Comments 44

  1. It means two things:

    Businesses which serve the public are vulnerable to boycotts and other forms of economic retaliation for their owners’ behavior. One of the Hyatt chain’s hotels has already been targeted for a boycott by the LGBT community for its owner’s contributions to support Prop 8. Bill is limiting the damage.

    Secondly, he may actually be personally opposed to prop 8. It’s a mean-spirited little bill which does not represent Mormonism at its best.

  2. John Nilsson,

    Is this mean-spirited: “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”?

  3. Come on Missionary Stu, stop flinging mud. You know you’re not looking in earnest for a response to that question. We all know your opinion and can respect it; please stop trying to denigrate others for theirs.

  4. SteveS,

    You hypocrite! Are you suggesting that John wasn’t flinging mud when he used the term “mean-spirited little bill” to describe Prop 8?

    And as far as the argument is concerned, I’m not denigrating anybody’s opinion. H’bout you try defending the “No on 8” position rather than attacking me for using the same language used by your buddy John.

  5. It’s Bill Marriott being a smart business man. He may also be stating his personal position, but that was not really clear.

    Bottom line? He’s in the hotel/travel business. LGBT community demographically have more disposable income for travel (broad brush generalization sure, but I have heard this before in serious business management discussions). The Marriott hotels have an association with the LDS Church. It’s good for the bottom line to distance the company from the Prop 8/Church link, that’s the bottom line.

  6. Stu,

    What other reason, or better reason, could one have for opposing Prop 8 than that it is mean spirited and little?

    Your scriptural quote is a non sequitur. It is a descriptive statement, not a normative one. It is also not how Prop 8 reads on the ballot, so is irrelevant.

    I could also have fun with you by pointing out that most modern Mormons including me run into two problems with following this description. One: I leave my wife to go to work. In what way am I “one flesh” with her during that period of time? Two: leaving my father and mother contradicts the command in Deuteronomy to honor them. It’s completely heartless.

    Of course, I would never point those things out to you. But it would be fun to. If you’re going to be a scriptural literalist, you really ought to go all the way, and not stop in the mushy modern middle. 🙂

  7. Missionary Stu is correct. The only argument for Prop. 8 and activism against homosexuals is based on religion. Unfortunately people ignore this and continue to believe there is intelligent arguments. Religious arguments have been used to discriminate against people who are not a part of the particular religious group and will continue to be used effectively. Maybe people will finally realize how hateful this process is and throw off religious bigotry. Maybe not. I suppose I have a little optimism, I should have more, Obama won.

  8. John,

    Does playing with the language make you right? or just clever?

    To you, “Leave” equals “Dishonoring” and that’s “heartless”? Are you serious?

    And calling a scriptural quote a non sequitur, doesn’t diminish the message. Maybe you think this statement is also “mean-spirited”: “We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that 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.”

    I apologize if that statement is not normative enough for you.

    Take some advice, be happy with civil unions for gays and leave marriage alone.

  9. Wrong, Joe Geisner. Justice Baxter’s dissenting opinion in the In re Marriage case is chock full of non-religious reasons for refusing to recognize homosexual marriage as a constitutional right.

  10. Missionary stu,

    I am sorry that you do not see the difference between descriptive statements of the human life cycle and normative proclamations forbidding other types of marriages and families. The Proclamation statement you read does not say other relationships are not approved of God, so I fail to see how quoting that or scripture leads to the rollback of equal civil rights in California.

    And I think Bill Marriott and Barbara Young, and Steve Young, agrees with me!

    Really, can you name a single Mormon celebrity other than General Authorities who have been vocal in support of Prop 8? It’s public suicide, and they know it.

  11. John Nilsson said: “Really, can you name a single Mormon celebrity other than General Authorities who have been vocal in support of Prop 8? It’s public suicide, and they know it.”

    I didn’t know Mormon celebrities had authority from God to speak for the church (and ultimately the world) as the GAs supposedly do. As far as “public suicide” is concerned, I thought church members were encouraged to be in the world, but not of the world. If you can’t sustain your livelihood and be not of the world, then a career change may be in order.

  12. Missionary Stu,

    How does that purple koolaid taste? I was going to try it but I struggle with blind faith.

    This post is about the statement from Bill Marriott so it should make sense to you that John would comment on LDS celeb support of the proposition.

    None of your scriptural or prophetic quotes identify gay marriage as being wrong or sinful. I’m not questioning the Church’s stance on gay marriage, but I do find it interesting that the quotes you chose do not even come close to the language of Proposition 8.

    Do I dare say that Proposition 8 is not from the Lord?

    The Spirit of your posts suggest that those who did not support Proposition 8 are not “following the Prophet.” The Prophets have asked that we follow their instruction through personal faith, not blind faith. Those that have prayed about the Proposition and have come to the conclusion that it is not beneficial should not have their faith or testimony questioned. That said, I believe that those who blindly follow the Prophet should reexamine their testimony.

  13. I am of the view that if Bill Marriott was my AA and his name came up in a Stake conference I would object or not sustain due to his position on:

    1 Sale of Porn
    2 His position on Prop 8

  14. Joe, you obviously either haven’t read the opinions or see no difference between the civil law arguments therein and some notion of religious ideas. Neither possibility holds much credibility.

    I am extremely disappointed with the LDS church for leaving its members with the impression that we only have religious arguments in support of Prop 8. This could have been a great opportunity for Californians to have a civil debate about what we mean by fundamental, constitutional rights versus other kinds of statutory rights. Instead, the No on 8 campaign turned this into a litigious civil rights issue and the Yes on 8 campaign turned this into a religious and fear-based one. They were both wrong and we have a complete legal mess as a result.

    I’ll let the name comment slide because names on blog comments are just silly.

  15. captainmelody,

    I am far from a Kool Aid drinker. The current PSR #1 has a little problem. In June 2007 the church declared that attraction cannot be controlled. The church came just short of stating directly that some people are born gay. The statement goes on to say that people who experience gay attraction need to control their sexual behavior. Unmarried heterosexuals are told not to engage in sexual relations outside of marriage. Now I ask you: How is it the church can support the outlet for sexual relations (marriage) to one group and deny it to another? This is assuming that heterosexual attraction cannot be controlled either. Maybe the chruch really believes homosexuality IS a choice.

    With the 2007 statement, is it possible the church threw a bone to gay members of the church (and members with gay relatives) in order to retain these tithe-paying members?

    No matter what the church believes behind the curtain, they did a good thing in California.

    BTW, in the church you have to follow with blind faith if you want to hold a recommend (or be willing to lie to get one.)

  16. Missionary Stu,

    I am against the government defining marriage in any way let alone banning gay marriage. I do not agree with the Church’s support of Proposition 8.

    Maybe you are playing devil’s advocate and I am confusing your position.

  17. captainmelody are you then of the mind that all the laws currently in place connected to marriage should be done away with (tax laws, inheritance laws, etc…)? In a government system where marriage is recognized I am for protecting the definition through laws – if the government were to remove marriage as a legal entity that would certainly change things.

  18. I posted on my blog my feelings on this subject – although not Californian I was for Prop 8 and glad to see it passed. I can understand celebrities not wanting to touch such a controversial topic as Prop 8 – for me that would be because America has shown itself to be increasingly anti-religious. If someone has religious beliefs that show up in their moral view of society they are characterized as pushing their religion on others. I personally believe that society is better served by preserving and honoring heterosexual marriage. Does that belief have roots in my religious beliefs? – absolutely! It also comes from observations through my life experience as well. But I and the rest of those who support Prop 8 are being characterized by those against Prop 8 as hateful, biased, bigots, or following through blind faith. That is simply wrong.

    I respect the rights of others including members of the Church to disagree with my support. I have never and will never characterize them as not following the Prophet. The Church has been very clear that members are free to vote their conscience. In so doing it shouldn’t prevent the Church from stating its official position on something that is very much a moral subject. Prop 8 isn’t from the Lord – it is a law of the land – the Proclamation on the Family is – and the Church support of Prop 8 is inline with that document. Those against Prop 8 are free to disagree with what the implications of Gay Marriage will be on society (positive, negative, no impact), but lets keep the argument there where it should be – the accusations of hate, bigotry, and of blindly following or not following the Prophet are just ridiculous

  19. captainmelody,

    I am FOR Prop 8. I’m not playing devil’s advocate.

    I’m just wondering, why, in the evolution of society, haven’t homosexuals taken up marriage unto themselves? The Roman Empire was open about homosexuality, did they allow marriage? Why haven’t homosexuals established their own societies/nations and set up a government to sanction same-sex marriage? Why now?

    They have been offered civil unions which provide all the same rights as marriage while holding marriage out as between one man and one woman. Why isn’t that good enough? More is going on here than “civil rights”.

  20. DCL,

    As with your name, you have shown nothing. I read Baxter’s opinion and it shows no intelligence and is not rational. This is a religious argument and the Yes on 8 people were quite articulate at presenting it. They were also rational in some of their arguments. Baxter’s opinion is not. You seem to be under estimating the abilities of the Yes on 8 people. How sad.

  21. Bryan,

    No, I am not. I am of the mindset that the government should not define or limit marriage to heterosexual couples. I am not gay, nor do I understand the struggles of homosexual couples. But as it becomes increasingly evident that same sex attraction is not just a choice, but biological and genetic; identical to opposite gender attraction, I support extending the opportunity of marriage to homosexual couples. I do not believe this destroys the sanctity of marriage. I also believe that instead of spending time and resources mingling in politics, the Church could look at its own teachings and aids to struggling married couples and recognize they are both outdated and guilt-based. A revision of those resources would make much more of a difference in protecting the sanctity of marriage than Proposition 8.

    I am sure someone has said this before, but is it not interesting that the LDS Church teaches that marriage in the temple is necessary for the Celestial Kingdom and to be “of God.” Yet they trying to define secular marriage that is not recommended by the Church?

  22. Marriott is indeed a 70…he’s my 70 in fact. He came to speak at a stake conference last year in KY.

    This is very interesting indeed.

  23. Russell,

    Next time you see him, let him know that this member will never spend money at one of his businesses ever again.

  24. Bryan Hinton,

    I will throw in my hat somewhat in favor of what you proposed to captain melody. If we can’t have a high quality civil debate about what marriage is (and I personally DO believe that’s possible), then maybe it’s better to move toward undefining civil marriage and leaving marriage to the people and the churches.

    There are reasons (child and spouse protection) why that might be a bad idea. And we have certainly done the democratic thing (forcing the majority view on the minority). But until we can speak reasonably to each other instead of emphatically past each other–all religions and non-religions–we won’t be able to do the Best Thing or even figure out what that may be.

    Tom

  25. I’ll be sure to mention that the next time we’re chit-chatting over coffee cake sans coffee in between the priesthood and adult sessions 🙂

  26. Marriott has not taken a stand on Prop 8 at all. He is merely pointing out that he, like most non-California Mormons, did not contribute to the pro-8 effort. All of his equality rhetoric concerns things that are distinct from Prop 8.

  27. “I am of the view that if Bill Marriott was my AA and his name came up in a Stake conference I would object or not sustain due to his position on:

    “1 Sale of Porn
    “2 His position on Prop 8”

    I think AAs are sustained at general conference. As with other 70s, except for new AAs, existing AAs are sustained as part of “all other general and area authorities and general officers of the Church as presently constituted.”

  28. I dealt with that same issue when I had to sustain him. I decided that I didn’t have enough information on the porn. issue to make a judgment call about his character.

    I later learned that the Marriotts no longer have a controlling majority in Marriott. I know declaring something to be providential isn’t popular around these parts, but I will say that it has eased my mind a bit about supporting the old fellow.

  29. What else is he going to do, really? As an employer of tens of thousands (making him subject to EEOC laws) and with the entire public as customers, he has to embrace diversity or go out of business. If this makes him unfit to be an AA, then we might as well dig bunkers and hole up until the second coming arrives. Do we or do we not believe in being subject to kings, magistrates, etc.? Now, as to the sale of porn, bbell has a point. And it is ridiculously expensive.

  30. captainmelody

    Relative to this statement

    “I am sure someone has said this before, but is it not interesting that the LDS Church teaches that marriage in the temple is necessary for the Celestial Kingdom and to be “of God.” Yet they trying to define secular marriage that is not recommended by the Church?”

    The Church exists as a part of society – yes we have our religious beliefs about the afterlife and what is required there, but those doctrines don’t prevent or restrict us from having a say in the society we live in today. The Church is interested in making things better for society – some of its opinions on how that can happen are spelled out in the Proclamation on the Family – and so the Church where it deems appropriate supports those principles. People will of course disagree on what will make society a better place.

    As far as the time and money spent – that argument could be used about every organization in this country – if you don’t support the policy being supported than you will feel that the organization is wasting their money or could feel that way. I certainly do with many of the things the government supports, teacher unions, ACLU, etc… The Church spends an enormous amount of money and resources on strengthening families, helping those in need, etc… I am a better husband and my family is stronger today as a result of the Church’s teachings on the family – I am not sure what counsel or from whom it came that you feel the Church is outdated or guilt-driven – I have seen many families genuinely helped through the Church’s programs and counsel.

  31. John Nillsson,

    “It’s a mean-spirited little bill which does not represent Mormonism at its best.”

    Why don’t you let your leaders know this? or write to church offices in SL to let them know how you feel?

  32. >>What does this mean?<<

    It means that, as a corporate officer of a large, public corporation, Bill Marriott is pointing out that his corporation is in compliance with nondiscrimination law and also welcomes diversity in their employees and customers. Given that they’re a worldwide company in the hospitality industry, it seems like a reasonable approach.

    So what? This post must win the award for the highest percentage of trivial bone-headed attempts at derailing a simple discussion. Go to marriott.com and read their Diversity statements. Big deal. How does this make Bill Marriott any less righteous that any of us?

  33. I think AAs are sustained at general conference. As with other 70s, except for new AAs, existing AAs are sustained as part of “all other general and area authorities and general officers of the Church as presently constituted.”

    I was just thinking the same thing.

    Bbell may get his chance.

  34. Gee, the comments really haven’t gotten very far, have they?

    One thing that I found interesting was a discussion at Volokh.com where a number of people rejected the thought that marriage should be monogamous. That has made me think ever since.

  35. The threat of a gay shakedown is real. This is political correctness on steroids. Marriott’s response was a masterful effort to walk the fine line between personal beliefs and his secular business.

    What I find humorous is that the gay community is totally ignorant of the demographics of Utah. They want to destroy the least ‘Mormon’ elements of the state – Park City, Sundance and the ski culture.

    Oh, and to add to the whole ‘they can’t change’ debate – my brother-in-law’s brother recently came out as a non-gay (after ~4 years entrenched in the SL gay scene). He said he finally feels good about himself and relishes Sacrament Meeting each week.

  36. Carlos,

    “Why don’t you let your leaders know this? or write to church offices in SL to let them know how you feel?”

    Which leaders do you think I would be able to influence to change their minds about this now that Brother Rees has been silenced and the proposition has passed? If I can’t convince you, how can I convince those at the top of the pinnacle of leadership?

    Or is this comment of yours mean-spirited too? 🙂

  37. “Why don’t you let your leaders know this? or write to church offices in SL to let them know how you feel?”

    The Church leaders don’t want to hear from us lowly members–they have explicitly told us that. If we have any concerns we are supposed to talk with our Bishop or Stake President. Letters to GA’s are apparently returned to our local leaders.

    So what are we really supposed to do? Discuss the concern with a local leader that has zero authority to do anything about it? That is even less effective than posting some rant on a blog.

  38. Wyoming, Oh, and to add to the whole ‘they can’t change’ debate – my brother-in-law’s brother recently came out as a non-gay (after ~4 years entrenched in the SL gay scene). He said he finally feels good about himself and relishes Sacrament Meeting each week.

    I’d love to hear more about what happened and how it is going for him.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.