjoy the privileges of marriage.”
“Those who seek to change the foundation of marriage should not be allowed to pretend that those who defend the ancient order are trampling on civil rights,” Oaks said. “The supporters of Proposition 8 were exercising their constitutional right to defend the institution of marriage …”
Oaks said that while “aggressive intimidation” connected to Proposition 8 was primarily directed at religious people and symbols, “it was not anti-religious as such.” He called the incidents “expressions of outrage against those who disagreed with the gay-rights position and had prevailed in a public contest.”
“As such, these incidents of ‘violence and intimidation’ are not so much anti-religious as anti-democratic,” he said. “In their effect they are like well-known and widely condemned voter-intimidation of blacks in the South that produced corrective federal civil-rights legislation.”
The Mormon church has faced criticism for its past stances on race; it wasn’t until 1978 that the church lifted a prohibition that denied full church membership to blacks of African descent.
In an interview Monday, Oaks said the Proposition 8 saga was one of several trends that motivated him to deliver the address, but it was “not the trigger.”
“There are civil rights involved in this – the right to speak your mind, to participate in the election,” Oaks said. “But you don’t have a civil right to win an election or retaliate against those who prevail.”
Oaks said he is specifically concerned about a movement toward using hate crimes laws to prosecute or threaten preachers who preach that homosexual acts are sinful.
Oaks’ address also rejects any religious test for public office. Oaks said that if “a candidate is seen to be rejected at the ballot box primarily because of religious belief or affiliation, the precious free exercise of religion is weakened at its foundation…”
In the interview Monday, Oaks said he was referring in part to the 2008 presidential bid of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, whose Mormon faith troubled some evangelicals.
On the Net: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Beliefnet
Advertisement
posted October 13, 2009 at 7:01 pm
The LDS reputation wouldn’t have been smeared anymore than it already was if they had kept themselves OUT of the California Prop. 8. Stay out of my secular life.
posted October 13, 2009 at 7:14 pm
First they take away peoples’ rights.
Then they whine about it when people are mad about it.
Hypocrites.
posted October 13, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Obviously you have to be a Morman against the GLBT to marry, to understand what this man is saying. This is not a religious problem, the Religious Conservatives have a problem with IT. This is a Civil Rights issue, and should be handled as such in our government. Once they come down to earth and join the United States of Americas Constitution they’ll stop worrying about their religious rights, go to Church when they should, marry whenever they desire, believe what they want, as long as they don’t stop other people from doing the same thing.
posted October 13, 2009 at 8:52 pm
It wouldn’t be the mormon church if it wasn’t on the wrong side of history. They don’t lift a finger to promote civil rights for blacks in the fifties and sixties and then compare themselves to blacks at that time while actively opposing civil rights for Gays & Lesbians? It’s boggling.
posted October 13, 2009 at 9:39 pm
They are so insistent on pushing their religious beliefs into public life so i say, TAKE AWAY THEIR NOT FOR PROFIT STATUS!
posted October 13, 2009 at 10:26 pm
What religious freedoms are at risk when people are given equal rights? Oppressing others is not a “religious freedom” no matter how some try to pretend it is. If the Mormons had minded their own business instead of actively working to eradicate the rights of others there wouldn’t be a problem here. Instead they led the effort to do so and are now pretending they’re victims.
posted October 13, 2009 at 11:22 pm
It’s not a equal right when marriage is about a man marrying a woman it’s a attempt to change what is right.
posted October 13, 2009 at 11:48 pm
So, cknuck, what do you think about the Mormons comparing their plight to that of blacks trying to get the right to vote?
It seems those Mormons are claiming if any religion tries to exert its muscle politically and people object to that, the religion is being oppressed. What nonsense! Politics is rough and tumble and being a religion doesn’t change that.
What about atheists? In most part of the country to be an atheist openly is to give up any hope of being elected to anything. I wonder if he has sympathy for us.
posted October 13, 2009 at 11:55 pm
“I wonder if he has sympathy for us.” And I wonder if he’d go to bat for us. Hah!
posted October 14, 2009 at 12:51 am
Everybody wants to jump on our heritage and use us, no surprises.
posted October 14, 2009 at 10:40 am
I’ve got a wickedly cunning idea – let’s institute equal rights FOR EVERYONE! That means sexual orientation and religious affiliation are equal, gender and age are equal, race and language are equal – it’s all equal, even, fair, balanced. Do you think it might work? Isn’t at least worth a try?
As soon as one group or even one person does not have equal rights then the whole thing is unbalanced and likely to tip over – and we wouldn’t want that, now would we.
posted October 14, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Excellent idea, jestrfyl! Equal rights for EVERYONE. Most certainly worth a try….but unfortunately, there are those who can’t get rid of their ideas of what is totally right and totally wrong!!
posted October 14, 2009 at 2:20 pm
“I’ve got a wickedly cunning idea – let’s institute equal rights FOR EVERYONE!”
Aww heck, jstrfyl, why stop there? Why not just do away with ALL laws?? Yeah! Just do whatever you want, when you want, because you want to! Unlimited indulgence to whatever passions and pleasures you have!
After all, laws are essentially the problem here, right? Those pesky laws… Good grief!
“It seems those Mormons are claiming if any religion tries to exert its muscle politically and people object to that, the religion is being oppressed. What nonsense! Politics is rough and tumble and being a religion doesn’t change that”
They are not complaining about the objections. If you were to actually read the article, it is the intimidation through destruction of church property and silencing their voice that they bemoan. I don’t think anyone objects to objectors per se as there will always be someone around who disagrees. It’s when a few very angry people get into a hissy fit when they lose and start destroying things that goes against the law, or violate citizens’ privacy.
posted October 14, 2009 at 2:21 pm
“I’ve got a wickedly cunning idea – let’s institute equal rights FOR EVERYONE!”
Aww heck, jstrfyl, why stop there? Why not just do away with ALL laws?? Yeah! Just do whatever you want, when you want, because you want to! Unlimited indulgence to whatever passions and pleasures you have!
After all, laws are essentially the problem here, right? Those pesky laws… Good grief!
“It seems those Mormons are claiming if any religion tries to exert its muscle politically and people object to that, the religion is being oppressed. What nonsense! Politics is rough and tumble and being a religion doesn’t change that”
They are not complaining about the objections. If you were to actually read the article, it is the intimidation through destruction of church property and silencing their voice that they bemoan. I don’t think anyone objects to objectors per se as there will always be someone around who disagrees. It’s when a few very angry people get into a hissy fit when they lose and start destroying things that goes against the law, or violate citizens’ privacy.
posted October 14, 2009 at 2:55 pm
YN I read it again and I don’t see where Oaks confined his concern to destruction of property. He spoke of “violence and intimidation”, and intimidation could certainly include the boycotting. I suspect boycotting Mormon businesses is at least as much of a problem for them, and him. And boycotting anyone’s business is, I believe, perfectly legal.
“Oaks suggests that atheists and others are seeking to intimidate people of faith and silence their voices in the public square.”
Just what about the reaction to the Mormon politicking suggests atheistic involvement? For myself I think conservative religionists have had too much influence, largely because the news media treats them as though they are all the religionists. So I certainly would like them to have less influence but I would never try nor want them to be “silenced”. Oaks is doing some proactive whining. And he’s probably trying to recruit excess pity from people of other religions. If you have a problem, blame it on the atheists apparently.
posted October 14, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Oakes is throwing a smoke screen, or a pity party, as kids say today.
Quote: Oakes is insinuating that Atheists, and others are trying to silence their voices in the public square.
He doesn’t understand what is going on it seems. He is afraid he won’t be able to preach before his Church about the sin of homosexuality if the Hate law is passed. I don’t think the GLBT would care what any Church preaches if they are finally established as equal citizens in America. Despite what he fears this issue is about equality. If being equal depresses and distresses the radical Religious people it’s a shame, just think how the GLBT and their Mothers and Fathers, and families have been treated all these years. It’s time to think and hopefully repent.
posted October 14, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Did it again, I was writing my post and I just read yours and they parallel again, even the same quote.
Maybe the violence was a doz. eggs thrown. Terrible to clean up.
posted October 14, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Churches can teach whatever they like, but they fail to see the separation of church and state. There are two types of marriage: civil and religious. All churches decide whether or not they will perform religious marriages; however, they have no right to deny civil marriage to people because it lies beyond their believers.
I’m sorry to hear that some people in support of LGBT rights have gone out of bounds to harass people or destroy property, but the church shouldn’t pretend like they’re the only group to receive such treatment. Comparing themselves to African Americans is a bit much because I’ve never heard of a mormon being tortured and killed because of they’re creed. As for african americans and gays, that unfortunately is not the case.
posted October 14, 2009 at 7:49 pm
H22 quote, “Oakes is throwing a smoke screen, or a pity party, as kids say today.”
It’s no more smoke screen than the minimizing and word games you and nnmns do. Your comment about the egg throwing just about justifies the action although it was much more you reduced it.
Chal quote, “I’ve never heard of a mormon being tortured and killed because of they’re creed. As for african americans and gays, that unfortunately is not the case.”
How uninformed are you? Don’t try to join heritages with African Americans that is just doing the absolute same thing as you claim the Mormons have done. “Slavery, lynching, breeding, burned, hobbled, bombing, murdered just to start I didn’t see much of that in America history about African American as I grew up and now that history has been corrected you want homosexuals to share our heritage falsely? Some nerve.
posted October 14, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Same thing but fortunately a lot less of it. But it is the same thing.
posted October 14, 2009 at 10:35 pm
nnmns you are a joke, ridiculously unfunny but a joke never the less.
posted October 14, 2009 at 10:58 pm
Nnmns is not a joke. But you wouldn’t know that, just like you didn’t understand about the eggs.
posted October 15, 2009 at 12:34 am
Thanks Henrietta.
posted October 15, 2009 at 11:24 am
jesterfyl
“I’ve got a wickedly cunning idea – let’s institute equal rights FOR EVERYONE! That means sexual orientation and religious affiliation are equal, gender and age are equal, race and language are equal – it’s all equal, even, fair, balanced. Do you think it might work? Isn’t at least worth a try?”
Sorry, gotta disagree with you on that. All of these categories (except one – guess which one!) are innate, immutable characteristics. Religion is a choice.
Why should the rest of us be held to ransom monetarily because of poor choices on ck’s behalf?
posted October 15, 2009 at 11:31 am
” it is the intimidation through destruction of church property and silencing their voice that they bemoan”
Except, of course, there was no destruction of property OR any ‘silencing their voice’. They are not only still free to speak their ‘mind’, they are still quite vocal.
If they have to lie to make their ‘point’ (as people of faith, isn’t lying – aka the bearing of false witness – a sin?) then they’ve already lost the battle. The moral one, anyway. (Not that they have any morals.)
posted October 15, 2009 at 6:57 pm
H22 please tell me what I do not understand about eggs, and make sense please, I really want to know what’s not to understand.
posted October 15, 2009 at 7:00 pm
husband quote, “Sorry, gotta disagree with you on that. All of these categories (except one – guess which one!) are innate, immutable characteristics. Religion is a choice.”
Only true to a certain extent sexual identity choices are being manipulated all the time and they sometimes evolve.
posted October 17, 2009 at 10:53 am
That “Religion is a choice” is “only true to a certain extent” (according to ck) pretty much proves ck doesn’t grasp reality.
What a waste of bandwidth.
posted October 17, 2009 at 7:49 pm
ao don’t be so stupid you accused me of husband’s quote. read more and you will put your foot in your mouth less.
posted October 18, 2009 at 1:34 pm
ck you are such a liar. Here’s a copy & paste of your entire post:
cknuck
October 15, 2009 7:00 PM
husband quote, “Sorry, gotta disagree with you on that. All of these categories (except one – guess which one!) are innate, immutable characteristics. Religion is a choice.”
Only true to a certain extent sexual identity choices are being manipulated all the time and they sometimes evolve.
Perhaps you meant that phrase to modify “sexual identity choices”. Since that phrase immediately followed Husband’s “Religion is a choice.” sentence, readers would think that your immediate response with the phrase “Only to a certain extent” would modify that. And, since you added gobbledygook about “sexual identity choices are being manipulated all the time”, we’d kind of like to know just who is doing the manipulation.
Perhaps if you learned to punctuate, you would be better understood.
As it is, you’re just wierd. And hateful.
posted October 18, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Sounds like you have the problem, stop wasting my time have a point the next time you confront me.
posted October 18, 2009 at 11:58 pm
A transcript of Elder Dallin H. Oaks’ talk on Religious Freedom – along with links to many of his source citations – can be found on Believe All Things.
posted October 21, 2009 at 9:56 am
I’m not a member of the lds church, but what happend to them in california was disgusting, from the protest to throwing rocks at their churches and temples. That was criminal activity from people who are supposed to be peaceful. And where are all the evangelicals who supported the marriage admendment, they stood back and let the mormons take all the heat, when were knee deep for the admendment as well. Disgusting!!!!!!!
posted October 30, 2009 at 3:33 pm
It really must have been terrifying for those mormons to know that they would be forced into gay marriage if they hadn’t gotten involved.. wait, what?
I can’t feel any sympathy for people who want to restrict someone else’s right to a loving, legally recognized union.
And as far as religious freedom, how many people in this country have had to hide their beliefs? How many have been fired or wrongly accused of a crime because they weren’t Christian?
God, Jesus.. I have respect for them, but their people really work hard to make them look bad.
posted October 30, 2009 at 10:54 pm
“”…I can’t feel any sympathy for people who want to restrict someone else’s right to a loving, legally recognized union…”"
hmmm…so, if you love the relative that rapes you at twelve, you forgive, you live and let live and then you might want to consider marriage a little later down the road? Why not marry a horse? They are affectionate. What about polygamy? You know what they say if one is fat; more of me to go around. It’s all in the name of LOVE so let’s not restrict any sexual expressions of love. Anywhere, anytime, anyplace, with ANYone (or anyTHING)
Top ten list of “feel any sympathy” stupid sayings.
posted November 2, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Wow! GC, did you ever read the post before yours incorrectly. She mentioned the right to a loving, legal recognized union…and you decided to talk about rape and marrying horses. Shows where your mind is.
posted November 6, 2009 at 10:26 pm
My mind is fixed on Christ, my Savior.
“She” talked about her prejudices and makes no more of a point than you.
Get saved, pagan, repent and be saved.
posted November 14, 2009 at 10:27 pm
“MY mind is fixed on Christ, my Savior” GC
Sure.