Prop 8 – The Zion Chronicle

Selective History

Perhaps it’s just me, but if I were Michael Otterson I would find it irksome that the same position I had represented for the church for more than a year was suddenly newsworthy as if something had changed.

It looked like a stunning reversal: the same church that helped defeat gay marriage in California standing with gay-rights activists on an anti-discrimination law in its own backyard.

. . .

The ordinances passed and history was made: It marked the first time the Salt Lake City-based church had supported gay-rights legislation.

More than a year ago – months before the votes started coming in for California’s Proposition 8 the LDS Church stated its official position that they were supportive of the basic rights of all people, including homosexuals, such as probate rights and housing rights. They stated that they were amenable in theory to the Common Ground Initiative but could not take a public position on bills that had not yet been drafted.

The position of the church never changed. Some people claim this is a PR move to blunt the backlash over their role in defeating Prop. 8, but the only thing that changed is that unlike the theoretical five bills of the common ground initiative, the Salt Lake City council actually drafted two bills. The church publicly supported the bills – in keeping with the position they had already taken.

Sadly some people still don’t get it and are suggesting that the church should take a further step by actually writing bill proposals for the state legislature to consider which would extend these same benefits statewide that were just passed within Salt Lake City. The fact is that the church will do just have they have done up to this point – they will not write legislation and they will take no position on theoretical bills that have not been written. When bills are written that are acceptable the church will support them. Bills they can’t quite support will get no comment. In the Utah Legislature they don’t even have to worry about addressing bills that are worthy of their opposition.

The Case for Telling the Truth

Perhaps it would be better to say that this is the case for tellling “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” After months and months of watching the various arguments for and against Proposition 8 in California – which would define marriage as being between a man and a woman – I finally spoke up. I could no longer sit silent while people on both sides of the debate obscured the truth of what was to be decided.

The way this is the case for telling the truth is that one side received all the benefit as both sides argued about related obscurities that were all false to one degree or another. Those opposing Prop. 8 claim that the measure was designed to institutionalize discrimination. They benefit from this because of the emotional reaction that good people have to the idea of discrimination. When the proponents of Prop. 8 focus their arguments on the secondary effects of legalizing gay marriage, using fear as their tool in place of truth the opponents can easily counter with the idea that the repurcussions of this action will not have a ripple effect citing the fact that gay marriage has already been legal for months (and naturally within those few months we would already be seeing the side effects of such a monumental social change as redefining the primary unit of society).

If the advocates for Prop. 8 would stick to publishing the truth of their position and defending themselves accurately against the false claims of discrimination their opponents would not be able to obscure the real issue as effectively as they have been able to do. The voters would be left to decide on the issue of whether marriage is a construct of man or something more eternal in nature. If the issue were decided based on the real argument then it would almost not matter the outcome of the vote – the people would be declaring where they stand on the issue and the debate would serve as an opportunity to teach the truth.

As it stands, the debate has circled around the central issue and been hijacked by half-truths and high emotions. The people of California will decide the issues based on viceral reactions rather than honest or clear belief. Many will make a choice that they honestly do not understand and cannot be fully held accountable for that choice which means the issue will undoubtedly be revisited without the benefit of so many people already understanding what it being decided.