Quick follow-up to yesterday’s post about the Proposition 8 protests in California and across the States this weekend:
Meg Massie over at Gadling reports that at least one gay rights activist, John Aravosis, is calling for travelers to boycott Utah this ski season.
Utah, of course, is home to the headquarters of the Mormon Church, which reportedly poured tens of millions of dollars into a campaign in favour of California’s Prop 8.
Meg wrote: “[Aravosis is] calling for skiers to choose anywhere but Utah this winter, and he’s even urging Hollywood to back out of the annual Sundance Film Festival, which makes up a huge part of Utah’s $6 billion annual tourism income.”
It’s an interesting idea – I have no idea whether it will take hold, but it’s worth noting that the passage of Proposition 8 seems to have awakened a new spirit of protest in the gay rights movement, with a feistier edge to it than I can recall seeing in recent years.
Case in point: another blog post I came across just a few minutes after Gadling’s:
“I strongly support civility in this struggle,” the Atlantic’s Andrew Sullivan wrote in a post titled The Mormon War on Gay People. “Religious services and practices should be scrupulously respected.”
But when a church, like the Mormon church, makes a concerted effort to enter the public square and strip a small minority of basic civil rights, it is simply preposterous for them then to argue that the Mormon church cannot be criticized and protested because they are a religion.
I have never done anything – nor would I do anything – to impede or restrict the civil rights of Mormons. I respect their right to freedom of conscience and religion. In fact, it is one of my strongest convictions. But when they use their money and power to target my family, to break it up, to demean it and marginalize it, to strip me and my husband of our civil rights, then they have started a war.
And I am not a pacifist.
Hmm. Like I was saying. Them’s fighting words. This issue isn’t going anywhere, anytime soon.
Photo by msn678 (Creative Commons)
About the Author
More By This Author
- Sunshine Guaranteed - Or Your Money Back (8 comments)
- New Paid Travel Writing Opportunities from BootsnAll (2 comments)
- You Don't Need a Mumbai Slum Tour to See Wealth Disparity at Work (2 comments)
Related Posts
33 Comments... join the discussion!
-
-
The Mormon Church doesn't own the ski mountains, though, does it? It would be a shame to punish non-Mormon Utah-ites for this, as they probably had nothing to do with the vote in CA. In a related story, Utah might be losing a big chunk of tourism anyway in the years to come. If the outgoing administration has its way, new oil and gas drilling projects are going to abut several of the state's (and the nation's) most beautiful parks. ” target=”_blank”>http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0208-03.h...
↵ -
It could actually make a difference. In Arizona, I think it was Governor Meacham (sp) that cut Martin Luther King Day. The economy tanked as companies from all over the country canceled their conferences. It took years to recover.
↵ -
So you don't believe minorities deserve any permanent protections from the will of the majority? By your definition, every white person in American could vote to reinstate slavery (they are, after all, the majority) and the minority blacks would just have to suck it up?
↵ -
In some ways, Hal, I agree. But I also think a boycott could be a very powerful, relatively civilized way of making a statement. If the citizens of Utah didn't like the repercussions, maybe they'd encourage their government to take legal steps to prevent the church from interfering so actively in politics? The thing that amazes me most about this story is that the Mormons were allowed to pour so much money into active campaigning (in ANOTHER state, no less!) without losing their tax-free charitable status. Governments and churches made a bargain – separation of church and state has its perks for churches, too, it's not just about keeping them out of power. (For example, it's freedom of religion that lets the Catholic Church actively discriminate in its employment practices, by reserving the priesthood for men. That wouldn't fly in any normal corporation or organization.) The flipside of their freedom is, they aren't supposed to impose their will on those who aren't members of their congregation. They have no business in politics, and I'm not sure why what they did on Prop 8 was permitted. Maybe a boycott in Utah would convince the non-Mormons there to pass some laws reigning them in?
↵ -
The election of Barack Obama brought out scads of voters that had previously not been voters at all. If you believe the media reports they came, in droves, from churches. Driven from the pulpit to "make this historic election of our nation's first black president" happen Proposition 8 was defeated. Defeated why? Because it was voted down by the same groups that came out in droves to support Barrack Obama. These groups have a tendency to have a more fundamental, and strong, belief in a "church" driven dictum — which does not include recognizing gay rights. Did we get a dose of "we got what we paid for" on this issue? Do we picket the Mormon Church for doing the same thing, speaking out against Gay marriage, as the voters from Catholic, Baptist and fundamentalist Christian churches obviously did? Did the Mormon vote count for more votes than the Baptist vote? Do we destroy the economy of Utah because they did what all those other voters did? I would like to make a broad, unfounded statement. I would have a tendency to say that the majority of Mormon voters probably voted for John McCain, if for no other reasons than the right to life issue. If the Mormon vote actually swayed anything, McCain would be president. I do not believe that the Mormon church, or Utah is responsible for the defeat of Prop. 8. The right to marriage/civil contract should be given to whomever wants it as long as they are both human (lets draw the line at marrying goats! ;-0 ) able to make an informed decisions, and are able to understand the contractual requirements of "marriage" Marriage is, after all a civil contract. Leading to the conversation that all marriages should be civil contracts first and then, if you choose to have your "marriage" sanctified by the church of your choice, go for it. Have at it. This whole issue is put to the side and the money and effort being spent on the subject saved if we just separated the Church from the State.
↵ -
Is reigning them in even possible? Couldn't they just ask all of the members of the church to donate to a certain cause, so that way it looks like a bunch of individuals rather than the church itself? Also, I'm not a legal scholar or anything, but it doesn't seem they violated the separation of church and state. All they did was donate (at least to my knowledge) to the prop 8 campaign. The church itself, or other churches, didn't have anything to do with the drafting of the law, or somehow having it rushed through the state's congress or anything like that. But then again, I'm kind of avoiding the news channels cause I'm sick of all the political coverage, so I'm not 100% into all of the details of what's going on.
↵ -
I canceled my January trip. Heading to Montana instead. Way to go LDS. You screwed up this time.
↵ -
True, I'm no legal scholar either. It's a good point about whether the donations were made by individuals or put together officially by the church. I'm pretty sure in Canada this would be considered a violation of the spirit of it at the very least, if not the letter, but what do I know about Utah law? Hmm.
↵ -
Jacquie, I'm not sure that the point is whether or not the Mormons were quantifiably responsible for Prop 8 passing. The point is that they sure as heck tried to make sure it did – and really, as you say, civil contracts (particularly those in another state!) are none of the church's business. I don't see anything wrong with gay rights supporters hitting back in every *legal* and non-violent way they can. Really, nothing they say or do is on the scale of the rhetoric and actions directed against them. Destroying Utah's economy? Well, the LDS just helped to destroy many people's lives…
↵ -
http://www.mormonsstoleourrights.com/ That website presents some pretty strong arguments.
↵ -
Sad, Dan, that, as an American, you don't think protecting the Civil rights of even One American is worth fighting for. I don't think a boycott of Utah has any more fairness to it than does discriminating against someone because of who they chose to love. It's not just California that's broke, people really do give a shit about civil rights and the small minority was49% of all those who voted in California in the last election. Meanwhile, rest assured that there are Americans who will be here to fight for the civil rights of everyone, including you. And, no, I'm not gay, Mormon or Californian. I am an American veteran.
↵ -
Research is hard, no? "The church itself did not give money to the backers of Proposition 8" http://tinyurl.com/6erthm
↵ -
Research is hard, no? Your third paragraph is misleading, a quick search pulls this up. "The church itself did not give money to the backers of Proposition 8" http://tinyurl.com/6erthm (second post, first was deleted…?)
↵ -
Research is hard, no? Your third paragraph is misleading, a quick search pulls this up. "The church itself did not give money to the backers of Proposition 8" http://tinyurl.com/6erthm
↵ -
Patience is a virtue, Chris. Comments only get moderated every 20 minutes or so… And I don't think what I said is particularly misleading. The article you linked to made it clear that this was not a spontaneous, coincidental outburst of donations by a large number of individual Mormons – the church actively encouraged and organized this process. Plus, you'll note I used the classic fudging word, "reportedly"! I made it clear in the comments that I wasn't sure exactly how the money was being spread. Thanks for the link to help us out. And by the way, from what I've heard, not donating directly doesn't necessarily mean the church hasn't violated the terms of their tax-free status. The legislation refers to "lobbying" not pure cash input.
↵ -
Whoooaaa there. Back up just a bit. I don't believe that a minority of Californians believe that gay people don't have the right to equal rights. I believe the Morman Church spend millions on lying ads that mislead people into believing untrue propaganda. This is not a moral issue about gay people, it's an issue of human rights under the constitution, and that IS an important issue. To the people affected by this, it is the only issue, just like for women and for black people. Whether or not people boycott Utah is up to them, but don't belittle the issue just because you don't happen to care about it, and it doesn't affect you. Give other people the courtesy of understanding that it is important to them.
↵ -
Totally agree about overstepping the church-state division. But we also can't forget that it was Californians who actually pulled the levers to strip their neighbors of this right, no matter how much they were brain-washed by commercials or whatnot. As long as we're boycotting, I say we throw California in there too.
↵ -
Hey, I haven't got any CA trips planned in the immediate future! Why not?
Seriously, though, it's a good point you make. I think in some ways the activists probably want to avoid alienating the more moderate Californians they haven't swayed yet, so they're looking elsewhere for a safe target. I still think it's a fair target – but you're right that it shouldn't be their only one. If nothing else, though, even the suggestion of a Utah boycott is a sign of a feisty, creative movement at work here – it should be very interesting to see what happens next…
↵ -
I live in Utah, and was raised a in the LDS church but have not attended in over a decade. (I consider myself falling somewhere into agnostic/atheist/Buddhist/Deist beliefs now) I am very opposed to Prop 8 and consider it a civil rights issue. Many in my family are in support of Prop 8. They view homosexuality as a sin that is spreading, and Prop 8 is a way to stop or restrict its spread. They call this defending marriage but its about fear and ignorance. I am torn about the boycotts. I want this to stay a hot issue and put people in a position where they really have to examine what they belief and why. I pulled my business referals from someone (an individual in business) who was listed as a donor. However I don't agree with blaming an entire company for one employees opinion. If they are smart they will release a statement that says they respect the private opinions of their people but the organization does not get involved in politics. I don't think a boycott on the entire state of Utah is a good idea for several reasons. 1) Logistical it would take a much wider and dedicated effort to really make an impact that makes anyone react and say "oh this was a bad idea, maybe we should reconsider our actions" The impact would need to be so great that it could not be blamed on the current economy. 2) Utah is not the LDS church. While about 60% of Utah's are Mormon, 40% are not. These include many who are opposed to Prop 8 including an active gay community here in Salt Lake City. This boycott would be effecting them as well. 3) Only about 12% of Mormons live in Utah. Most Mormons will agree that Utah Mormons are different from those living outside the state. The opinions are more open minded with those outside Utah, and more likely to be accepting and sympathetic to this issue. The Mormon church, like any church, is slow and stubborn to accept change, but it does happen over time as the majority of the opinion shifts. 4) The problem is being close-minded. They church would rather not have to deal with 'the gays', so by gays now choosing to not come to Utah, isn't that a victory for them? Instead do the opposite. Come here in mass. Come protest at Temple Square. Come walk hand in hand. Come take a photo of you and your partner kissing in front of the Salt Lake Temple and show this is about love. Boycott hate. Boycott ignorance. Those are the enemy, not Utah.
↵ -
Jay, thanks so much for chiming in! It's great to hear from someone on the ground in Utah, especially with an LDS background.
↵ -
The LDS church itself didn't give money. But what if it had? Various churches actively raised money for Obama. Was that "overstepping the church-state division"? Would you call that "interfering so actively in politics"? Should we "pass some laws reigning them in"? I don't think that most people have a problem with churches raising money for political issues, as long as the church supports your side.
↵ -
Has anyone heard anything first-hand from a Mormon official? I'd be interested in what was said. I am close to several members of the LDS church and have attended services many times and in several different states and countries. Unlike many other churches, I have never heard an LDS church official endorse a specific candidate or issue (even when Mit Romney was running). They always say something like "vote your conscience".
↵ -
Hey Theodore – I dunno, as I said above I'm far from an expert on the details of this stuff. In Canada, I'm pretty sure any church raising money for a specific candidate would be illegal – and I'd support that, whichever side they were on. It looks from this PBS transcript (-” target=”_blank”>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/religion/jan-june0...- interesting stuff in here! talks to both sides, and the IRS) that things in the States might be a little muddier. IRS investigations seem to be largely complaint-based, but yeah, from what I can gather from the article, any church raising money specifically for Obama would be in clear violation. All you'd need to do is file a complaint with the IRS. I do think that laws to "reign them in" are important – freedom of religion is important, and should be protected, but the key to that is that one religion's mores can NOT be imposed on the rest. What the churches think of civil marriage is absolutely irrelevant – it's out of their jurisdiction, and any attempt to interfere with it is an attempt to impose their values on all of society. And to rebutt the obvious rebuttal: Same-sex civil marriage is not, on the other hand, an attempt to impose values on all of society – the equivalent would be forcing all churches and religious groups to perform same-sex marriages, in my mind. Here in Canada, when we had our big same-sex marriage debate a few years back, the majority of Canadians were in favour of it. But our Prime Minister at the time was a Catholic. Word came all the way from the Vatican that folks there were keeping an eye on what our Prime Minister did – there was talk of excommunication if he passed the bill. To my mind that was the most outrageous interference in Canadian politics and society. It really made me see the importance of limiting church interference in civil affairs. Should an elected official follow the edicts of Vatican City, in direct violation of the will of the citizens he's supposed to serve? Absolutely not. And he didn't, in the end, thankfully.
↵ -
Hmm, nothing I've read has had any specific comment from LDS officials. I think they're keeping their heads down and hoping it all blows over. For what it's worth, as I said somewhere above, I do think there's a scapegoating element to the focus on the LDS – people are (understandably) angry, and they wind up focusing on a safe target.
↵ -
"Same-sex civil marriage is not, on the other hand, an attempt to impose values on all of society – the equivalent would be forcing all churches and religious groups to perform same-sex marriages, in my mind." Or better yet, forcing everyone to marry someone of their own gender!
↵ -
While we're talking about homosexuality, can we make a little side-trip into homophones? No, that's not phone-sex between same-gender people–it's words that sound alike but have different meanings and may be spelled differently. To "reign" means to hold power, such as a king who "reigns" over a nation. "Reins" are the straps used to control a horse (they're usually attached to a bit in the horse's mouth). So when we want to pull someone back, or keep them from moving forward so rapidly, we "rein them in." Having been educated in the pre-spellcheck days, I actually had to learn how to spell. So it annoys the hell outta me to see "reign" used, again and again, in place of "rein." We hunt "bears," not "bares"; we study the "past," not the "passed"; we comb our "hair," not our "hare": we send "mail," not "male"; we blow our "nose," not our "knows"; and for heaven's sake, we "rein them in," NOT "reign them in." Language is supposed to communicate, but the more ambiguity we throw into it ("Did he mean a grizzly or something naked?") the less effectively it communicates. Regarding the topic at hand: Of COURSE it's okay for people to take political action (such as a boycott) against any interests of the Mormon Church. Nobody intended to force the LDS Church–nor any church–to offer religious blessings to the marriages of gay people–they simply wanted the CIVIL right to marry. If religion chooses to step across the line and influence politics (such as civil rights), then politics has every right to influence religion. The deal is supposed to be that neither one interferes with the other. When either one crosses the line of separation to attack the other, it's inviting counter-attacks across that same line. Seems pretty simple to me.
↵ -
G. Hodgson: Thanks for pointing out my mistake on reign/rein. I'm a big fan of the English language, and always appreciate people who are vigilant in its maintenance. I don't think, though, that one mistake is enough for you to paint me, and all my peers, as part of some imaginary, entire generation that never learned how to spell: "Having been educated in the pre-spellcheck days, I actually had to learn how to spell." I can spell pedantry. And I can spell condescension, too. Just thought I'd let you no. (Har har.)
↵ -
I can't believe how many liberal nuts there are in this country! This blog talks about a "Church entering the public arena" by spending tens of millions of dollars to support a proposition that strips Americans of their basic civil rights, but there are two sides to every story and, as usual, the American Left isn't as much concerned with facts as they are with undermining the basic Christian Values which (whether they like to admit or not) this country WAS founded on. If Proposition 8 didn't pass then the Mormon Church could be required to perform Gay Marriages in order to maintain its Tax Exempt Status. It is no more fair for a State of Federal Government to tell a Church which ordinances it can or can't or HAS TO perform than it is for a Church to tell a Government which laws to pass. The Mormon Church took a stand for its rights and defended its values just as any protester would do. If some Liberal watch group had paid tens of millions dollars in advertising to try to prevent Prop 8 from passing, would you same people who are so outraged with the Mormon Church truly feel that they had done something unethical? My last point is this: the Mormon Church is a comparatively new Church and, as such, is much more open to ridicule and abuse. There is much less tolerance for it than other, more established, Christian Churches in America and I think this fact is playing a big role in this hot topic. I hardly doubt there would be this type of backlash against the Catholic Church or the Jewish Faith had they funded a similar campaign. Can you imagine such a thing? It is bigotry and it is unjustly hypocritical for those of you claiming to be champions of civil rights and fair treatment of minorities to expect a Religious Organization to quietly allow the government to tell them what they can and cannot do within the walls of their sacred establishments. You may not like the outcome, but the people DID vote and that is what makes this country great! You can't blame one group who provided some funding to protect themselves against one bill. Funding is funneled through all sorts of crazy places from all sorts of groups who intentionally maintain anonymity to avoid this type of backlash, but the Mormon Church was open and honest with their stance and supported their cause. Kudos to them! And… for the record, I live Utah, am NOT Mormon, and feel sorry for anybody who passes up the chance to ski in the most beautiful place on Earth just because they want to throw a tantrum.
↵ -
I'm sorry, but you've been misinformed. Prop 8 had NOTHING to do with forcing churches to marry gays, it was about CIVIL marriage only. If you're paranoid enough to believe that it's a "slippery slope" perhaps you ought to look at all the countries that have legalized gay marriage in the civil arena. Here in Canada, it's been almost six years since we did so, and not one priest has been dragged screaming down the aisle and forced to marry two men or two women. They weren't protecting themselves, they weren't stopping the government from telling them what to do "within the walls of their sacred establishments" – quite the contrary, they were attacking others who are not members of their faith, and attempting to impose their will on those outside the walls of their sacred establishments. If you value freedom of religion (which it seems you do), I don't know how you can support a church breaking the bargain it has made with the state like this.
↵ -
This is ridiculous. What rights, outside of Social Security death benefits, are gays denied? Zero. Zip. None. I know gay couples who considered themselves married long before it was an issue.Lots of hetero couples live together without the benefit of marriage (Susan Sarandon and TIm Robbins, for example), so what's the big deal? This tempest in a teapot is going to end up backfiring on the gay community.
↵ -
I think that anyone that refuses to go to a place as beautifully stunning as Utah because a stupid church that most people in the tourist towns of Utah loath, needs a head check of their own. If you travel to places like Moab and actually take the time to hang out and get to know the people, you soon find out that they dislike the Mormons and totally disagree with their ways and beliefs just as you do. Most people in that town are very open minded people who regardless of the Mormons stay because they love the area the seclusion,and the beauty. However the people of Moab rely almost solely on tourism and to punish them and the awesome people in the other surrounding towns not to mention the Native American 's on the reservations there… Well that's not fair. I think that's worse than not allowing marriage of any type. You're saying we should cause innocent people to loose their jobs, their homes and starve just because a bill was not passed due to the rich Mormons. The Mormons don't even live in these towns. They don't work at these resorts. They don't rely on your money… Not like the service industry there that absolutely HAS to have your money in order to put presents under the tree, keep the heat on, feed one another. Most of my friends in Utah are the people that rely on your money because they guide your tours and serve your food, they clean the toilets to your resort, and make sure the roads are clear for you to travel on, and I am sickened that you would want to lash out at them.. You should attack them where and when it will only hurt them and not thousands of innocent people.
↵ -
Even with the weirdness in Utah, the scenery is unrivaled and you are only hurting yourself if you miss it ! This is my home area! There is too much there to see to miss it. ~Amanda
↵
