1 March
1656-In present-day Connecticut,
the New Haven
law code became the first in the American colonies to make same-sex acts
between women punishable by death. The law was based on Romans 1:26.
1953-Sodomy was reduced in Utah from a felony to a Class B
Misdemeanor in 1953, while forcible sodomy (oral or anal rape) remained a
felony. Sodomy or the ““Crime Against Nature”” became illegal in Utah Territory
on Feb 18, 1876. It was then indirectly defined as heterosexual and homosexual
anal intercourse. As a felony it was punishable by imprisonment for not more
than 5 years. In 1907 the punishment was changed to three to twenty years
imprisonment. In 1923 heterosexual and homosexual oral sex was added to the
sodomy statute, thus criminalizing most sex acts regardless of sexual
orientation or gender of the person involved.
1969- Utah State
University in Logan published the first student poem with a subtle Lesbian
theme, “Modigliani’s Gypsy.” (Michael Quinn)
1976 - A Venereal Disease outbreak in the Gay Community had Tom Neiderman
of Utah Health Department asking to meet with the Gay Community Center’s Board of Directors to address health
concerns within the Gay community. This was the first official recognition of a
Gay and Lesbian Community by the health department.
1980 “To General Authorities, Regional
Representatives, Stake Presidents, Mission Presidents, Bishops, and Branch
Presidents in the United
States “Dear Brethren: “With the nation facing the
prospect of continuing debate on the proposed Equal Rights Amendment, we take
this opportunity again to bring to your attention our position on this
important question. “The history of the
Church clearly demonstrates the long-standing concern of its leaders that
women, as daughters of God, should have without discrimination every political,
economic, and educational opportunity. Where there now exist deficiencies
concerning these matters, they can and should be corrected by specific
legislation. Additionally, because of their unique capacities and
responsibilities as wives and mothers, women should be the beneficiaries of
such special laws as will safeguard their welfare and the interests of children
and families. “While the enactment or
rejection of the Equal Rights Amendment must be accomplished by recognized
political processes, we are convinced that because of its predictable results
the matter is basically a moral rather than a political issue; and because of
our serious concern over these moral implications, we have spoken against
ratification, and without equivocation do so again. We are convinced, after
careful study, after consultation with various Constitutional authorities, and
after much prayerful consideration, that if the proposed amendment were to be
ratified, there would follow over the years a train of interpretations and
implementations that would demean women rather than ennoble them, and that also
would threaten the stability of the family which is a creation of God. “Because
of our serious concern, we urge our people to join actively with other citizens
who share our concerns and who are engaged in working to reject this measure on
the basis of its threat to the moral climate of the future.” Spencer W. Kimball
-N. Eldon Tanner -Marion G. Romney
1980 The Church and the
Proposed Equal Rights Amendment: A Moral Issue- Ensign March 1980 Frequently Asked Questions about the Proposed Equal Rights Amendment: A
Closer Look “Frequently Asked Questions
about the Proposed Equal Rights Amendment: A Closer Look,” Ensign, Mar. 1980.-Recently there has been increasing nationwide interest
in the stand of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the proposed
Equal Rights Amendment. Many members of the Church are sincerely asking, “Why
has the Church considered this a moral issue?” and “Why has the First
Presidency taken so positive a stand on the matter?” For the benefit of subscribers, members, and
nonmember friends and neighbors, Church magazine personnel have researched this
issue and have attempted to answer these questions with the following
information: first, a contents listing of questions, answered in quick summary
form, pages 2–3; second, a more detailed discussion on those questions, pages
5–17; and third, statements of the First Presidency on the issue, pages 19–23.
Those statements are introduced by a review of the First Presidency’s
responsibility to give such counsel, and members’ responsibility as they
receive it. Some issues that confront societies are strictly political issues,
some are moral issues, and many are both political and moral issues. Though the
proposed Equal Rights Amendment has both political and moral aspects, emphasis
is given here to its moral implications.
1. Does the Church favor equal rights for women? The Church is firmly committed to
equal rights for women, but opposes the proposed Equal Rights Amendment because of its serious moral implications. The Church recognizes men and women as equally important
before the Lord and the law. In 1842, when women’s organizations were little
known, the Prophet Joseph Smith established the women’s organization of the
Church, the Relief Society, as a companion body of the priesthood. Still
functioning today, its aims are to strengthen motherhood and encourage women’s
learning and involvement in religious, compassionate, cultural, and community
pursuits. In 1870, fifty years before the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment
to the Constitution granting suffrage to women, the women of Utah received the right to vote. According
to Church doctrine, men and women are as one—completely necessary to each
other’s eternal exaltation. This fundamental belief is eloquently stated by
Elder John A. Widtsoe, a former member of the Quorum of the Twelve: “The place
of woman in the Church is to walk beside the man, not in front of him nor
behind him. “In the Church there is full equality between man and woman. The
gospel … was devised by the Lord for men and women alike. Every person on
earth, man or woman, earned the right in the pre-existent life to come here;
and must earn the right, by righteous actions, to live hereafter where ‘God and
Christ dwell.’ … The privileges and requirements of the gospel are
fundamentally alike for men and women. The Lord loves His daughters as well as
He loves His sons. … “This makes
individuals of man and woman—individuals with the right of free agency, with
the power of individual decision, with individual opportunity for everlasting
joy, whose own actions throughout the eternities, with the loving aid of the
Father, will determine individual achievement. There can be no question in the
Church of man’s rights versus woman’s rights” (Improvement Era, Mar. 1942, p.
161). In other words, women, as well as men, are individual agents responsible
for the lives they lead, and they are accountable to God, according to eternal
laws. President Spencer W. Kimball has reaffirmed, “The scriptures and the
prophets have taught us clearly that God, who is perfect in his attributes of
justice, ‘is no respecter of persons’ (see Acts 10:34). … We had full equality
as his spirit children. We have equality as recipients of God’s perfected love
for each of us” (Ensign, Nov. 1979, p. 102). The Church recognizes that there
have been injustices to women before the law and in society. Where specific
laws or practices discriminate against women, members are counseled to work
energetically for appropriate change.
2. What is the Equal Rights Amendment? It is the proposed Twenty-seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In fewer than 60 words it states that under the law, equality of rights will not be denied on account of sex. It also gives Congress the power to enforce it. The ERA is the proposed Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States
Constitution. Different versions of an equal rights amendment have been
considered by Congress since 1923. On 22 March 1972 a Congressional resolution
proposed the current equal rights amendment, without allowing any moderating
amendments which would have provided for reasonable exceptions. Congress specified that ratification by three-fourths of the states
should take place within seven years of that date. In 1979, that ratification
deadline was extended to 30 June 1982. The Equal Rights Amendment reads, in its
entirety, as follows: Section 1: Equality of rights under the law shall not be
denied or abridged by the United
States or by any State on account of sex.
Section 2: The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate
legislation, the provisions of this article. Section 3: This amendment shall
take effect two years after the date of ratification.
3. Why have its proponents felt the ERA is needed? It has been felt that only a constitutional amendment could
provide the massive impact needed to change laws that discriminate on
the basis
of sex. Proponents of the ERA have cited two basic reasons for its
passage. First, when this version of the ERA was introduced in Congress in
1971, its sponsors stated that there were then far too many sex-discrimination
laws on the books at local, state, and federal levels to ever be effectively
taken care of on a law-by-law basis. Second, ERA proponents also claimed that
sex discrimination had not been adequately prohibited by court interpretations
under the existing Constitution, specifically the equal protection clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment. “Only a Constitutional Amendment, with its massive
legal, moral and symbolic impact, can provide the impetus for the necessary
changes in our laws,” stated Common Cause, an organization working for ERA
passage (The Equal Rights Amendment: A Report on the Proposed 27th Amendment to
the Constitution, position sheet, p. 1; italics added).
4. Is sex discrimination already constitutionally prohibited? Yes. Based on the Fourteenth Amendment, court
rulings in recent years have prohibited sex discrimination while still allowing
for natural differences. Based on the Fourteenth Amendment, court rulings
in recent years have prohibited sex discrimination while allowing for
reasonable distinctions. The guaranty of equality contained in the U.S.
Constitution is found in the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment. The
precise language is: “No State shall … deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The courts have clarified that
the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause prohibits gender-based
discrimination. The standard is that “to withstand constitutional challenge,
classifications by gender must serve important governmental objectives and must
be substantially related to achievement of those objectives” (Craig v. Boren,
429 U.S. 190 (1976)). Under that standard, many laws drawing classification
lines based on sex have been held unconstitutional, including laws preferring
men over women in the administration of estates (Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71
(1971)), laws requiring servicewomen, but not servicemen, to prove their
spouses are financially dependent in order to obtain certain benefits
(Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973)), and laws making the age of
majority for women eighteen and for men twenty-one (Stanton v. Stanton, 421
U.S. 7 (1975)). This means that distinctions made on the basis of sex already
receive careful judicial scrutiny, and can be made only where there is strong
justification that the distinction is a legitimate one. This allowance
recognizes important differences between the sexes, differences that would
probably not be recognized under the ERA, in light of its language and
legislative history. In addition, the ERA could jeopardize existing rights and
protections.
5. Why haven’t sex-related
inequities been recognized and legislated against before? They have. Existing
laws now prohibit sex discrimination in virtually all areas of American life,
including education, employment, credit eligibility, and housing. They have. In fact,
even the National Commission on International Women’s Year, a strong supporter
of ERA, reported to the President in 1976 that “the Congress has adequate
authority now to enact any legislation to end legal discrimination” (“… To Form
a More Perfect
Union …”, p. 377). Here is just a partial list of the existing
laws which prohibit discrimination, on the grounds of sex, in virtually all
areas of American life—education, employment, credit eligibility, housing,
public accommodation: The Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
the Health and Manpower Training Act of 1971, the Equal Employment Opportunity
Act of 1972, the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act of 1972, the Small
Business Act of 1972, the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, the
Federal Employees Compensation Act of 1974, executive orders issued by the
President, and many state laws. This means that under the Constitution, without
the proposed amendment, laws can be changed—and have been changed—to rectify
wrongs and meet needs as they become evident. Needed changes can be made now,
without waiting for passage of the ERA, which would not take effect until two
years after its ratification. In addition, making changes now would avoid the
time-consuming litigation that would inevitably follow ratification.
6. Would ratification of the ERA erase present inequities? The ERA does not automatically guarantee equal rights. Existing discriminatory laws would still have to be repealed or amended—the same process of change now being followed. In addition, the ERA would not affect many inequities that result from attitudes and customs. It would prohibit only governmental discrimination. Here are the reasons why it would not: First, because the ERA would remove no law from state codes. Discriminatory laws that still exist must be scrutinized and removed by state legislatures or as individuals bring suit in federal courts. Second, some inequities in society are the result of attitude. Most of these inequities are already covered under law, yet they continue to occur. Additional laws will not change the inequities that exist in society as a result of these attitudes. Third, the Equal Rights Amendment does not purport to deal with anything other than governmental discrimination, and governmental discrimination is already prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment. The ERA would not touch discrimination by nongovernmental entities until specific implementing legislation is passed at state or national levels. Such legislation is already authorized. Former assistant U.S. Attorney General Rex Lee, currently dean of theBrigham
Young University
Law School ,
has stated: “In all the debates over ERA in which I have participated, I have
yet to hear anyone suggest a single discriminatory law, which a majority of
Americans would want repealed, that would not already be unconstitutional under
the Fourteenth Amendment.”
7. Why is the ERA primarily a moral question? Court and administrative interpretations of the ERA could endanger time-honored moral values by challenging laws that have safeguarded the family and afforded women necessary protections and exemptions. Morals have to do with standards of right and wrong. We believe that, for many social issues in contemporary society, God has given applicable moral standards of right and wrong. These time-proven principles are important to us as a religious people. Previous First Presidency statements have identified some of the areas where issues of morality are involved, such as failure of fathers to care for their families, elimination of statutory protection for women and children, problems resulting from women in the military, homosexual and lesbian activities, abortion, and similar concerns . Recently Rabbi Sol Roth, vice-president of the Rabbinical Council of America, observed that for much of the religious community, the Equal Rights Amendment presents a serious challenge: “On the one hand, we endorse enthusiastically the application of the principle of equality to every segment of society. But on the other, we are deeply concerned that, if passed, ERA will be implemented in ways that will collide with moral and religious ideals to which we are equally committed” (New York Times, 12 Dec. 1978, p. A-22). One California attorney has assessed the moral effects of the ERA as follows: “The basic concern of the Church with regard to the ERA as a moral issue is that women will be treated less favorably in many fundamental regards; and also that the family unit—in the Mormon sense of a sacred and eternal relationship—will be denigrated, causing great and substantial damage to not only the Church but also the nation and the basic ideals which have made this country great” (Keith Petty, letter, 31 May 1979). It is in the ERA’s impact on family relationships (see question 11, p. 10) that we find its most disturbing moral ramifications. As Elder Neal A. Maxwell has said: “There is an ecology in human nature which is just as real as the ecology in nature. When we violate the ecology of nature, we are learning more than ever that there are certain consequences that follow. So it is with human nature. The other institutions of society depend upon the institution of the family; to alter the family is to alter society. “It is in the family that we not only first, but best, learn, if we do learn, those very attitudes and skills upon which our whole nation depends. … “It is in the family we best learn to work, to love, to forgive, to be committed to justice” (“Choosing the Good Part,” speech, Palm Beach, Florida, 23 Mar. 1977). The moral obstacles associated with the ERA are overwhelming; they require our firm conclusion that the ERA is a serious moral issue and its passage could significantly affect the standards of right and wrong that are vital to us as a religious people. In some cases, trends are already in motion in society to bring about the troubling changes listed above. We feel the ERA would accelerate these trends.
8.What would be the impact of the ERA on abortion? Any reasonable chance for reversing the accelerating trend of courts to grant abortion on demand would probably be eliminated. It could affect issues that have yet to be decided, such as whether parents of minors must be notified and whether government funds will be involved. What would be the impact of the ERA on abortion? There is a direct link between the ERA and permanently granting the right to abortion on demand. Significantly, this link was pointed out by Sara Weddington, the attorney who argued and won the 1973 Supreme Court abortion case. In testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments, she said: “It seems to me that what the ERA is all about is trying to say that women should have full choices about how their lives are spent and what their life’s plan is. And yet, when you say to women, ‘we will give you all those choices through ERA, but if you become pregnant, you must go through pregnancy,’ we are in essence denying them the benefit of the equal rights amendment” (Hearings before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments of the Committee of the Judiciary, 94th Congress, 11 Apr. 1975, p. 299). Charles E. Rice of the University of Notre Dame Law School said, “The potential effects of ERA on abortion are sufficient, it seems to me, to cause all those who oppose abortion to oppose the ERA” (“ERA: Easy Rampant Abortion,” Wanderer, Feb. 1975). Since 1973 there has been a series of court decisions in theUnited States
affirming the right to abortion on demand. Any reasonable chance for reversing
that trend would probably be eliminated under the ERA. Moreover, other issues
related to abortion (such as whether parents of minors must be notified and
whether government funds will be involved) are still being decided by the
courts. Those decisions will certainly be affected if the ERA is adopted.
9. What would be the impact of the ERA on homosexual marriages? Constitutional authorities indicate that passage of the ERA could extend legal protection to same-sex lesbian and homosexual marriages, giving legal sanction to the rearing of children in such homes. In hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Paul A. Freund of Harvard Law
School testified: “Indeed if the law
must be as undiscriminating concerning sex as it is toward race, it would
follow that laws outlawing wedlock between members of the same sex would be as
invalid as laws forbidding miscegenation [interracial marriages]” (Senate
Report 92–689, p. 47). Passage of the ERA would carry with it the risk of
extending constitutional protection to immoral same-sex—lesbian and
homosexual—marriages. The argument of a homosexual male, for example, would be:
“If a woman can legally marry a man, then equal treatment demands that I be
allowed to do the same.” Under the ERA, states could be forced to legally recognize
and protect such marriages. A result would be that any children brought to such
a marriage by either partner or adopted by the couple could legally be raised
in a homosexual home. While it cannot be stated with certainty whether this or
any other consequence will result from the vague language of the amendment, the
possibility cannot be avoided.
10. What would be the ERA’s impact on military service for women? ERA proponents concede that its passage would impose upon women the same draft requirements as men and the further probability of comparable combat duty, with the particular hazards that poses for women.Many proponents of the ERA conclude that if men are drafted, women should be also. They point toIsrael as an
example of a democracy where both men and women are required to serve in the
military. Israeli women, however, are subject to an equal rights provision that
does not require absolute equality in the military. They serve shorter terms than
men. They are exempt from service if they marry or have a child. They live in
separate barracks and are not subject to combat. Women have given and continue to give
invaluable patriotic service in the military. But to require women to serve,
especially on the same basis as men, would remove a traditional freedom.
Further, many ramifications of the ERA in military life deeply concern us. For
example, it is anticipated that under the ERA men and women in the military
could be compelled to live in mixed housing, which would violate the religious
and moral ideals of many. Senator Hiram Fong of Hawaii raised this
question concerning the ERA and the military. He said: “If women are found
physically qualified (under the same tests administered to determine men’s
qualifications) they will, in all likelihood, be required to serve in combat.
Separate units for women will, I believe, be abolished just as separate ethnic
and racial units in the Armed Forces have been abolished—both men and women
will serve in the same units. What privacy women will be able to be afforded,
if any, is uncertain” (Senate Report 92–689, pp. 24–25). Recent newspaper
reports have focused on other hazards to women in the military. In a UPI
release, Senator William Proxmire (D-Wis.) noted an effect of more women
serving alongside men in the army. There is “growing evidence that sexual abuse
of women has become pervasive on certain bases.” He continued: “The pattern of
sexual abuse ranges from persistent verbal harassment and sexual comment to
explicit threats and coercion to trade sex for promotion or other privileges”
(Deseret News, 3 Jan. 1980, p. A-13). Under the ERA, with more women required
to serve on the same basis as men, it is feared that such abuses would only
increase. General Elizabeth Hoisington, former director of the Women’s Army
Corps, has pointed out the “peripheral dangers of serving in combat units—being
raped by strangers or temporarily crazed comrades; being taken prisoner of war
and being abused, beaten, and starved; being mentally and physically incapable
of performing one’s assigned duties in combat and responsible for others’ being
killed or wounded. … “There is more to
fear than being killed and not returning to your loved ones at home,” she
concluded (Washington Star, 9 Jan. 1980, pp. A-1 ff). Under existing laws,
Congress has the power to draft women, but even in dire national emergency has
never chosen to do so. Should it at some time exercise that power, Congress
could give women the option of not going into combat and could preserve their
privacy rights. Congress could even rescind the drafting of women. Passage of
the ERA would not allow Congress any of these options.
11. How would the ERA affect the family? The ERA could make it more difficult for wives and mothers to remain at home because it could require the removal of legal requirements that make a husband responsible for the support of his wife and children. It could place an added tax burden on the single-income family in order to attain Social Security benefits for the wife, and it could pose the threat of compulsory military service even for married women. When God created male and female, he gave each important differences in physical attributes and family responsibilities. Though imperfect, our country’s laws have generally supported those differences. Many women, wives and mothers included, must of necessity work outside the home. The inequalities they encounter can be dealt with under existing law. For those, however, who choose to remain in the home and maintain a traditional family, passage of the ERA may make their choice more difficult. Family support is one area where pressures might be put on the family. In the Yale Law Journal, Professor Thomas I. Emerson, an ERA proponent, wrote: “In all states, husbands are primarily liable for the support of their wives and children. … The ERA would ban a state from imposing greater liability for support on a husband than on a wife merely because of his sex” (80:944–45). We see some evidence of this in states where similarly worded amendments have already been added to state constitutions: husbands are no longer necessarily responsible for the support of their minor children; husbands may have no legal obligation to pay their wife’s medical expenses, etc. (see question 15, p. 13). An additional danger is that, instead of merely changing laws to give a wife the same responsibility as her husband for family financial support, passage of the ERA could eliminate all legal responsibility for both spouses. A “Brief in Support of Ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment,” prepared for the League of Women Voters by theNew York law firm of Bellamy, Blank, Goodman, Kelly,
Ross, and Stanley ,
states: “Legislatures will have to redefine … the obligation of support between
husband and wife. … Criminal laws which make a husband liable for the support
of his wife should probably be repealed rather than extended to cover women”
(p. 15). If this law firm’s opinion proves true, women contemplating marriage
would have no legal guaranty of financial support. Women already married who
prefer to remain home and bear children would not only be giving up their own
earning power but would also be unable to legally count on child support from
their husbands. Great pressures could be brought to bear on a woman not to
marry or have children and to join or remain in the labor force. In addition,
financial columnist Sylvia Porter predicts that in order to extend Social
Security benefits to a woman, the ERA would, in cases where a wife has no
outside employment, require the husband to pay Social Security taxes on the
value of the wife’s contribution in the home (syndicated column, 8 Apr. 1975).
Thus, the single-income family’s tax burden would be increased, and in some
cases the wife could be forced to work outside the home. Another threat to the
family would be the possibility of compulsory military service for women (or
the first spouse to be drafted), and even worse, compulsory military service in
combat zones (see question 10, p. 9).
12.What does the Church teach about the particular responsibilities of fathers and mothers? Our Creator has especially suited fathers and mothers, through physical and emotional differences, to fulfill their own particular parental responsibilities. Legislation that could blur those roles gives cause for concern. The Church does not seek to alter physical and emotional differences set by God. In the beginning God did not create a neuter “them”—but “male and female created he them” (Gen. 1:27). Regarding the central role they held in common, God said to both, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth” (Gen. 1:28). Life was meant to bring—and can bring—great joy and happiness. But that happiness depends, in part, on men and women, as parents, discovering and fulfilling the roles to which each is especially suited. At the time of the Creation, the responsibility of bearing and nurturing children was assigned the mother. The primary role of providing was assigned the father. There is nothing in all of scripture that alters this fundamental understanding; and indeed, modern scripture and modern prophets have reinforced this basic relationship between mothers and fathers. However, the opportunity to “subdue” the earth and to “have dominion” over it applies equally to the full creative abilities and energies of all God’s children, male and female, married or single. But within the stewardship of parenthood, God took care to describe the primary responsibilities of mothers and of fathers. Therefore, it is with this understanding of God’s instructions that we have noted the negative impact that ERA could have on present laws protecting mothers and children from fathers who do not accept legal responsibilities for their children, and on present laws protecting family structure and relationships between husbands and wives. The proposed ERA challenges this entire scriptural understanding, brings ambiguity to relationships where ambiguity need not exist, and portends tragic consequences for individuals and society.
13. Are there dangers in the wording of the amendment? The vague language of the ERA will, in the opinion of recognized legal scholars, do too little or too much. It is impossible to predict how the courts might interpret this imprecise language should it become part of our Constitution. In the opinion of BYU Law School Dean Rex E. Lee, “By its nature, it will either do too little or too much. “The highly vague language of the ERA has the potential to do far more than simply add one additional suspect classification (sex) to existing equal protection doctrine. How much more? I really don’t know. And that is the greatest problem. “It is beyond argument, I would suppose, that some of today’s applications and interpretations of the due process and equal protection clauses were beyond the contemplation of the draftsmen of the Fourteenth Amendment. For example, I am sure that the suggestion that they were dealing in any way with abortion would have come as a great surprise to the draftsmen of the Fourteenth Amendment. And yet, in a larger sense, no one can legitimately claim total surprise, because one of the risks—in my view the major risk—from adoption of a constitutional amendment having the vagueness of the Fourteenth Amendment or the ERA is that it necessarily vests the courts with a potential for policymaking unforeseen at the time the amendment was adopted. In the case of the Fourteenth Amendment the risk was worth running, because we had no general constitutional guaranty of equality. The same is not true of the Equal Rights Amendment. “We ought not to close our eyes, therefore, to the fact that we don’t know what kind of content the courts will pour into this highly vague language over the centuries that it will be a part of our Constitution. Most proponents of the ERA staunchly deny most of the examples that constitute the parade of horrors suggested by the opponents: homosexual marriages, single-sex public bathrooms, diminution of privacy in public facilities, etc. I am sure that many of the proponents are very sincere in these assurances. But I am equally sure that there are other people for whom these are the desired results. And with a constitutional amendment we can’t be sure until we have had the years, the decades, and even the centuries of litigation that will surely ensue to determine what it really means.”
14. Would the ERA further erode the constitutional division of powers? It would transfer from states to the federal government much of the power to deal with domestic relations, and further shift much law-making authority from locally elected legislators to nonelected federal judges. Recognized constitutional authorities state that the Equal Rights Amendment would represent a serious eroding of the powers of states and would result in a massive transfer of legislative power dealing with domestic relations from the states to the federal level. This transfer would greatly disrupt the division of powers central to our constitutional system. Domestic relations laws are now passed, interpreted, and enforced primarily at local and state levels. This permits local flexibility for differing cultures, ideals, and customs. Section 2 of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment gives Congress the power to make new laws to enforce the ERA. Family law standards could be primarily set by Congress, implemented by the federal government, and interpreted by the judiciary. A recent example in a related area is illustrative. To enforce a provision of the Fair Housing Act (intended to prevent landlords from discriminating among renters on the basis of sex), the federal government recently tried to force Brigham Young University to abandon its requirement of separation of the sexes in off-campus student housing. When asked if this could lead to forced male-female integration of individual apartments, the government had to concede that it could. We conclude that the ERA would also further shift law-making power from elected legislators to nonelected judges. It would accelerate the trend to govern by judicial decisions rather than by passage of law. Placing more power with the courts further erodes the separation-of-powers protective shield surrounding our freedoms. If the ERA is ratified, the federal judiciary will be required to interpret the broad language of the amendment to give new, specific, legal definitions to its sweeping provisions. In order for the law to be implemented, someone has to say what these broad terms mean in such specific contexts as sexual preference, mother/daughter and father/son activities, women in the military, and dormitory living. Under the Constitution, that responsibility is vested in the courts, and once they speak, their decisions are difficult to change. Thus, a new amendment, with key terms to be defined, effectively grants law-making power to the unelected judiciary. One political observer, Michael Kilian, has said that such a condition exists with the proposed Equal Rights Amendment, which he calls “a menace that must be defeated for reasons that have nothing to do with either side of the issue of women’s rights. The reasons have to do with another menace, perhaps the greatest menace to individual freedom and representative government in the history of the nation: Government by judicial fiat” (syndicated column, Chicago Tribune, 10 Aug. 1978, sect. 3, p. 2; italics added). Therefore, maintaining the essential separation and division of powers provided for by the divinely inspired Constitution is a moral issue for Latter-day Saints. The Lord himself has said “that every man may act in … moral agency, that every man may be accountable for his own sins. … For this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose” (D&C 101:78, 80; see also D&C 98:5–6). Without the full freedoms and safeguards it guarantees, our people, our ideals, and our practices could be gravely threatened.
15. What has happened in states with a similar equal rights amendment? Court interpretations of similarly worded state amendments give cause for serious concern. State court rulings suggest that reasonable distinctions between the sexes might not be allowed under the ERA. eventeen states have passed a state equal rights amendment. The language of eleven of those state amendments is substantially different from that of the proposed federal ERA, containing the more flexible “equal protection of the law” concept of the Fourteenth Amendment. Those eleven state amendments thus allow the courts to make “reasonable exceptions” and differentiation between the sexes when interpreting the law. But the remaining six state amendments have the same or nearly the same “no exceptions allowed” language as the federal ERA. Experience in these states thus gives reason for concern regarding the proposed federal amendment. In judicial interpretations of some of these state equal rights amendments, an absolutist, inflexible approach appears to be evolving. Here are examples of rulings made under those state amendments with language similar to the ERA: Maryland Coleman v.Maryland , 37 Md. App. 322, 377 A.2d
(1977): The court in this case held that a husband could no longer be required
to support his wife. Newspaper reports of the case termed the ruling
“unfortunate,” but admitted that the court had no choice under the state equal
rights amendment. Pennsylvania Conway v.
Dana, 456 Pa.
536, 318 A.2d 324 (1974): This case exempted a father from providing primary
support for his minor children. Albert Einstein Medical Center v. Nathans, 5
D&C 3d 619 (1978): The trial court in this case nullified a husband’s legal
responsibility to pay for his wife’s hospital and medical bills—or any
“necessaries,” as previously required by law. Commonwealth v. PA
Interscholastic Athletic Association, 18 Pa. Cmwlth 45, 334 A.2d 839 (1975):
The court in this case ruled that, under the absolute mandate of the state
equal rights amendment, all school sports must be integrated—including
wrestling and football—regardless of sex. That means that students may no
longer be excluded solely on the basis of their sex; they may be excluded,
however, because of lack of individual ability. Washington Darrin v. Gould, 85
Wash 2d 859, 540 P.2d 882 (1975): In a case similar to the Athletic Association
case cited above, the judge ruled that all school sports must be open to both
sexes. The Pennsylvania
case was relied on as precedent. Whether these decisions are fair indicators of
things to come is yet to be determined. But far more sobering than the ruling
in any individual case is the realization that many of the decisions under the
Fourteenth Amendment that have amounted to judicial policymaking did not begin
to appear for decades, and some not for over a century. The main danger with
solving current problems with a constitutional amendment whose language is as
vague as that of the ERA is that future judicial and administrative
policymaking is not only possible but authorized.
16. Why is the ERA’s legislative history alarming? The legislative history of the ERA clearly indicates the intent of Congress to allow no distinctions on the basis of sex. When the ERA was considered, Congress rejected moderating amendments designed to secure privacy to men and women, boys and girls; to extend protection to wives, mothers, or widows; to exempt women from compulsory military service and, particularly, service in combat units; to impose upon fathers responsibility for the support of their children; and to make sexual offenses punishable as crimes. Courts will look to this legislative history as they interpret the amendment.Because all proposed moderating amendments to the ERA were rejected by Congress at the time it was considered. Among those defeated amendments were the following: “This article shall not impair, however, the validity of any laws of theUnited
States or any State which exempt women from
compulsory military service” (Congressional Record, pp. S9317–S9337). “… shall
not impair … any laws … which exempt women from service in combat units of the
Armed Forces” (Cong. Rec., pp. S9337–S9351). “… shall not impair … any laws …
which extend protections or exemptions to women” (Cong. Rec., pp. S9351–S9370).
“… shall not impair … any laws … which extend protections or exemptions to
wives, mothers, or widows” (Cong. Rec., pp. S9517–S9524). “… shall not impair …
any laws … which impose upon fathers responsibility for the support of their
children” (Cong. Rec., pp. S9524–S9528). “… shall not impair … any laws … which
secure privacy to men and women, boys and girls” (Cong. Rec., pp. S9529–S9531).
“… shall not impair … any laws … which make punishable as crimes sexual
offenses” (Cong. Rec., pp. S9531–S9537). “Neither the United States nor any State shall
make any legal distinction between the rights and responsibilities of male and
female persons unless such distinction is based on physiological or functioning
differences between them” (Cong. Rec., pp. S9537–S9538). “The provisions of
this article shall not impair the validity, however, of any laws of the United
States or any State which exempt women from compulsory military service, or
from service in combat units of the Armed Forces; or extend protections or
exemptions to wives, mothers, or widows; or impose upon fathers responsibility
for the support of children; or secure privacy to men or women, or boys or
girls; or make punishable as crimes rape, seduction, or other sexual offenses”
(Cong. Rec., pp. S9538–S9540). With the defeat of all these moderating
amendments, on 22 March 1972 the House and Senate jointly passed the ERA as it
now reads. Should the ERA be ratified, the courts will look to this legislative
history as they seek to determine the intent of the lawmakers. The lawmakers
clearly voted for no distinctions or exceptions on the basis of sex. Court
interpretations of this intent could obviously affect many areas, one of which
is public accommodations. A 1978 memorandum from the Office of the Virginia
Attorney General stated that under the ERA, “if the open-ended language of the
Amendment is to be accorded its reasonable meaning, not only must separate
colleges and prisons be abolished, but facilities within those institutions,
such as dormitories, would be required to be assigned on a sexblind basis”
(Memo to the Virginia Legislature on the Virginia Task Force Study on the ERA).
17. Does the Church’s opposition to the ERA violate the First Amendment doctrine of separation of church and state? No. Churches have a responsibility and a right to speak out on moral issues. The Constitution neither states nor implies that churches shall not involve themselves in moral issues pertaining to government, only that government shall not establish a religion or prohibit the exercise of religion and free speech. The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” It thus prohibits the interference of the state in religious matters. Because the Constitution neither states nor implies that religions shall not involve themselves in matters pertaining to government, churches have full constitutional right to speak out on moral issues. Indeed, it is the responsibility of churches to provide and safeguard a moral framework in which their members can exercise their beliefs. Such concerns were a major reason for the settlement of this country; religious freedom was the first guaranty the framers of the Constitution provided for. Fundamental to the philosophy of the Constitution is the understanding that a democratic society cannot function without moral restraint and individual discipline, values traditionally promoted by religion in general. George Washington, who presided at the Constitutional Convention, underscored this idea when he said, “Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle” (“Farewell Address” in Documents of American History, ed. Henry Steele Commager,New
York : Meredith Corp., 1968, p. 173). Since the First
Presidency believes that basic freedoms pertaining to the family and society’s
moral climate will be eroded if the ERA is passed, the Church has a moral
responsibility, validated by history and doctrine, to oppose the amendment. In
addition, the First Amendment right of free speech entitles individuals and
institutions to responsibly express their views. In the words of one legal
scholar, “The Supreme Court of the United States has frequently reaffirmed the
right of citizens or organizations to petition the government for and advocate
changes in law or government practices considered to be in their best
interests. “In view of the dual guaranties of freedom of speech and religion,
these rights to petition and advocate apply with even greater force to a
church. Far from being inappropriate, a church has a clear right under the law
and may have an ethical obligation to seek changes in laws and government
practices to enable it to carry out its worthy moral and social objectives.
“While the government is forbidden from passing laws to finance or direct a
church, a church and its members are not forbidden from attempting to influence
the content of the laws under which they must carry out their religious
functions and engage in the activities that are affected by religious ideals.
In fact, their right to seek or oppose such changes in the law is guaranteed by
the freedoms of speech and religion in the First Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution (Dallin H. Oaks, 28 Jan. 1980).
18.Has the Church encouraged members to oppose ratification of the ERA? Yes. The First Presidency has repeatedly encouraged Church members, in the exercise of their constitutional right as citizens, to make their influence felt in opposition to the proposed amendment. Yes. The First Presidency has spoken out against the amendment and urged members to exercise their civic rights and duties and to “join actively with other citizens who share our concerns and who are engaged in working to reject this measure on the basis of its threat to the moral climate of the future.” In addition, many local Church leaders on stake and ward levels have encouraged their membership to keep informed and perform their civic duties, knowledgeably and prayerfully, in dealing with these and other important moral issues and, as their circumstances permit, participate as citizens in efforts against ratification. Because of this counsel, many Church members have joined with other similarly minded citizens in their efforts to defeat the ERA. This instruction has also resulted in the creation of state coalitions.
19.Have tithing and other general Church funds been given to groups opposing the ERA? Church funds have not been given to groups, either in or out of the Church, who oppose the amendment. Have tithing and other general Church funds been given to groups opposing the ERA? No. Individual representatives of the Church have been invited to address audiences on the amendment, rooms in Church buildings may have been used in isolated cases, and four pamphlets have been printed. Individual members have donated to groups opposing the amendment, but such donations have not been given as charitable, tax-deductible contributions to the Church. It should be noted that substantial federal and state tax monies, which all citizens are required by law to pay, have been spent to promote the amendment’s ratification. Likewise, many federal and state officials have used the influence of their offices and government facilities in this effort.
20. Is favoring the ERA grounds for excommunication? No. Contrary to news reports, Church membership has neither been threatened nor denied because of agreement with the proposed amendment. However, there is a fundamental difference between speaking in favor of the ERA on the basis of its merits on the one hand, and, on the other, ridiculing the Church and its leaders and trying to harm the institution and frustrate its work. Membership in the Church has not been threatened nor withdrawn simply because of expressed agreement with the proposed amendment. In this, as in all other matters, members are free to accept or reject the counsel of the First Presidency. Freedom to discuss the merits of any public issue is a legitimate exercise of citizenship, recognized and encouraged by the Church. This can be done without indulging in ridicule or attacking those with opposing views. The mission of the Church is to save, but when those of its members publicly deride it, demean its leaders, and openly encourage others to interfere with its mission, then it may exercise its right to dissociate itself from them. This policy was set forth as long ago as 17 August 1835: “We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship” (D&C 134:10). The Church and the Proposed Equal Rights Amendment:A Moral Issue The Latter-day Saint Perspective “The Latter-day Saint Perspective,” Ensign, Mar. 1980, insert: 19–23 Scripture places sacred responsibilities upon the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As members of the Church, we accept the following: “We believe in the same organization that existed in thePrimitive Church ,
namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, etc.” (A of F 1:6).
“The duty of the President of the office of the High Priesthood is to preside
over the whole church, and to be like unto Moses, … yea, to be a seer, a
revelator, a translator, and a prophet” (D&C 107:91–92). The First
Presidency, the presiding council of the Church, is composed of “three
presiding High Priests, chosen by the body, appointed and ordained to that
office, and upheld by the confidence, faith, and prayer of the church” (D&C
107:22). The First Presidency “shall have power to decide upon testimony
according to the laws of the church. … For this is the highest council of the church of God , and a final decision upon
controversies in spiritual matters. There is not any person belonging to the
church who is exempt from this council of the church” (D&C 107:79–81). It
is with this understanding that members of the Church receive the counsel of
the First Presidency. But even so, members are free to choose for themselves in
order that they may have “moral agency, … that every man may be accountable”
(D&C 101:78). The relationship between the prophets and the members is not
one of blind acceptance, contrary to some misunderstandings and misstatements,
but rather places on members the full responsibility to study and pray, so that
each also may receive confirmation from the Lord of the First Presidency’s
position on the matter at hand. With their own understanding and confirmation
from the Lord, after study and prayer, members are more able to be an influence
for good among their fellowmen on that matter, and are able to assist their
leaders on that and related topics. The responsibility to be of good influence
and to receive individual confirmation is a right and is a serious requirement
of members of the Church. But what if an individual feels his “confirmation”
does not support the First Presidency statement? When the Apostle Paul was
approached by members espousing their own interpretations, he resolved their
dilemma by asking: “You saith I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas;
and I of Christ. Is Christ divided?” (1 Cor. 1:12–13). President George Q.
Cannon commented upon the extent to which counsel may be ignored or resisted:
“A friend … wished to know whether we … considered an honest difference of
opinion between a member of the Church and the authorities of the Church was
apostasy. … We replied that we had not stated that an honest difference of
opinion between a member of the Church and the authorities constituted
apostasy; … but we could not conceive of a man publishing those differences of
opinion, and seeking by arguments, sophistry and special pleading to enforce
upon the people to produce division and strife, and to place the acts and
counsels of the authorities of the Church, if possible, in a wrong light, and
not be an apostate, for such conduct was apostasy as we understood the term. We
further said that while a man might honestly differ in opinion from the
authorities through a want of understanding, he had to be exceedingly careful
how he acted in relation to such differences, or the adversary would take
advantage of him, and he would soon become imbued with the spirit of apostasy,
and be found fighting against God and the authority which He had placed here to
govern His Church” (Deseret News, 3 Nov. 1869, p. 457)
6. Would ratification of the ERA erase present inequities? The ERA does not automatically guarantee equal rights. Existing discriminatory laws would still have to be repealed or amended—the same process of change now being followed. In addition, the ERA would not affect many inequities that result from attitudes and customs. It would prohibit only governmental discrimination. Here are the reasons why it would not: First, because the ERA would remove no law from state codes. Discriminatory laws that still exist must be scrutinized and removed by state legislatures or as individuals bring suit in federal courts. Second, some inequities in society are the result of attitude. Most of these inequities are already covered under law, yet they continue to occur. Additional laws will not change the inequities that exist in society as a result of these attitudes. Third, the Equal Rights Amendment does not purport to deal with anything other than governmental discrimination, and governmental discrimination is already prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment. The ERA would not touch discrimination by nongovernmental entities until specific implementing legislation is passed at state or national levels. Such legislation is already authorized. Former assistant U.S. Attorney General Rex Lee, currently dean of the
7. Why is the ERA primarily a moral question? Court and administrative interpretations of the ERA could endanger time-honored moral values by challenging laws that have safeguarded the family and afforded women necessary protections and exemptions. Morals have to do with standards of right and wrong. We believe that, for many social issues in contemporary society, God has given applicable moral standards of right and wrong. These time-proven principles are important to us as a religious people. Previous First Presidency statements have identified some of the areas where issues of morality are involved, such as failure of fathers to care for their families, elimination of statutory protection for women and children, problems resulting from women in the military, homosexual and lesbian activities, abortion, and similar concerns . Recently Rabbi Sol Roth, vice-president of the Rabbinical Council of America, observed that for much of the religious community, the Equal Rights Amendment presents a serious challenge: “On the one hand, we endorse enthusiastically the application of the principle of equality to every segment of society. But on the other, we are deeply concerned that, if passed, ERA will be implemented in ways that will collide with moral and religious ideals to which we are equally committed” (New York Times, 12 Dec. 1978, p. A-22). One California attorney has assessed the moral effects of the ERA as follows: “The basic concern of the Church with regard to the ERA as a moral issue is that women will be treated less favorably in many fundamental regards; and also that the family unit—in the Mormon sense of a sacred and eternal relationship—will be denigrated, causing great and substantial damage to not only the Church but also the nation and the basic ideals which have made this country great” (Keith Petty, letter, 31 May 1979). It is in the ERA’s impact on family relationships (see question 11, p. 10) that we find its most disturbing moral ramifications. As Elder Neal A. Maxwell has said: “There is an ecology in human nature which is just as real as the ecology in nature. When we violate the ecology of nature, we are learning more than ever that there are certain consequences that follow. So it is with human nature. The other institutions of society depend upon the institution of the family; to alter the family is to alter society. “It is in the family that we not only first, but best, learn, if we do learn, those very attitudes and skills upon which our whole nation depends. … “It is in the family we best learn to work, to love, to forgive, to be committed to justice” (“Choosing the Good Part,” speech, Palm Beach, Florida, 23 Mar. 1977). The moral obstacles associated with the ERA are overwhelming; they require our firm conclusion that the ERA is a serious moral issue and its passage could significantly affect the standards of right and wrong that are vital to us as a religious people. In some cases, trends are already in motion in society to bring about the troubling changes listed above. We feel the ERA would accelerate these trends.
8.What would be the impact of the ERA on abortion? Any reasonable chance for reversing the accelerating trend of courts to grant abortion on demand would probably be eliminated. It could affect issues that have yet to be decided, such as whether parents of minors must be notified and whether government funds will be involved. What would be the impact of the ERA on abortion? There is a direct link between the ERA and permanently granting the right to abortion on demand. Significantly, this link was pointed out by Sara Weddington, the attorney who argued and won the 1973 Supreme Court abortion case. In testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments, she said: “It seems to me that what the ERA is all about is trying to say that women should have full choices about how their lives are spent and what their life’s plan is. And yet, when you say to women, ‘we will give you all those choices through ERA, but if you become pregnant, you must go through pregnancy,’ we are in essence denying them the benefit of the equal rights amendment” (Hearings before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments of the Committee of the Judiciary, 94th Congress, 11 Apr. 1975, p. 299). Charles E. Rice of the University of Notre Dame Law School said, “The potential effects of ERA on abortion are sufficient, it seems to me, to cause all those who oppose abortion to oppose the ERA” (“ERA: Easy Rampant Abortion,” Wanderer, Feb. 1975). Since 1973 there has been a series of court decisions in the
9. What would be the impact of the ERA on homosexual marriages? Constitutional authorities indicate that passage of the ERA could extend legal protection to same-sex lesbian and homosexual marriages, giving legal sanction to the rearing of children in such homes. In hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Paul A. Freund of Harvard Law
10. What would be the ERA’s impact on military service for women? ERA proponents concede that its passage would impose upon women the same draft requirements as men and the further probability of comparable combat duty, with the particular hazards that poses for women.Many proponents of the ERA conclude that if men are drafted, women should be also. They point to
11. How would the ERA affect the family? The ERA could make it more difficult for wives and mothers to remain at home because it could require the removal of legal requirements that make a husband responsible for the support of his wife and children. It could place an added tax burden on the single-income family in order to attain Social Security benefits for the wife, and it could pose the threat of compulsory military service even for married women. When God created male and female, he gave each important differences in physical attributes and family responsibilities. Though imperfect, our country’s laws have generally supported those differences. Many women, wives and mothers included, must of necessity work outside the home. The inequalities they encounter can be dealt with under existing law. For those, however, who choose to remain in the home and maintain a traditional family, passage of the ERA may make their choice more difficult. Family support is one area where pressures might be put on the family. In the Yale Law Journal, Professor Thomas I. Emerson, an ERA proponent, wrote: “In all states, husbands are primarily liable for the support of their wives and children. … The ERA would ban a state from imposing greater liability for support on a husband than on a wife merely because of his sex” (80:944–45). We see some evidence of this in states where similarly worded amendments have already been added to state constitutions: husbands are no longer necessarily responsible for the support of their minor children; husbands may have no legal obligation to pay their wife’s medical expenses, etc. (see question 15, p. 13). An additional danger is that, instead of merely changing laws to give a wife the same responsibility as her husband for family financial support, passage of the ERA could eliminate all legal responsibility for both spouses. A “Brief in Support of Ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment,” prepared for the League of Women Voters by the
12.What does the Church teach about the particular responsibilities of fathers and mothers? Our Creator has especially suited fathers and mothers, through physical and emotional differences, to fulfill their own particular parental responsibilities. Legislation that could blur those roles gives cause for concern. The Church does not seek to alter physical and emotional differences set by God. In the beginning God did not create a neuter “them”—but “male and female created he them” (Gen. 1:27). Regarding the central role they held in common, God said to both, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth” (Gen. 1:28). Life was meant to bring—and can bring—great joy and happiness. But that happiness depends, in part, on men and women, as parents, discovering and fulfilling the roles to which each is especially suited. At the time of the Creation, the responsibility of bearing and nurturing children was assigned the mother. The primary role of providing was assigned the father. There is nothing in all of scripture that alters this fundamental understanding; and indeed, modern scripture and modern prophets have reinforced this basic relationship between mothers and fathers. However, the opportunity to “subdue” the earth and to “have dominion” over it applies equally to the full creative abilities and energies of all God’s children, male and female, married or single. But within the stewardship of parenthood, God took care to describe the primary responsibilities of mothers and of fathers. Therefore, it is with this understanding of God’s instructions that we have noted the negative impact that ERA could have on present laws protecting mothers and children from fathers who do not accept legal responsibilities for their children, and on present laws protecting family structure and relationships between husbands and wives. The proposed ERA challenges this entire scriptural understanding, brings ambiguity to relationships where ambiguity need not exist, and portends tragic consequences for individuals and society.
13. Are there dangers in the wording of the amendment? The vague language of the ERA will, in the opinion of recognized legal scholars, do too little or too much. It is impossible to predict how the courts might interpret this imprecise language should it become part of our Constitution. In the opinion of BYU Law School Dean Rex E. Lee, “By its nature, it will either do too little or too much. “The highly vague language of the ERA has the potential to do far more than simply add one additional suspect classification (sex) to existing equal protection doctrine. How much more? I really don’t know. And that is the greatest problem. “It is beyond argument, I would suppose, that some of today’s applications and interpretations of the due process and equal protection clauses were beyond the contemplation of the draftsmen of the Fourteenth Amendment. For example, I am sure that the suggestion that they were dealing in any way with abortion would have come as a great surprise to the draftsmen of the Fourteenth Amendment. And yet, in a larger sense, no one can legitimately claim total surprise, because one of the risks—in my view the major risk—from adoption of a constitutional amendment having the vagueness of the Fourteenth Amendment or the ERA is that it necessarily vests the courts with a potential for policymaking unforeseen at the time the amendment was adopted. In the case of the Fourteenth Amendment the risk was worth running, because we had no general constitutional guaranty of equality. The same is not true of the Equal Rights Amendment. “We ought not to close our eyes, therefore, to the fact that we don’t know what kind of content the courts will pour into this highly vague language over the centuries that it will be a part of our Constitution. Most proponents of the ERA staunchly deny most of the examples that constitute the parade of horrors suggested by the opponents: homosexual marriages, single-sex public bathrooms, diminution of privacy in public facilities, etc. I am sure that many of the proponents are very sincere in these assurances. But I am equally sure that there are other people for whom these are the desired results. And with a constitutional amendment we can’t be sure until we have had the years, the decades, and even the centuries of litigation that will surely ensue to determine what it really means.”
14. Would the ERA further erode the constitutional division of powers? It would transfer from states to the federal government much of the power to deal with domestic relations, and further shift much law-making authority from locally elected legislators to nonelected federal judges. Recognized constitutional authorities state that the Equal Rights Amendment would represent a serious eroding of the powers of states and would result in a massive transfer of legislative power dealing with domestic relations from the states to the federal level. This transfer would greatly disrupt the division of powers central to our constitutional system. Domestic relations laws are now passed, interpreted, and enforced primarily at local and state levels. This permits local flexibility for differing cultures, ideals, and customs. Section 2 of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment gives Congress the power to make new laws to enforce the ERA. Family law standards could be primarily set by Congress, implemented by the federal government, and interpreted by the judiciary. A recent example in a related area is illustrative. To enforce a provision of the Fair Housing Act (intended to prevent landlords from discriminating among renters on the basis of sex), the federal government recently tried to force Brigham Young University to abandon its requirement of separation of the sexes in off-campus student housing. When asked if this could lead to forced male-female integration of individual apartments, the government had to concede that it could. We conclude that the ERA would also further shift law-making power from elected legislators to nonelected judges. It would accelerate the trend to govern by judicial decisions rather than by passage of law. Placing more power with the courts further erodes the separation-of-powers protective shield surrounding our freedoms. If the ERA is ratified, the federal judiciary will be required to interpret the broad language of the amendment to give new, specific, legal definitions to its sweeping provisions. In order for the law to be implemented, someone has to say what these broad terms mean in such specific contexts as sexual preference, mother/daughter and father/son activities, women in the military, and dormitory living. Under the Constitution, that responsibility is vested in the courts, and once they speak, their decisions are difficult to change. Thus, a new amendment, with key terms to be defined, effectively grants law-making power to the unelected judiciary. One political observer, Michael Kilian, has said that such a condition exists with the proposed Equal Rights Amendment, which he calls “a menace that must be defeated for reasons that have nothing to do with either side of the issue of women’s rights. The reasons have to do with another menace, perhaps the greatest menace to individual freedom and representative government in the history of the nation: Government by judicial fiat” (syndicated column, Chicago Tribune, 10 Aug. 1978, sect. 3, p. 2; italics added). Therefore, maintaining the essential separation and division of powers provided for by the divinely inspired Constitution is a moral issue for Latter-day Saints. The Lord himself has said “that every man may act in … moral agency, that every man may be accountable for his own sins. … For this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose” (D&C 101:78, 80; see also D&C 98:5–6). Without the full freedoms and safeguards it guarantees, our people, our ideals, and our practices could be gravely threatened.
15. What has happened in states with a similar equal rights amendment? Court interpretations of similarly worded state amendments give cause for serious concern. State court rulings suggest that reasonable distinctions between the sexes might not be allowed under the ERA. eventeen states have passed a state equal rights amendment. The language of eleven of those state amendments is substantially different from that of the proposed federal ERA, containing the more flexible “equal protection of the law” concept of the Fourteenth Amendment. Those eleven state amendments thus allow the courts to make “reasonable exceptions” and differentiation between the sexes when interpreting the law. But the remaining six state amendments have the same or nearly the same “no exceptions allowed” language as the federal ERA. Experience in these states thus gives reason for concern regarding the proposed federal amendment. In judicial interpretations of some of these state equal rights amendments, an absolutist, inflexible approach appears to be evolving. Here are examples of rulings made under those state amendments with language similar to the ERA: Maryland Coleman v.
16. Why is the ERA’s legislative history alarming? The legislative history of the ERA clearly indicates the intent of Congress to allow no distinctions on the basis of sex. When the ERA was considered, Congress rejected moderating amendments designed to secure privacy to men and women, boys and girls; to extend protection to wives, mothers, or widows; to exempt women from compulsory military service and, particularly, service in combat units; to impose upon fathers responsibility for the support of their children; and to make sexual offenses punishable as crimes. Courts will look to this legislative history as they interpret the amendment.Because all proposed moderating amendments to the ERA were rejected by Congress at the time it was considered. Among those defeated amendments were the following: “This article shall not impair, however, the validity of any laws of the
17. Does the Church’s opposition to the ERA violate the First Amendment doctrine of separation of church and state? No. Churches have a responsibility and a right to speak out on moral issues. The Constitution neither states nor implies that churches shall not involve themselves in moral issues pertaining to government, only that government shall not establish a religion or prohibit the exercise of religion and free speech. The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” It thus prohibits the interference of the state in religious matters. Because the Constitution neither states nor implies that religions shall not involve themselves in matters pertaining to government, churches have full constitutional right to speak out on moral issues. Indeed, it is the responsibility of churches to provide and safeguard a moral framework in which their members can exercise their beliefs. Such concerns were a major reason for the settlement of this country; religious freedom was the first guaranty the framers of the Constitution provided for. Fundamental to the philosophy of the Constitution is the understanding that a democratic society cannot function without moral restraint and individual discipline, values traditionally promoted by religion in general. George Washington, who presided at the Constitutional Convention, underscored this idea when he said, “Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle” (“Farewell Address” in Documents of American History, ed. Henry Steele Commager,
18.Has the Church encouraged members to oppose ratification of the ERA? Yes. The First Presidency has repeatedly encouraged Church members, in the exercise of their constitutional right as citizens, to make their influence felt in opposition to the proposed amendment. Yes. The First Presidency has spoken out against the amendment and urged members to exercise their civic rights and duties and to “join actively with other citizens who share our concerns and who are engaged in working to reject this measure on the basis of its threat to the moral climate of the future.” In addition, many local Church leaders on stake and ward levels have encouraged their membership to keep informed and perform their civic duties, knowledgeably and prayerfully, in dealing with these and other important moral issues and, as their circumstances permit, participate as citizens in efforts against ratification. Because of this counsel, many Church members have joined with other similarly minded citizens in their efforts to defeat the ERA. This instruction has also resulted in the creation of state coalitions.
19.Have tithing and other general Church funds been given to groups opposing the ERA? Church funds have not been given to groups, either in or out of the Church, who oppose the amendment. Have tithing and other general Church funds been given to groups opposing the ERA? No. Individual representatives of the Church have been invited to address audiences on the amendment, rooms in Church buildings may have been used in isolated cases, and four pamphlets have been printed. Individual members have donated to groups opposing the amendment, but such donations have not been given as charitable, tax-deductible contributions to the Church. It should be noted that substantial federal and state tax monies, which all citizens are required by law to pay, have been spent to promote the amendment’s ratification. Likewise, many federal and state officials have used the influence of their offices and government facilities in this effort.
20. Is favoring the ERA grounds for excommunication? No. Contrary to news reports, Church membership has neither been threatened nor denied because of agreement with the proposed amendment. However, there is a fundamental difference between speaking in favor of the ERA on the basis of its merits on the one hand, and, on the other, ridiculing the Church and its leaders and trying to harm the institution and frustrate its work. Membership in the Church has not been threatened nor withdrawn simply because of expressed agreement with the proposed amendment. In this, as in all other matters, members are free to accept or reject the counsel of the First Presidency. Freedom to discuss the merits of any public issue is a legitimate exercise of citizenship, recognized and encouraged by the Church. This can be done without indulging in ridicule or attacking those with opposing views. The mission of the Church is to save, but when those of its members publicly deride it, demean its leaders, and openly encourage others to interfere with its mission, then it may exercise its right to dissociate itself from them. This policy was set forth as long ago as 17 August 1835: “We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship” (D&C 134:10). The Church and the Proposed Equal Rights Amendment:A Moral Issue The Latter-day Saint Perspective “The Latter-day Saint Perspective,” Ensign, Mar. 1980, insert: 19–23 Scripture places sacred responsibilities upon the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As members of the Church, we accept the following: “We believe in the same organization that existed in the
- Current Status of ERA Ratification -Thirty-eight states must ratify the ERA for it to become a part of the United States Constitution. To date, thirty-five states have ratified. The fifteen states that have not ratified the amendment are: Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, and Virginia. The first thirty states to ratify the amendment did so within the first twelve months following 22 March 1972. Since that time, only five additional states have ratified. During this same period, five states have voted to rescind their ratification. This suggests that as the amendment and its possible results are examined closely, many people are raising serious questions.
1980- Similar Hepatitis B experiments as were
performed in Manhattan among healthy Gay men by Dr. Wolf Szmunness were
conducted in San Francisco, Los
Angeles, Denver, St.
Louis, and Chicago.
After the Hepatitis-B experiment ended, Szmuness insisted that all thirteen thousand
blood specimens donated by gay men be retained at the Blood Center
for future use. Due to space requirements, it is highly unusual for any
laboratory to retain so many old blood specimens. However, several years later
when this blood was retested for the presence of HIV antibodies, government
epidemiologists were able to detect the "introduction" and the spread
of HIV into the gay community. When
asked why he was keeping so many vials of blood, Szmuness replied,
"Because one day another disease may erupt and we’ll need this
material."
1981 The first annual Royal Court of the Golden Spike Empire “Name that Drag” fund raiser for was held.
1981- Raymond King, Executive Secretary of
Affirmation Salt Lake City stated in a fundraising letter: “During the
1979-1980 fiscal year we estimate that Affirmation was directly responsible for
the prevention of at least 20 suicides, as well as the dozens of lost and
lonely people that we offered counseling and fellowship to. Affirmation
maintained a list of qualified psychologists that understanding to the Gay
plight.
1982- Newly formed Gay Fathers spoke at Salt Lake Affirmation about their
group.
1983- The Unicorn opens in Ogden, Utah as a Lesbian bar. The owners were Tammy Twitchell and Doris Willis. The bar
opened on Grant Street
but later in the year moved to 25th
Street when Ronnie Love Carver became partners
with Tammy. He was a veteran of the Viet Nam war. The bar then becomes a mixed bar because
Ogden’s community could not support an only Lesbian bar since most Lesbians
came to Salt Lake City to Puss N Boots.
1984 - Lesbian and Gay Student Union rewrote its charter
and stated club “exists to educate all students at the University of Utah and
the community in which we live on issues of Gay concern.” Among those who have
spoken at LGSU were State Senator Frances Farley [first woman elected to the
Utah State Senate in 20 years], State Senator Terry Williams [first
American-American elected to the Utah State Senate], BeauChaine [Director of
the Gay Community Center] a speaker from the Gay help line, and officials from
the state health department addressing AIDS in the community. LGSU also co-sponsored
the Teresa Trull and Barbara Higbee Concert [1983 album Unexpected] with KRCL.
1984-The American Journal of Medicine reported that forty men with
AIDS in several cities could be traced back through sexual contact to one man
who showed symptoms of AIDS in 1980.
1985- Salt Lake City ’s
Gay newspaper The Best Source began printing obituaries of Gay men. The first AIDS
obituaries in the state were published. They were for Laird S. Larsen and Wyatt Bishop. Laird S.
Larsen died 17 Jan 1985 age 45 in Holy Cross Intensive care unit after a month.
He was chairman of Memory Grove Restoration Project. Wyatt Bishop died 17 Feb
1985 in North Carolina age 30 of Pneumonia and was a former employee of the Sun
Tavern
1986- First Issue of The TRIANGLE Magazine published by Triangle
Publications. Editor-Scott Dunn, Art Director-Michael Aaron, Contributing
Artist-Mark Skeem, Distribution Manager-Richard [Ragnar] McCall , Business Manager- John
Sasserman. Featured Article was on the
Restoration Church of Jesus Christ.
1986- Rick Shenkman reporter for KUTV charged that the LDS Church
1987- -First meeting of the Wasatch Church of Christ
organized by Ben Williams and held at Crossroads Urban Center. In attendance
were Ben Williams, Craig Hunter, Jon Butler, Ken Francis, and Fran Williams.
1987- Sunday-Wasatch Affirmation celebrated its first anniversary
with about 40 people in attendance at a pot luck. (155)
.bmp) |
| Patty Reagan |
1988- Dr. Patty Reagan of the Salt Lake AIDS Foundation was asked
to address Seniors at Orem High by Pamela Leetham, a sociology teacher. Leetham
later learned that according to the Alpine District’s policy on AIDS, educators
or speakers “Must not discuss the sex act
or the prevention of pregnancy by artificial means” while talking about
AIDS and it specifically forbade the use of the word “condom”. “I’m a
health educator. I’m not sure I can talk about AIDS without mentioning condoms.
And I certainly can’t discuss AIDS without discussing the sex act.” Dr.
Patty Reagan was quoted as saying. (85)
1988- Ben Barr was named executive director of the Salt Lake AIDS
Foundation. SLAF restructured with Dr. Patty Reagan “stepping back.” Barr
obtained office space between 300 South and 400 South on main street. The focus
of the foundation to be on education and seminars according to Barr.
1988 A
city wide month long food drive was sponsored by the Gay and Lesbian Community
Council of Utah for Cross Urban Center’s food pantry. Chuck Whyte initiated the
drive.
1988 I
went to Unconditional Support tonight and Ken Francis gave the lesson on Gay Male Cruising..
1990-Donald Trump complained that heterosexual politicians are
afraid to admit to being straight for fear of losing the Gay vote.
1990 WOOD DENIED KILLING STUDENT, FIANCE TESTIFIES By Lane
Williams, Staff Writer Lance Conway Wood's fiancé testified Wednesday that the
defendant told her Michael Anthony Archuleta had killed Gordon Ray Church, but
he did not participate. Under questioning from prosecutor Carvel Harward,
Brenda Stapley said Wood, 21, called her late on Nov. 22, 1988, the same day
Church was murdered. According to testimony in 4th District Court before Judge
Boyd L. Park, Wood had just talked to his friend Anthony Siech and was about to
go with a parole officer to the authorities to discuss the murder. "You
could tell something was wrong," Stapley said of Wood's tone of voice when
she first picked up the phone. "I thought he was on drugs or
something." Wood asked Stapley to think of the worst thing that could have
possibly happened, Stapley said. Then Stapley said she asked if he had killed
anyone. Wood then told her "no," but said Archuleta had, Stapley
testified. On Nov. 23, Wood led authorities to the crime scene in remote Dog Valley
near I-15 in Millard
County Deseret News)
1990 WOOD `WATCHED' MURDER A close friend of Lance Conway
Wood said the defendant told him shortly after the murder of Gordon Ray Church
that Wood watched as Michael Anthony Archuleta killed the 28-year-old Southern
Utah State College student. Under questioning from prosecutor Carvel Harward,
Anthony Siech testified that Wood came to his apartment late Nov. 22, 1988.
Siech said Wood looked exhausted and was shaking. He quoted Wood as saying,
"Mike (Archuleta) killed a guy." Wood led investigators to Church's
beaten, half-nude body, which was covered with leaves and branches, on Nov. 23,
1988. Church was murdered early in the morning of Nov. 22. Defense attorneys
intend to show that Wood watched while Archuleta committed the crime - a
similar defense to Archuleta's. Prosecutors intend to show that both men
participated in the torture slaying. Archuleta was found guilty in December in
the slaying and was sentenced to death. (Deseret
News)
 |
| Kathy Worthington |
1991- Kathy
Worthington published first issue of The Womyn’s Community News a paper for
Lesbians. Kathy Worthington used her $1,500 income-tax refund to launch the
monthly newsletter about Lesbians. It was to be a tasteful publication, no
girly jokes or racy personals.
1991 Stuart
McDonald wrote a letter sent to the National People With AIDS Coalition which
had the effect of pulling the PWA
Conference from Salt Lake City. The letter attacked the Horizon House and its
founder Dick Dotson and his lover Donald Steward. The following letter was sent to us with no
explanation. It is a copy of a letter
written to the Director of the National Association of PWA’s in Washington DC Utah Utah Salt Lake
- Good Moral Character: An applicant is deemed not
to have good moral character if he or she was at any time during the past
five years: (1) an habitual drunkard; (2) a polygamist, person associated
with prostitution, narcotics or illegal entry of aliens; (3) convicted of
a crime or moral turpitude or of two or more non-political offenses for
which the aggregate sentence imposed was five years or more; (4) a
gambler; (5) committed immigration fraud; or (6) who at any time was
convicted of crime of murder or an aggravated felony. The INS' inquiry
into an applicant's good moral character during the examination may also
cover other topics, such as homosexuality, adultery and non-support of
dependents and is likely to include inquiry into the applicant's past
income tax payments.
- Until very recent changes in US immigration
laws, Mr. {Donald] Stewart (an alien) faced deportation by the INS for
being a homosexual. Even now he
could be concievably be deported; not for being a homosexual but for
perjury regarding his sexual orientation in the original papers he filed
to get into and remain in this country.
Mr. Stewart is now trying to get a degree from BYU (the Mormon
university) and would be kicked out if proven to advocate or otherwise
practice homosexuality. The self
interest involved in proclaiming himself cured is obvious.
- March 1991 The following letter was sent to us
with no explanation. It is a copy
of a letter written to the Director of the National Association of PWA’s
in Washington DC. Another Copy waas sent to the Salt Lake Tribune, who
found it (as we did) libellous and paranoid and chose therefore to
disregard it.Board of Immigration Appeals 20 I. & N. Dec. 819 (BIA
1990)
1993- Quilting Bees held at the Horizon House at 667 South 1300
East slc for the Utah Quilt an AIDS awareness project.
1996 A former student is
suing his former English teacher and Granite School District for $20 million,
claiming the teacher sexually abused him and the district allowed the crime to
occur. Randy Burkholz, 25, claims he
was sexually stalked, abused and harassed by teacher Jack A. Joyce, 66, while
Burkholz was a student at Churchill
Junior High School Skyline High School 3450 E. Oakview Drive
(4275South), the lawsuit claims. At times, Joyce allegedly locked the boy in a
room at the school and forced him to engage in sexual conduct. On other
occasions, Joyce abducted him from Churchill and Skyline and sexually abused
him. The lawsuit claims Granite
officials ``knew or had reason to know respecting the misconduct of Joyce,'' but kept silent. According to case law, the school district
is immune to negligence claims. However, the district would not be immune to
Burkholz's $20million claim his federal civil-rights were violated. The statute
of limitations for reporting sexual abuse in a civil case usually is one year.
But time lines begin running when victims turn 18 or when plaintiffs become
aware of abuse. The lawsuit claims Burkholz suffered from ``repressed memory
syndrome'' and only recalled the abuse within the last year during therapy
sessions. Burkholz also suffered ``enormous psychic pain'' and became mentally
and emotionally disabled, the lawsuit claims.
This is not the first time Joyce has been accused of sexual
indiscretions. In June 1989, Joyce was charged in 3rd Circuit Court
with two sexual crimes at Churchill
Junior High School Liberty Park , according to a Salt Lake City citation. Joyce pleaded
guilty, was fined $150 and ordered to be tested for AIDS. Granite
School District Mesa , Ariz.--
 |
| Renee Rinaldi |
1998- The Utah and Northern California chapters of ACLU, the Lambda
Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights
filed suit in federal court, claiming the 1996 East High school club ban was
not enforced fairly. They contend
that three clubs, Future Business
Leaders of America, Future Homemakers of America and the Key Club are still
allowed to meet even though they are non-curricular. The East High Gay/Straight Student Alliance,
the ultimate target of the ban, continued to meet also but now the group rents
space from East High. GLSEN Utah paid the rent and a $1,000,000 liability
insurance policy required by the school board.
1999 : BY HILARY
GROUTAGE THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE Jackie Biskupski wanted to be an FBI agent when
she graduated from Arizona State University 10 years ago, but a detour to Utah
for a ski vacation changed her plans and made history of sorts in the
state. When she won a legislative seat
in House District 30 last fall, she became Utah Minnesota Salt Lake City
2000- Five friends got together and launched StopDrLaura.com with
the goal of forcing Paramount Television to cancel Dr. Laura Schlessinger's
then-upcoming TV show. Schlessinger had
repeatedly called gays and lesbians "biological errors" and
deviant. StopDrLaura.com made history
one year later on March 30, 2001 with the cancellation of Dr. Laura
Schlessinger's television show.
2000-Rep. Tom
Lantos (D-CA) introduced a resolution focusing on international human rights
violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Amnesty
International USA supported the legislation.
2000 Gay Mormon Hoped Suicide Would Help Change Church By Carol
Ness, San Francisco Examiner A gay Mormon man, whose anguish over the conflict
between his homosexuality and his faith was intensified by his church's all-out
push for Proposition 22, took his own life on the steps of a Mormon church in
Los Altos. Stuart Matis, who would have turned 33 Thursday, was remembered
Wednesday night in a memorial held in a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints in Santa Clara, where he lived with his parents. In his suicide note
read at the memorial, Matis said he has been anguished about his homosexuality
since he first realized he was different at age 7. He prayed that he would be
changed, but eventually gave up hope. "I am now free," Matis wrote.
"I am no longer in pain and I no longer hate myself. As it turns out, God
never intended for me to be straight. Perhaps my death might become the catalyst
for some good." Matis also urged his parents Marilyn and Fred Matis to use
him as an example to teach other church members "the true nature of
homosexuality." Although his note didn't mention it, Matis' suicide
prompted some Mormons who oppose Prop. 22 to blame their church's deep
involvement in the issue. One of them posted on the Internet a lengthy letter
Matis had written recently, intended for a cousin, about the agony he and other
gay and lesbian Mormons suffered because of church teachings against
homosexuality. The letter talked of the added burden of his church's advocacy
of Prop. 22. "The church has no idea that as I type this letter, there are
surely boys and girls on their calloused knees imploring God to free them from
this pain," he wrote. "They hate themselves. They retire to bed with
their finger pointed to their head in the form of a gun. The church's
involvement in the Knight initiative will only add to the great pain suffered
by these young gay Mormons." Robert Rees, a Mormon Church leader who had
counseled Matis, said the young man had given him a copy of that letter. But
Rees cautioned against claims by some opponents of Prop. 22, the Knight
initiative, that the suicide had been inspired by the political measure, which
would strengthen California
laws against gay marriage. "Anyone's suicide is so complex and so personal
that no one can attach any responsibility to any one person or event,"
Rees said. "To attach blame to the church or Prop. 22 is fruitless. No one
can know the private deep inner workings of anyone's soul." The Mormon
Church has been a zealous campaigner for the measure, pressing its members from
the pulpit and in private for almost a year to contribute their money and time
to its passage. Police found Matis dead, a gunshot wound to the head, at 7:36
a.m. Friday, outside a Mormon church on Grant Avenue that serves as the LDS
center for the Los Altos area, according to the Santa Clara County Los
Angeles for five years. "I think there's no
question that he was deeply conflicted, as many people are, between his
identity and his faith," Rees said. He said Matis remained faithful both
to his identity and to his church's requirement that he not act on his sexual orientation.
Conflict 'too exquisite' "I think the conflict for Stuart became too
exquisite," Rees said. He said Matis knew early on he was gay, but lived
through the typical cycle of denial and repression before facing up to it in
the last few years. He told his parents about a year ago, and they grew to
support him, and he was becoming more comfortable with himself, Rees said. But
still, his anguish over the conflict with his church grew. "Any time
somebody is in that much pain, there's always the possibility that they will
choose the ultimate act," Rees said. A second service for Matis was to be
held Thursday in Orem , Utah
2003 "Troy Troy Troy Tennessee Knoxville , Tennessee Sao Paulo Brazil University
of Southern California School of Cinema-Television
He and his wife,
artist Susan Krueger Barber, live in South
Pasadena , CA Salt Lake
 |
| Sean Dennison |
2003 Hate Crimes Bill
Survives Debate, Clears the House BY KIRSTEN STEWART THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE D-Salt Lake
City Utah Logan Utah West
Valley
2004 Dear Friends, GayToday.com's interview of the month, posted
March 1, features me speaking about my new biography of gay Hollywood gossip
columnist Mike Connolly. In the interview I acknowledge my Utah and Mormon roots as sparking my
interest in history. The accompanying photo was taken in Farr's Ice Cream in Ogden . With best regards,
Val Holley
2006 Kanab council
keeps intact 'natural family' ideal By Mark Havnes The Salt Lake Tribune Salt
Lake Tribune KANAB - Carol Sullivan cleared her conscience Tuesday night. The
only woman on the Kanab City Council told her four colleagues and mayor at the
council meeting that she made a mistake when she voted to adopt a natural
family resolution on Jan. 10. But the council let the measure stand, ignoring
calls by some residents of the city to rescind the resolution. Many are afraid
the nonbinding resolution would stigmatize the community as intolerant and
discourage business and visitors to the area in southern Utah . The resolution, containing provisions
like only marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God, drove a
divisive wedge into the southern Utah
community of about 4,000 residents. The document, written by the conservative
Sutherland Institute in Salt Lake City, also encourages family-based homes to be
filled with "quivers of children," and envisions a home built on
marriage as the source of "true political sovereignty and ordered
liberty," operating in a bucolic landscape of "family homes, lawns,
and gardens busy with useful tasks and ringing with the laughter of many
children." Sullivan said she was unable to produce a natural family as
described in the resolution document and suffered discrimination, often feeling
like "a square peg in a round hole." She said government shouldn't involve
itself in private affairs of residents."I cannot support it
[resolution]," she said to thunderous applause from those at the meeting,
most of whom opposed the resolution. The other council members - Terril Honey,
Anthony Chatterly, Steve Mower, Jim Sorenson - defended their vote to adopt the
resolution, and none would second Sullivan's motion to take a new vote on the
measure. "The motion is defeated," said Mayor Kim Lawson.
Disappointed by the council's action was Kathleen Brockman, who drove from Rock Springs , Wyo. University of Wyoming in Laramie
was tortured to death during a hate crime in 1998. Brockman is worried the
message contained in the resolution condones discrimination against gays and
others who do not fit the natural family mold. "In Wyoming we are known as the state that
killed Matthew Shepard," she said. "[Kanab] is starting down the same
path. This is the first step."
2006 Gay clubs bill dies before debate Daily Herald Wednesday,
March 1, 2006 A bill that would have limited student clubs that address
"coming out of the closet" never came onto the House floor. "Student
Club Amendments," sponsored by Sen. D. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, had
passed the Senate and made it onto the "to-be-debated" list in the
House on Tuesday, but that's as far as it got. The bill would have given
schools the authority to regulate clubs that promote bigotry or involve human
sexuality. High school students and advisers of Gay-Straight Alliances had
opposed the bill, protesting on Capitol grounds throughout the session. They
had claimed the clubs were places of refuge for those seeking acceptance, and
never discussed sexuality. Before this year's legislative session began, Buttars
promised to introduce a measure to deal with the presence of Gay Straight
Alliance chapters at some Utah public schools, including Provo High School. School
officials said the bill was unnecessary, as state law and existing rules cover
the clubs process adequately now. And an American Civil Liberties Union
attorney said that if the proposed law was eventually used to deny or oust a
Gay Straight Alliance chapter, it would violate student rights. -- Daily Herald
This story appeared in The Daily Herald on page A8
2006 UTAH PRIDE SEEKS GRAND MARSHAL, AWARD NOMINATIONS March 1, 2006 - Salt Lake City, UT – Utah
Pride 2006, “Pride, Not Prejudice,” a
program of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Community Center of Utah
(The Center) is calling for nominations for the 2006 Grand Marshal and other
awards presented at the annual celebration. Each year, Utah Pride selects an
individual who represents the spirit and values of the Utah GLBT community to
serve as Grand Marshal in the Pride Parade and Festival. The 2005 Grand
Marshal, Sen. Scott McCoy, was chosen for his leadership in the “No on 3”
campaign, fighting against the anti-gay
marriage amendment, and for his work as a state senator. “We’re looking for a person who, like Sen.
McCoy, represents all that we are and what we can achieve as a community,” said
Jere Keys, coordinator of the 2006 Utah Pride. “We’re looking for courageous
people, role models, leaders, or anyone
who exemplifies dedication to Utah ’s
gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender or
allied population.” The Grand Marshal and other honorees are presented with
their awards during Utah Pride’s annual Grand Marshal Reception, which kicks of
the weekend celebration. Community
members are invited to meet and mingle with these courageous leaders and
examples; to hear them speak; and to join us in toasting their achievements.
“It’s important that we ask the community for their input in selecting our
award winners,” commented Valarie Larabee, executive director of The Center.
“We want to leave no stone unturned as we seek out the best possible nominees
for these awards. The past recipients have set a high standard for excellence,
and we hope to continue that tradition.”
In addition to the Grand Marshal, Utah Pride is also accepting
nomination for Youth Grand Marshal, and other annual awards which honor and
celebrate contributors to the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community
in Utah .
Nominations are being accepted from the community for the following Awards: Grand Marshal: Each year, the Grand
Marshal is chosen to exemplify the best qualities and achievements of Utah’s
gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and allied community. The Grand Marshal
holds a prominent position in the Pride Parade and helps kick off the Utah
Pride celebration. Nominees may be a local or national figure, may be of any
age, but cannot be a former Grand Marshal. The Recipient must be willing to
accept the award if selected, and be must available to appear throughout Utah
Pride weekend. Former Grand Marshals include: Charlene Orchard, Bruce Bastian,
Steve Kmetko, Alicia Suazo, Sen. Scott McCoy, and others. The Dr. Kristen Ries
Community Service Award: Establish in 1987, and awarded to Dr. Kristen Ries for
her humanitarian efforts in dealing with
the AIDS crisis, and forever named in her honor. This award recognizes outstanding service to
the greater gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community in Utah , and is given to
individual(s) who are dedicated to continuing that legacy of service. Those who
receive this award are role models for Utah ’s
LGBT community, and like Dr. Kristen Ries “exemplify everything that the award
has stood for: compassion, leadership and courage.” The recipient is chosen
from among the nominees by past winners of the award. Recent winners include:
Doug Wortham, Ladonna Moore, and Jane & Tami Marquardt, among others. The Pete Suazo Political Action Award:
Established in 2002, in honor of Pete’s
legislative work, his tireless attempt to pass Hate Crimes legislation in Utah , and his tireless ability to remind his colleagues
in the Utah State Legislature of the great diversity found in the State of Utah . This award is
presented to an elected Utah official who has
demonstrated an exceptional commitment to equal rights for the LGBT community
of Utah
through legislation, policy or declaration. The recipient is chosen from among
nominees by a committee including leaders of Equality Utah, the Stonewall
Democratic Club, Log Cabin Republicans, Human Rights Campaign and The Center.
Recent winners include: Mark Shurtleff and Paula Julander. Community Volunteer of the Year Award:
Established in 2005, the continued growth and development of the Utah ’s GLBT community would not be possible without the
dedication of volunteers who serve unselfishly to further the mission of
non-profit and community service organizations all across the state of Utah . This award is given to acknowledge an
outstanding volunteer for service to the GLBT community. The recipient is
chosen from among nominees by The Center’s board of directors. Recent winners
include: Don Steward and Missy Larsen.
The Community Organization of the Year Award: Also established in 2002,
the Organization of the Year Award is presented to an outstanding organization
which has served the GLBT community by making outstanding contributions to
advance diversity and acceptance in Utah .
The recipient is chosen from among nominees by The Center’s board of directors.
Recent winners include: sWerve and Salt Lake Metro. Youth Grand Marshal:
Established in 2005, Youth Grand Marshals are chosen to represent the future of
the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and allied community of Utah and to honor the
achievements of our next generation. Nominees must be 19 years or younger,
Utah-based, and cannot be a former Youth Grand Marshal. The recipient is chosen
from among nominees by the Utah Pride
committee. Past Youth Grand Marshals were
Taunica Crump and Kourtni Coats Please submit all nominations for any
category by Friday, April 1 at 5:00 p.m.
Nomination should be less than one page in length and should include your name,
which award you are nominating for, and
the name of person(s) or organization you are nominating, and why you believe
they are deserving. Send your
nominations to The GLBT Community
Center of Utah Attention: Grand
Marshal Awards/Craig Miller 355 N 300
W Salt Lake City, UT 84103 or email
nomination to pride@... Attn: Grand Marshal/Craig Miller Utah Grand Marshal Event: Awards will be
presented at the “Utah Pride Grand Marshal Reception” “Which honors and
celebrates outstanding contributors to the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual Transgender
community of Utah .”
Friday, June 2, 2006 at the Memorial House in Memory Grove (485 North Canyon Road ). The reception
begins at 6:00 p.m. Tickets to this event are $30. For more information, call
The Center at 539-8800 x 12 or visit www.utahpride.org. Award recipients will
also be acknowledged during the Pride Parade and Festival on June 4, 2006.
2009 Festival held to counter senator's remarks on gays The Associated
Press | Posted: Sunday, March 1, 2009 SALT LAKE CITY -- Hundreds of people held
a festival at the Utah Capitol over the weekend in response to state Sen. Chris
Buttars' recent comments about gay people. Those who attended the
Buttars-Palooza event said they weren't there to protest, but rather to show
those outside Utah that not everyone thinks the same as Buttars, who compared
gay activists to radical Muslims. Buttars, R-West Jordan, also told a
documentary filmmaker that gay activists are probably the greatest threat to
America and that gay people lack morals. Those at the festival said they wanted
to counter any idea that gay activists are dangerous.
2012 Barry
Blum (1962 – 2012) We
regret to announce the passing of Barry Blum, who died of cancer on March 1,
2012, in Sacramento. He was 49 years old. Barry
has been involved in Affirmation since the 1980s. Starting in 1983, Barry
became the coordinator of Affirmation’s “Chapter at Large,” which included
Affirmation members who lived outside organized chapters. Before the days of
the internet, the Chapter at Large helped strengthen Affirmation members who
lived far away from other LGBT Mormons. Barry sent these members a special
newsletter, kept in touch with them, and represented them in Affirmation’s
General Council. Barry
was born on April 2, 1962. In 1980 he graduated from Sparks High School in
Nevada. In the mid-1980s he organized an Affirmation group in Reno. He later
moved to Northern California and eventually settled in Sacramento, where he
worked for many years in the mortgage and real estate industry. Through
Affirmation, Barry met his friend Hoyt Grant, a fellow gay Mormon who was much
older than him. Barry treated Hoyt as if he was his father. Barry took Hoyt
into his home and cared for him for many years, until Hoyt’s passing in 2006. "Making
an effort to know our sexual identities is only the first step in setting
ourselves free," Barry said during the 1985 Affirmation conference.
"We must then continue to develop our spiritual identity with our Savior
and Father in Heaven. We must learn of our responsibilities and opportunities
that He has planned for us as gay children in His kingdom." "I
try to enjoy each day of life by being compassionate and of service to
others," Barry wrote recently. "I do not judge people and enjoy all
aspects of good friends."
 |
| Barry Blum |
No comments:
Post a Comment