The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has doubled down on transgender Mormons with a new handbook that spells out the consequences for those who transition.
While it advises church members to treat transgender people with “sensitivity, kindness, compassion, and an abundance of Christlike love”, it also warns transgender people against any form of social transition.
“Gender is an essential characteristic of Heavenly Father’s plan of happiness,” the chapter begins. “The intended meaning of gender in the family proclamation is biological sex at birth.”
It continues: “Church leaders counsel against elective medical or surgical intervention for the purpose of attempting to transition to the opposite gender of a person’s birth sex (‘sex reassignment’).
“Leaders advise that taking these actions will be cause for Church membership restrictions.”
Any Mormon who attempts to transition their gender through “changes in dress, grooming, names, or pronouns intended to reflect a gender identity different from the one assigned at birth” will be subject to a plethora of restrictions “for the duration of this transition.”
These include receiving or exercising the priesthood, receiving or using a temple recommend, and receiving some Church callings.
Building on a statement by a top church leader last year that gender assigned at birth is eternal, the guidance reiterates that the Mormon priesthood, which is reserved for men, will not admit trans men.
Transgender people are assured that they are free to receive Church callings, temple recommends, and temple ordinances, as long as they agree not to pursue any medical, surgical, or social transition to the ‘opposite gender’.
Unsurprisingly, the Church also refuses to budge on its position on same-sex marriage (don’t do it). It states that “God’s law defines marriage as the legal and lawful union between a man and a woman”, and the only people who should be having sexual relations are a married heterosexual couple.
“Any other sexual relations, including those between persons of the same sex, are sinful and undermine the divinely created institution of the family,” the Church claims.
On the plus side, they will no longer consider same-sex marriages “apostasy” (rejection of church teaching) or deny baptism to children whose primary residence is with a same-sex couple.
Mike Heath, a long–time anti-LGBTQ activist in Maine who now runs Helping Hands Ministries, has been a regular participant in Dave Daubenmire’s daily program. On Friday, Daubnemire turned the mic over to Heath so that he could announce his plans.
“I’m going to do a world tour,” Heath announced. “The theme is ‘Faggots are Maggots.’ The tour is inspired by the work of Donald Trump. This isn’t satire. I’m serious. I started supporting Donald Trump early in the 2016 primary for one reason: He insults his enemies. He makes things personal that deserve to be personal.
“The decades of leftists being the only ones allowed to make everything personal are over. It’s long past time for WASP manners to take a back seat to the truth. Long past time. Faggots are indeed maggots. Maggots consume the rancid flesh of rotting dead things. Faggots are no different.”
Heath last appeared on JMG in 2016 when his Maine group launched a campaign to recriminalize homosexuality.
The US’s largest interdenominational Christian seminary is embroiled in a second discrimination lawsuit over its expulsion of a student for being in a same-sex marriage.
Two former students, Nathan Brittsan and Joanna Maxon, are each suing the Fuller Theological Seminary for $1 million, claiming that the college violated anti-discrimination laws.
The suit is believed to be the first of its kind, and its outcome could have wider implications for Christian colleges and universities who receive government funding.
Maxon launched legal action in November, saying that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against her when the school’s financial aid office flagged information from her tax returns which showed she had a same-sex spouse.
On January 7 she was joined by Brittsan, who is also a baptist pastor. He alleges that he was dismissed from the Christian school in 2017 when administrators learned of his same-sex marriage from a request to change his surname.
Brittsan later disclosed his marriage to another dean and a professor, but the suit says that he “was not informed that this discussion was actually part of an initial inquiry or investigation by Fuller into Nathan’s perceived community standards violation”.
The seminary’s community standards state that “sexual union must be reserved for marriage, which is the covenant union between one man and one woman, and that sexual abstinence is required for the unmarried”. It adds that premarital, extramarital, and homosexual sex are “inconsistent with the teaching of scripture”.
But even if the school is able to prove that Brittsan and Maxon engaged in the prohibited form of sexual conduct, the lawsuit argues that it had no right to discriminate against them under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act.
While certain religious colleges are eligible to apply for exemptions from Title IV, Fuller has not received such an exemption.
@MAKERSwomen Hello, I wanted to share with you this post from Joanna Maxon who posted this on what would have been her graduation day from @fullerseminary had they not kicked her out.
In addition to this, the information on Maxon’s tax returns was protected by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, which prohibits the data being shared without the student’s consent or used for something the student didn’t authorise.
When Brittsan twice appealed his expulsion, the seminary actually disputed his enrolment. When he requested to see his disciplinary records, which were needed for him to appeal to the school’s Board of Trustees, the seminary disputed that they were required to release the records.
Leaders of the United Methodist Church, the second-largest Protestant domination in the nation, announced on Friday a plan that would formally split the church after years of division over same-sex marriage.
Under the plan, which would sunder a denomination with 13 million members worldwide, a new “traditionalist Methodist” denomination would be created, and would continue to ban same-sex marriage as well as the ordination of gay and lesbian clergy.
A separation in the Methodist church had been anticipated since a contentious general conference in St Louis last February, when 53 percent of church leaders and lay members voted to tighten the ban on same-sex marriage, declaring that “the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching.”
The plan, referred to as “Protocol of Reconciliation & Grace Through Separation,” would need to be approved by the 2020 General Conference later this year before taking effect.
The church hopes that by splitting into two denominations, it can end or greatly reduce its decades-long struggle over how accepting to be of homosexuality.
“It became clear that the line in the sand had turned into a canyon,” said New York Conference Bishop Thomas Bickerton, who was among the diverse group of 16 church leaders who worked on the proposal. “The impasse is such that we have come to the realization that we just can’t stay that way any longer.”
A proposed conversion therapy ban in Utah is in danger of being derailed after The Church of Jesus of Christ of Latter-day Saints came out in opposition, just months after it said it wouldn’t stand in the way of a similar measure under consideration. The church said in a statement that the regulatory rule prohibiting Utah psychologists from engaging in LGBTQ conversion therapy with minors would fail to safeguard religious beliefs and doesn’t account for “important realities of gender identity in the development of children.”
State regulators crafted the rule at the request of Republican Gov. Gary Herbert, a member of the church, who in June asked for a set of rules after a similar bill died in the Legislature despite the church not taking a position. The church’s statement strikes a blow to the hopes of LGBTQ advocates hoping Utah could join 18 states that have enacted laws banning or restricting conversion therapy that’s opposed by the American Psychological Association.
Pope Francis met privately Monday with an American Jesuit who has been attacked by conservative U.S. Catholics for reaching out to gays, the latest evidence of Francis’ willingness to shrug off right-wing criticism for the sake of his pastoral priorities.
The Vatican listed the audience with the Rev. James Martin among the pope’s daily activities, in a sign that Francis wanted it publicized. Since only some of Francis’ private meetings are announced, the implicit message was a public vote of confidence in Martin’s ministry.
Martin, author of “Building a Bridge,” a book about how the Catholic Church should reach out more to the LGBTQ community, has had several talks canceled in the United States because of pressure from conservative groups who oppose his advocacy. The Vatican under Francis has welcomed him, however, appointing him as a communications consultant, giving him a speaking slot at a 2018 Vatican-sponsored family rally and now a private papal audience.
In a tweet, Martin said during the 30-minute meeting, he shared with Francis “the joys and hopes, and the griefs and anxieties, of LGBT Catholics and LGBT people worldwide.”
In a telephone interview, Martin said Francis listened intently to his presentation, delivered in Spanish, about the struggles of LGBTQ Catholics “and how many of them still feel marginalized” by the church.
“I felt encouraged, consoled and inspired by our meeting,” he said. “It was like talking to the most compassionate parish priest you can imagine.”
Official church teaching calls for gay men and lesbians to be respected and loved, but considers homosexual activity “intrinsically disordered.” Francis, though, has sought to make the church more welcoming to gays, most famously with his 2013 comment “Who am I to judge?”
The Argentine Jesuit also has spoken of his own ministry to gay and transgender people, insisting they are children of God, loved by God and deserving of accompaniment by the church.
Some conservative Catholics, especially in the U.S., have accused Martin of blasphemy and of spreading a “homosexualist” agenda. Many of them belong to the small but loud Francis opposition — a wing that the pope recently acknowledged when he told reporters that he was “honored” to be attacked by Americans and wasn’t afraid of schism by conservatives in the U.S. church.
In a tweet, Rorate Caeli, a traditionalist blog that has been critical of Francis, noted that Martin’s audience was listed alongside that of an entire bishops’ conference. “If that’s not an endorsement, nothing is,” read the tweet.
Damian Thompson, associate editor at Britain’s The Spectator, a conservative newsmagazine, said Francis’ aim in meeting with Martin was “intended to taunt the U.S. conservatives that he demonizes.”
Many of Francis’ critics argue he has confused the faithful with his mercy-over-morals priorities and flexibility on doctrinal issues such as sacraments for divorced and civilly remarried Catholics.
New Ways Ministry, a Catholic ministry for the LGBTQ community, praised the audience and said it showed that Martin’s ministry was being recognized and valued at the highest levels of the church.
“It is a clear signal that Pope Francis is calling the church to conversion away from the negative messages it has sent in the past about LGBTQ people,” said the head of New Ways Ministry, Francis DeBernardo. “It is a day of celebration for LGBTQ Catholics who have longed for an outstretched hand of welcome from the church that they love.”
Martin was in Rome for the plenary meeting of the Vatican’s communications department, as well as for the consistory Saturday to name 13 new cardinals.
Since coming out in Spring this year, Sean Cormie had been asked repeatedly by his family to attend a service at their church, in Oklahoma, and to bring along his boyfriend, Gary Gardner.
Cormie told News 4: “I wanted to go to church to make my mom proud and make her happy.”
But towards the end of the service at the pentecostal church, First Assembly of God Blackwell, the pastor began making statements against homosexuality and the couple were surrounded by between 12 and 15 people praying over them, getting louder and louder.
According to Cormie, the pastor said: “It’s a sin, it’s an abomination, you need to realise, wake up, and see it for a sin.”
Gardner managed to leave, but when Cormie tried to follow he said he was thrown to the ground, punched in the face and held down while the congregation prayed for him.
He said: “They hold me down, pin me down, and I’m crying, and the Holy Spirit just comes through me, and they keep speaking in tongues, praying over me. I was just crying, ‘mercy, mercy’.”
Gardner told another outlet, News 9, his boyfriend “ended up with marks on his arms, a black eye and sort of blacked out”.
The couple have reported the incident to the police. The Blackwell police chief confirmed to News 4 that the incident is being investigated but would make no further comment.
First Assembly of God Blackwell in Oklahoma, where the couple say the attack took place. (News 4)
The church released a statement saying: “First Assembly is a congregation that loves and is comprised of people from all different backgrounds.
“In response to allegations that have been made, this incident began as a family matter that escalated. Our church would never condone restraint of any person unless they were engaged in violent activity.
“There is much more to this story, and we are cooperating fully with law enforcement to bring all of the facts to light as a rush to judgment is not in anyone’s best interest.”The church is one of a large group of churches called Assemblies of God, which said in a statement on homosexuality: “There is also abundant evidence that homosexual behaviour, along with illicit heterosexual behaviour, is immoral and comes under the judgment of God…
“The Assemblies of God affirms the sexual complementarity of man and woman and teaches that any and all same-sex sexual attractions are to be resisted.
The Mormon church has doubled down on its stance that marriage is “between a man and a woman”, despite adjusting one of its anti-LGBT+ policies.
President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Russell M Nelson, addressed students at Mormon institution Brigham Young University (BYU) on Tuesday, September 17, to tell them about “five truths”.
This year, the church revoked this policy and said that bishops would have the power to decide whether or not to baptise someone raised in an LGBT+ family.
But, in his speech at the notoriously anti-gay university, Nelson reiterated that the Mormon church defines marriage as opposite-sex only.
He said: “In recent years, many countries, including the United States, have legalised same-sex marriage. As members of the church, we respect the laws of the land and abide by them, including civil marriage.
“The truth is, however, that in the beginning – in the beginning – marriage was ordained by God! And to this day it is defined by Him as being between a man and a woman.”
Nelson said that the 2015 policy was intended “to facilitate harmony in the home and avoid pitting children and parents against each other”.
He added: “Though it may not have looked this way to some, the 2015 and 2019 policy adjustments on this matter were both motivated by love.”
Its honour code states: “One’s stated same-gender attraction is not an Honour Code issue. However, the Honour Code requires all members of the university community to manifest a strict commitment to the law of chastity.
“Homosexual behaviour is inappropriate and violates the Honour Code.
“Homosexual behaviour includes not only sexual relations between members of the same sex, but all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings.”
Lynn Starkey worked at Roncalli High School in Indianapolis for nearly 40 years. In May, however, the Roman Catholic school fired Starkey as a guidance counselor after officials discovered that she is married to a woman.
In July, Starkey, 63, sued the school and the Archdiocese of Indianapolis, claiming, in part, that they discriminated against her on the basis of her sexual orientation.
Lynn Starkey is suing a Roman Catholic high school and the Archdiocese of Indianapolis after she was fired as a guidance counselor because she is married to a woman. Delaney and Delaney LLC
In May, the school’s principal notified Starkey, who has been married to her spouse since 2015, that her contract would not be renewed, stating in a letter that civil unions are in violation of her contract and “contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church.”
The archdiocese — which is also being sued by a gay teacherwho was recently fired from a different Catholic school in Indianapolis — claims that it has a “constitutional right to hire leaders who support the schools’ religious mission.”
“Catholic schools exist to communicate the Catholic faith to the next generation,” the archdiocese said in a statement sent to NBC News. “To accomplish their mission, Catholic schools ask all teachers, administrators and guidance counselors to uphold the Catholic faith by word and action, both inside and outside the classroom.”
The issue of gay educators being fired by or excluded from employment at religious schools is not new, and since 2014, several cases have come before the courts. It’s also not unique to Indianapolis or Catholic institutions. In January, Karen Pence, the vice president’s wife, said she would return to teaching at a Christian school at Virginia that refuses to hire LGBTQ employees or to educate LGBTQ students.
So, is this legal? While the majority of Americans across all religious groups support employment nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ people, according to a recently released PRRI public opinion poll, the law is less straightforward.
“The law is in flux,” said Jenny Pizer, law and policy director for Lambda Legal, an LGBTQ civil rights organization. “There are some principles we are sure of and some that are still being developed and sorted out in the courts and state and federal legislatures.”
In order to understand the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer workers employed by religious organizations, one must consider both federal and state law, the Constitution and executive orders.
Federal Law
Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, sex and national origin. However, it contains “multiple overlapping exemptions” when it comes to religion, according to Marcia McCormick, a professor of law and gender studies at Saint Louis University.
For one, any employer can discriminate on the basis of religion if religion is considered necessary for the exercise of the job, McCormick explained. For example, a Kosher butcher shop may want to hire only Jewish butchers.
Religious schools can discriminate in hiring in some circumstances. “They get singled out as getting this one provision that talks about schools being able to discriminate if the curriculum is directed toward the propagation of a particular religion,” McCormick said. A school run by Southern Baptists that seeks to encourage more people to convert to the faith could, according to this section of Title VII, hire only Southern Baptists.
Other kinds of religious organizations are also allowed to prefer co-religionists in their hiring — a Catholic charity is allowed to prefer Catholics in the hiring process. However, while religious organizations have leeway when it comes to hiring people of their own faith, they are not supposed to discriminate on the basis of other protected characteristics like sex, race or national origin, McCormick explained.
“That is where there is a big potential clash,” she said, adding that the issue for LGBTQ workers is twofold.
“Title VII has an expansive definition of religion — not just of beliefs but also practices,” she explained. “There are a lot of rules in a lot of religions about how people ought to behave when it comes to what it means to be male and female, or to sexual or romantic activity.”
Then, she added, there is the issue of the definition of “sex” in Title VII. If it is interpreted to include sexual orientation and gender identity, then LGBTQ workers can seek employment protection under federal civil rights law. They have done so in many cases, but the circuit courts are split on the issue. Luckily for Starkey, Indianapolis is covered by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has ruled in the case of Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College that sex discrimination encompasses discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
The Supreme Court, however, is scheduled to take up three cases this year that could have a major impact on LGBTQ workers’ nondiscrimination protections.
Title VII’s Ministerial Exception
In Starkey’s case, the archdiocese appears to be drawing on what is called the ministerial exception to Title VII under the First Amendment, which guarantees free exercise of religion.
In 2012, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued an evangelical Lutheran church and a school in Michigan on behalf of a former employee, Cheryl Perich, a “called” teacher that underwent theology training and was considered to be in a ministerial position. Perich was diagnosed with narcolepsy and took disability leave as a result. When she was ready to return the work, the church told her she no longer had a job. The EEOC lost the case before the Supreme Court.
Pizer said this case “validated the ministerial exception, which lower courts had said existed but the Supreme Court had not spoken to.” The exception applies only to employees serving a ministerial function, but it affords the religious employer tremendous protection against claims of discrimination.
Maggie Siddiqi, director of the Center for American Progress’ Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative, told NBC News that in recent cases, employers are claiming that many different types of employees serve ministerial functions.
“That is really expanding the definition beyond its original intent,” which can “open the door for discrimination against all of these employees,” Siddiqi said.
Religious Freedom Restoration Act
An individual or a business may also claim protections under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a federal law that prohibits the government from discriminating on the basis of religion.
RFRA comes up in the case of R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, one of the three LGBTQ workers’ rights cases currently before the Supreme Court. The case involves Aimee Stephens, a transgender woman who was fired from a Detroit funeral home after she informed her employer that she was beginning her gender transition.
In district court, the funeral home claimed that to employ Stephens violated the owner’s sincerely held religious beliefs, and for the EEOC to compel him to employ Stephens was an overreach of government authority in contravention of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Circuit Court sided with Stephens, but the Supreme Court will have the last word in the matter.
State Law
In the absence of a federal law that explicitly protects workers from anti-LGBTQ discrimination, a worker can seek redress in state law. Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia have passed measures prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, according to the Movement Advancement Project, an LGBTQ think tank. Three additional states offer some form of LGBTQ workplace protections.
However, more than 20 states — including some of those with explicit state-level LGBTQ worker protections — have religious freedom laws or religious exemptions to their nondiscrimination protections. Indiana, where Roncalli High School is, has such a law. In fact, in 2015, then-Gov. Mike Pence signed Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which spawned significant criticism by those who said it would open the door to anti-LGBTQ discrimination.
Executive Orders & Department Rules
In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed Executive Order 11246 barring federal contractors who do over $10,000 of business with the government in one year from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion sex or national origin. In 2002, President George W. Bush issued an executive order that added a religious exemption to the measure, using language lifted from Title VII. In 2014, President Barack Obama added sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of protected characteristics in Johnson’s original order, affording specific protections to LGBTQ workers, but Obama left intact Bush’s protections for religious organizations.
In 2017, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued “religious liberty” guidance that elaborates principles such as “religious employers are entitled to employ only persons whose beliefs and conduct are consistent with the employers’ religious precepts.”
This month, the Department of Labor released its own proposed rule expanding religious exemptions available to government contractors and sparking outcry from many LGBTQ advocates. The rule expands the types of organizations eligible for exemptions to “employers that are organized for a religious purpose, hold themselves out to the public as carrying out a religious purpose, and engage in exercise of religion consistent with, and in furtherance of, a religious purpose,” and also allows employers to “condition employment on acceptance of or adherence to religious tenets without sanction by the federal government, provided that they do not discriminate based on other protected bases.”
The Trump administration claims that religious organizations need extra protections from nondiscrimination law, because not having them prevents these organizations from seeking federal contracts.
“It’s not just that they are changing a rule,” Pizer said regarding the impact of the rule, “but the way the change is being done is an explicit signal that this administration favors religious interests over the equality interests of LGBT people and women.”
What’s Next?
The Supreme Court will hear three cases in October that are expected to have a considerable impact on LGBTQ workers’ rights. Two of the cases deal with sexual orientation, the other with gender identity. In the meantime, the Department of Justice made clear in briefs filed this month that LGBTQ workers should not be covered by Title VII protections. In doing so, the DOJ puts itself at odds with the EEOC and the majority of Americans.
Democrats in Congress have responded by reintroducing the Equality Act, a piece of federal legislation that would add sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of classes protected against discrimination by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and does not allow religious exemptions to civil rights law under Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Activists have won a long battle to stop an anti-LGBT+ church operating out of Texas a public school, after protesting every week for more than a year.
Celebration Church, which is openly anti-LGBT+, had been renting space at the Austin Independent School District’s (AISD) Mueller Performing Arts Centre for its services.
Protest organiser and pastor for the AntiFascism NonChristian Church, Candace Aylor, said in a press release: “This was the goal, getting bigots out of public spaces. It goes against our closely held beliefs to abide bigotry and oppression, especially when openly, publicly permitted.
“What we learned today, what we confirmed from what those freedom fighters of the civil rights era taught us, is that direct action protests works.”
The protests were made up of AntiFascism NonChristian Church, as well as other organisations including PFLAG Austin.
Activists protested for more than a year. (AntiFascism NonChristian Church/ Facebook)
Anti-LGBT+ Celebration Church says it is moving out because its congregation has grown.
The church claims the reason for it no longer renting the public school space is that the congregation has grown, and it needs to move to a new building.
According to the Austin Chronicle, church spokesperson Christine Haas said: “Celebration Church has entered into a purchase agreement to buy a building in the Koenig Lane area.
“The growth of our congregation has allowed for this opportunity and we are very excited to have a permanent home for our Mueller Campus.”
However, one protester claimed in a post on Facebook: “They say they are leaving because they’ve grown, but the real reason is because when a group of protestors shows up every week to call them out on their hateful policies, they can’t grow (the protestors know because we counted their attendance every week).”
According to Austin newspaper the Statesman, the school district has not been able to prevent the church from using the space because their hands were legally tied, according to state law and the first amendment.
Instead, earlier this year the AISD used $10,000 of its income from the Celebration Church rental to fund student and staff participation in the Austin Pride Parade.
