The attack on Mormons by advocates of same-sex marriage is an attack on democracy, pure and simple. Suppression of the voice of people who disagree with you is the ethic of totalitarian society, where the Party marginalizes dissenters and the NKVD drags them off in the middle of the night to Lubyanka Prison. Apparently the self-appointed spokespersons of the LGBT community are comfortable with the advocacy of suppression. Their argument that it is Mormons and other religions with traditional views of sexual morality (e.g. catholics, Evangelicals) who are suppressing LGBT people is a gross lie. No Mormons are invading lesbian homes and rifling through their personal effects. No Catholics are dragging gay men to concentration camps. No Orthodox Jews are firing gays and lesbians from their jobs and evicting them from their homes.

However, we have the real example of Mormons being hounded out of jobs by those attacking them because of their views on a political issue.

Almost every aspect of legal unity that comes with marriage can be emulated through voluntary means within traditional law, including deeds, contracts, partnership agreements, and wills. Personally, I don’t have an objection to statutory changes to allow a person who would be entitled to endow a legal spouse with medical and survivor pension benefits to opt to do the same thing with a “domestic partner” who is explicitly designated and identified; it does not have any negative effect on my own family’s benefits.

Since homosexuals currently have no difficulty living together in simulated matrimony, if they wish, the crux of same-sex marriage is to make homosexual and bisexual and transgender behavior the full legal counterpart of normal heterosexual behavior in the eyes of the law, in order to place the burden of proof on those who hold to traditional sexual morality to justify not embracing LGBT people. With all of the emphasis on forcing employees to go beyond affirming equality into praising “diversity” in order to be accepted in society, and in government jobs, and image-conscious corporations, putting non-traditional sex on a legal equality with normal marriage will force all government institutions to punish anyone who dissents from that viewpoint. It is clear that those who have the totalitarian impulse believe that the need of gay couples to feel loved by the community trumps the need of individuals to feel loyal to their religious beliefs. After all, religion is considered to be a “private matter” that cannot be allowed to intrude on the area of “public interaction”. You can believe that gay sex is immoral, but you cannot say so in public if you want to receive any government benefits or employement or a license or a loan.

I hope leaders and members of various faiths in this country will come to see that the rivalry between them is being eclipsed by a growing force that is hostile to traditional values and which threatens the rights of all. We need more inter-faith political unity, more respect for differing religious traditions, and more vigilance for the First Amendment rights of all.

I wonder if there are unexplored regionalisms and demographic concentrations of both minority populations, and the corresponding inverse of vocality and influence in areas where they are sparse. Has anyone seen a density diagram from the census data to expose the underlying concentrations?

But another (unarticulated point) is this:

This all exposes the inherent shortcoming of polls and statistics: depends on who you ask, and what they are selling . You can always redraw your boundaries, and change your sample to justify just about any point you want to make. Thanks for calling me out on that, though.

Another disclaimer: I’ve lived in UT, CA, FL, MA, MN and Germany (probably working with your friends from Mississippi!), and have experienced some of the regionalism to which you refer first hand.

What dismays me is that too many minorities allow themselves to be drawn into some of these battles and along the way forget the bigger picture, which is finding ways to equitably coexist in peace, no matter what your sexual orientation or religion. Finding and building on that common ground is, I think, the broader theme of this post, this blog, and indeed Article VI of the constitution.

Am I wrong?

Gotta get involved in this one. Your statistics are good, but you fail to take into account the highly regionalized nature of most of this country’s Mormon population.

Anyone west of the Rockies that does not know a Mormon has their head buried in the sand or never bothered to ask. But in the eastern part of the United States it is an entirely different story, and in the Southeast? Well, I have friends in Mississippi that have only met one Mormon their entire life and that was in Germany during military service, which means those that do not broaden their horizons in such ways never will.

You are correct in pointing out that the average GBLT makes SURE you know they are GBLT, while the average Mormon does not – that’s a valid cultural observation, but your statistics do not support your case.

Survey says: 8 in 10 Americans know a gay person, but only 5 in 10 know a Mormon?

Very interesting. I wonder if that is because most Mormons fit in nicely, don’t wear their “Mormonism” on their sleeves, and in general aren’t running around foisting their belief system on everyone that will listen? (Ok, full disclosure, I was a Mormon missionary, but my proselytizing ways have tempered considerably lately

I bet if you rounded up the 5 of 10 that claim not to know a Mormon, got them to ask around, they would be surprised how many Mormons they actually do know, quietly living their lives, contributing in positive ways to their communities, just like their GLBT neighbors.

So let’s turn away from the surveys and look at the actual statistics:

According to the 2000 census, 1.51% of the US population identifies itself as GLBT, 1.93% as Mormon.

Statistically speaking, then, there are (only) slightly more Mormons running around than GLBT, so the 8 in 10 vs 5 in 10 is just a marketing problem.

Now an interesting angle here is how one normally quiet minority went head to head with another more overtly vocal minority (a vocal minority that is used to claiming all the headlines) in a pretty evenly matched contest, numbers wise. One important aspect of all this that really bothers the GLBT community is how effectively the Mormons worked to rally the silent majority to their side (assuming you give all the credit for Prop 8 to the LDS church, which I don’t).

Food for thought.

I also find it fascinating that this entire story aims to support the notion that Americans will be less comfortable with Mormons than gays (if forced, somehow, to choose). We learn all sorts of things about the Mormon church in this story — much of it very fairly written. But we never explore whether it’s true that the more people know about gay activists, the more comfortable they’ll be with them.

Take, for instance, the woman who organized California’s “Meet in the Middle for Equality” march held Saturday in Fresno. Her name is Robin McGehee and she seems by all accounts to be a very nice and capable woman. Here’s an absolutely fawning profile of her in the San Francisco Chronicle from last fall. I sure hope it was written by her mother — it’s just that biased. Anyway, she is one of four partners in the raising of her children — two partnered women and two partnered men. I’m sure that what I’m about to write is considered shocking inside the Washington Post … but I bet quite a few people in America think that such a family arrangement is less than ideal. They might even feel more, dare I say, “comfortable” with the Mormon family next door (not that I, again, think this should matter regarding marriage policy). But we never really see any hard-hitting looks at why society considers families led by two parents of opposite sex to be best for children. It’s almost considered impolitic to discuss this reality.

I realize this is a serious subject, and I do take it seriously. However, I couldn’t pass that one up.