Agreeing to Disagree

This week I read the Deseret News editorial "Agreeing to Disagree", which discusses Peter Vidmar's decision to step down as a Chief de Mission for the 2012 Olympic Team after receiving criticism from openly gay athletes for his support of Proposition 8.

The Deseret News article implores that people on all sides "agree to disagree" on the issue of gay marriage. To me, this is a bit tricky.

If you ask any LDS person, they will tell you that Proposition 8 is not really condemning homosexuals - it's about preserving the traditional family. And if you read "The Proclamation of the Family" which was drafted by the LDS First Presidency in 1995, "marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children."

What's more, the proclamation states that God "will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets" in the event that the family unit is disintegrated or violated.

The proclamation also implicitly lumps in same sex relationships and marriage with people who abuse their wives or children, child molesters and deadbeat parents.

So there you have it gay people. We don't hate you, but your desire to have a long-term monogamous relationsiop will bring about the end of the world, and in the eyes of God you may as well be a pedophile. You don't like that? Well, let's just agree to disagree and we'll move on.

I'm probably oversimplifying, but can you see how "Agree to Disagree" might fall flat with the LGBT community?

I have my own reason to disagree with this position, especially as a person who was active in the LDS church at the time the Proposition 8 campaign was in full swing. There was no opportunity for me to disagree with what was happening. The LDS Prophet had spoken in support of the legislation, and I could either donate my time, talents and means to the campaign or be branded a heretic. The experience for me was more akin to "Agree or Be Wrong."

Look, I'm for free speech. People should be allowed to say whatever they want, whenever they want. But actions and speech of this nature are going to make people angry, and public figures who back legislation that restrict the rights of an entire community are going to be subjected to public scrutiny and outrage. In my opinion, the LDS church did its members and local leaders a huge disservice by not preparing them for the inevitable backlash, but that's another story entirely.

As much as Peter Vidmar had a right to publicly back legislation banning gay marriage, these athletes have the very same right to publicly state their disgust with his actions.

At this point, I really wish the LDS Church would quit playing the victim and say "we were wrong about Prop 8." There is ample opportunity to make such a statement and still maintain their position on the sacredness of the family. And this would make things SO much easier for people like Peter Vidmar and others who really were just following orders.

But that will probably never happen, unless for some reason the church hires me to be their PR consultant.