Let’s put it this way, queuno. As a result of its heavy involvement with Prop 8 (which, btw, continues because the LDS church is paying for legal defense of Prop 8, DOMA, etc.), the LDS church has frankly become a symbol of homophobic bigotry in the public eye. Those religious fundamentalists who appreciate political crusades against GLBT people can’t even be counted as “fans” of the LDS church on this basis, because they still think the LDS church is a hell-bound cult. This public perception appears to have affected missionary work, as measured by baptism rates, for the LDS church.

In order to combat the effects of this drastic public relations misstep, the LDS church is currently spending millions of dollars on a marketing campaign, designed to show the LDS church as “diverse,” welcoming and inclusive. This marketing campaign has faced criticism even within the LDS community, chiefly because most of those appearing in the “I’m a Paid Actor/Model Posing as a Mormon” ads represent “types” who would be ostracized, or at least marginalized, in many LDS congregations. To most people I’ve spoken with, including LDS, these ads ring “Madison Avenue,” rather than genuine. Rather than combatting the new “LDS bigotry” stereotype, they essentially highlight it.

Now, contrast the march last week in Salt Lake City’s gay pride parade. 300-400 average LDS members made a personal choice to express their genuine tolerance, inclusivity, and human compassion. They didn’t carry signs saying “Change LDS Doctrine to Approve Gay Sex,” nor did anyone expect them to. They carried signs such as “Jesus Says Love Everyone.” Not only that, but they marched while dressed “as Mormons,” demonstrating both their Mormon identity and their convictions regarding their GLBT brothers and sisters. They didn’t “co-opt” anything–they stood up as who they were. All of this, they did with full knowledge that some of their fellow LDS members would villify and condemn them for “supporting sin” or “not following the prophet.” Read the comments posted in response to the Deseret News article on the march, if you don’t think that would happen. Because they were willing to love, and to demonstrate that love openly, their “fellow saints” attacked them.

Now, which do you think TRULY had the most effect toward fighting the “Mormons are bigots” stereotype? Million-dollar “inspired” advertisements? Or 300-400 genuine Mormons who were brave enough to stand up publicly for what they believed?

Good question, queuno. I think the answer lies in the heart of each marcher. What do you mean about coopting a brand? The Mormon title? They are Mormons and marching AS Mormons, which is meaningful to them and to the gay people around them. But your question is food for thought, because why separate into religious units? (I complain about being singled out as a Mormon, so you have a point) I can answer that question as a resident of Utah, where it’s an important statement to march as a Mormon. I don’t equate identifying myself as what I am with coopting a brand.

Jenn, I so envy your surety. Perhaps if I’d lived in California, I’d be more sure. Things are quieter here, mostly because the issue of gay marriage is not up for discussion. I wonder why so many gay people live in Salt Lake? There is a pretty vocal gay community here in southern Utah; more and more of my friends have children who are gay. Kind of tends to shut up one’s homophobic rhetoric if your son or daughter comes out. Or if your friend’s child does; or if….etc. etc. Changes peoples’ minds, as it were.

I loved what Jana Reiss said about it:

“In the last two years I’ve discerned a palpable shift in overall Mormon attitudes about homosexuality. Alongside greater acceptance in society, there’s been increasing openness in our church, as seen in yesterday’s well-attended Gay Pride March in Salt Lake City. But judging from the way homosexuality is still treated in the Church Handbook of Instruction, we have a significant way to go.

I can’t pinpoint a precise date when I started to recognize that instead of being part of a stubborn minority of Mormons who cared about GLBT rights, I was part of a growing community of faithful Latter-day Saints who long for equality for all people regardless of sexual orientation. But this transformation has indeed been happening — not just in the media but on the ground, in the Mormon communities I see and know. Good Mormons who just a few years ago might have felt comfortable making homophobic judgments or remarks are expressing to me that they are rethinking this issue.”
http://www.religionnews.com/blogs/jana-riess/mormons-and-homophobia-mormons-and-gay-pride

annegb, I believe that perception is beyond California. It’s certainly the case here in Washington, and I hear the same from both individuals and media in other regions of the United States. Whether it goes beyond the U.S., I don’t know.

I haven’t heard of anyone facing disciplinary action for marching. I hope that doesn’t happen. I’ll admit, however, that I could imagine an over-zealous rogue bishop or stake president taking issue with it.

Yes, gay pride parades do typically include some marchers who dress or behave provocatively. The same thing happens in some “regular” or heterosexually-oriented celebrations and parades, such as Mardi Gras. While I’ve not personally attended the latter, I’ve heard there are significantly more bare female breasts at Mardi Gras (paid/rewarded with trinkets, btw) than at any gay pride parade, for what it’s worth. Just like any “regular” parade, however, gay pride parades also include a majority of incredibly boring “average” people marching as representatives of businesses, political campaigns, social causes, etc.

When you see hyper-sexual or otherwise provocative images of gay pride parades in the media, keep in mind that some poor photographer sat through a very long parade, with some very BORING stretches, waiting to get the one image that would “make news.” ;-)

I just had a sudden picture of me dressed in my Sunday best slapping a barely clothed young man, saying “Straighten up and get some clothes on! I’m here to show my love!”

ROTFLOL!!! I’m glad I wasn’t drinking anything when I read that line, or it would have shot out my nose! ;-)

I just don’t see myself marching in the parade. No way in heck would my husband be seen in that parade. We don’t have any hard feelings toward any same sex folks, we just don’t feel comfortable publicly showing our opinions.

We also don’t put political signs in our yard or join in political party meetings.

We think of ourselves as moderates in most ways and crave nothing but for everyone to get along. Instead of marching in the parade, (which like annegb, I am still trying to figure out all the nuances of my opinions) I will say a prayer that resolution comes quickly and peacefully.

PS. just had a sudden picture of me dressed in my Sunday best slapping a barely clothed young man, saying “Straighten up and get some clothes on! I’m here to show my love!” – I’m voting this as the best comment for 2012.

#9:
Subsequent to Prop. 8, there were a few cases highlighted of people who encountereed some employment difficulty because people didn’t like their donations in opposition of any-sex marriage, and in the cases I read about, the individuals were particularly vulnerable to such pressure because they had some existing working relationship with a much larger than normal number of homosexuals. The thousands of donors with normal jobs were immune to that kind of pressure.

John, I’m a bit perplexed about what you consider “normal” vs. “abnormal” jobs. Are you saying that the theater company employee who resigned from his position was working an “abnormal” job? Are you saying that the manager of a restaurant was working an “abnormal” job, simply because the restaurant had many gay patrons? Taking this a step further, when you speak of avoiding “entanglements,” are you suggesting that the restaurant manager should have banned gays from her restaurant, so her employment would be “normal?” Doesn’t this sound just a tiny bit creepy to you?

annegb, Romney has already signed his name to a promise that if he becomes POTUS he will select anti-gay judges, push for an anti-marriage-equality amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and create a federal commission to “investigate” anyone who dares openly criticize religiously-motivated anti-gay organizations. Romney has already begun to appoint fellow conservative LDS to key positions in his campaign, some of whom have already been very politically/vocally anti-gay. Furthermore, his paltry financial disclosures demonstrate that he has contributed to anti-gay political causes. When asked about the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy, he indicated that he would re-enact it (though he’d let the existing service members “grandfather in,” ’cause he’s so generous and all). In short, he’s already declaring that a Romney presidency would be “open season” on gays. Why wouldn’t that promote an increase in hate crimes against gays, just as the Prop 8 campaign demonstrably did?

Nick, by normal I mean a job where one interacts with an average number of homosexuals and not an unusually concentrated number of them. When the community theater manager resigned, one blog headlined it “Last Straight Man Driven from Musical Theater Industry.” Those who worked with him who were quoted in articles at the time seemed to think that donations in support of Prop. 8 were disqualifying for someone in their business in a way that they wouldn’t be for, say, the shift supervisor at an auto parts plant. When folks went after that restaurant manager for her $100 donation, it showed that there was a severe shortage of suitable targets. What could they do about Alan Ashton and the million dollars he gave to match Bruce Bastian’s million dollar donation for the other side? Or Terry Caster? He donated over $100,000 to support Prop. 8, which I think made him a very legitimate target for those who disagreed with him. There was some call for a boycott of his boring old self-storage business, but I suspect that didn’t generate even a blip in quarterly earnings.

I would do it without hesitation.

This is really something that irritates me to no end. (And I’m heterosexual).

my mother, my daughter and i are marching on saturday in the washington, d.c. parade under the banner Mormons for Marriage Equality.

Nick, forgive me, but you’re not one of the voices I need to hear from on this.

Since I live in Texas, this kind of news barely scratches the public interest here, either within the Church or in the community at large. I’m not in Utah, and 90% of the activist stuff in Utah has no impact on me.

What’s the benefit to the church on this? And what were they marchig for? Tolerance for an orientation (which the church *does* embrace or support for the lifestyle? Is it an independent support for gay marriage as a general thing or gay marriage in the Church?

I’m not trying to be trollish. I’m asking – as a moderate, open-minded, white, heterosexual, active LDS who went to BYU, supports the prophet, has gay friends, what’s in it for me?

(Consider me the skeptic that this wasn’t completely fair-minded, but open to be convinced?)

And lest anyone be confused – my stance is that I’m totally in favor of letting marriage be controlled *solely* by the government. In my perfect world, the Church would extricate itself from performing weddings and only performing sealings, using whatever criteria the Church dictates for allowing whomever they want to be sealed. A state-sanctioned union is an economic contract, nothing more, nothing less.

Unfortunately, there are too many Mormon activists (Brooks, for one) who want the Church to sanction gay marriages as valid Mormon marriages, which I don’t support.

Then why broadcast the “we’re Mormon and we’re marching”? That sounds like an attempt to co-opt the Church’s brand in the quest of giving support. It’s not inconceivable that one of my friends invites me to a gay march, and I might even go (although, I generally hate all parades, even the patriotic kind). But if I went as a private citizen, why would I drag an institution into it?

Why does “Mormon” have to necessarily imply official Church representation? When I identify myself as a Mormon to someone, I’m certainly not trying to imply that I’m an official representative of the Church.

Book, the point of view changes a bit when someone you love comes out. For many of us, including me, the message becomes more “I don’t know…what the what??” as opposed to that moral surety. It’s real easy to condemn at a remove.

I agree with Trevor. I didn’t hear this objection when Right-to-Lifers march as Mormons.

In my opinion, promotion of same-sex marriage is also the equivalent of saying that sexual acts between members of the same sex is not a sin.

I disagree, Book. My belief that alcohol should be legal in no way implies that I think it’s consumption is moral, awesome, or necessary.

Dang. Trevor beat me to it.

annegb: I suppose that there were no objections to Mormons marching as Mormons in right-to-life parades because they were not opposing the prophet.

Mormons marching as Mormons carrying pro-SSM signs are opposing what the prophet has said.

–

One problem is that the framing of the issue has been distorted.

Opposing SSM has been framed as “hating gays”.
Claiming that homosexual behavior is a sin has been framed as “hating gays.”

Does NOT hating homosexuals mean we have to go along with SSM, and say that homosexual sex is A-OK?

The accusation of “hate” has been a tool of progressives for decades now. Do you remember that disagreeing with Clinton used to get one labeled “Clinton-hater” ?

What ever happened to “love the sinner, hate the sin” ?

Oh, it’s not supposed to be a sin anymore. That’s another tactic.

But in the scriptures, those who say their sin isn’t a sin are in a worse position than a sinner who admits it.

I have a feeling that within a generation, this is going to go along the lines of out-of-wedlock births. Our society showed so much public compassion to unwed mothers, that the next generation of young women (and young men) saw that “approval” and thought nothing wrong with having a baby without getting married.

Todays young children are growing up seeing so much societal “approval” for homosexual behavior, that when they reach the age of sexual experimentation, they’ll see no problem in swinging both ways.

Yeah… I’m not buying it. Voltaire said, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Just as you reject your opposition to same-sex marriage being characterized as “hatred”, I’m sure there are plenty of people who reject their support of the legality of same-sex marriage being characterized as full-hearted endorsement of everything-that-could-possibly-be-implied-therein.

Excellent point Tim. State sales of alcohol, and the profits derived therefrom, are a much bigger “stamp of approval” for drinking than a marriage certificate could ever be for same sex couples. all same sex couples are asking for is equality: to be treated the same as opposite sex couples. When opposite sex couples get married, does it imply that the state agrees with their marriage? That they are right for each other? That their sexual behavior is approved by the state? No. That’s ludicrous. It just means that they have made a legal commitment. That’s all.

I honestly never looked at it this way. My assumption is that Church Headquarters has some very smart lawyers working on this while they’re praying for guidance.

Book has a point, guys, re out of wedlock births. But they were ALWAYS legal. What happened is the media glorified it, insofar as what said. But I wonder about what he says about experimentation.

But—I would never have even been tempted to experiment in that way. Perhaps others, more susceptible? Because I’m susceptible to homicidal tendencies and I guess if it were legal, I’d have killed a few people already.

I forgot where I was going with that.