Not too long ago, I attended a church meeting in which someone discussed the LDS Family Proclamation. Part of their discussion involved coded language about how much society had changed since the Proclamation was presented to the church. The language was subtle and vague, so it‘s possible it wasn’t referring to queer issues, but it paralleled language I’ve heard other church members use on this topic.
It’s important to remember that in every large gathering of LDS members, there will be members attending who are also part of the LGBTQ community. I think it would be good for each of us, when addressing the saints in large numbers, to reflect on how the language we use around LGBTQ issues is received by LGBTQ members, even if the language is subtle and coded.
When we talk about how much things have changed over the last 23.5 years since the Proclamation was issued, and we frame the Proclamation as inspired in that context but don’t highlight any of the advancements in equal rights, we should wonder how those members who aren’t the gender they were assigned at birth or who couldn’t marry their loved one 20 years ago interpret our words.
Do they agree with us, seeing it as an inspired document? Or do they disagree with us, seeing it as a document opposed to (and perhaps even attacking) their own constitutional rights?
As well, we should wonder how non-LGTBQ members interpret our rhetoric when speaking about the inspiration of the Proclamation.
Do they agree with us that it is inspired? Do they take our comments as justification for their existing prejudices toward the LGBTQ community? Do our words support their erasure of trans members, or their delegitimization of marriage equality, or their unwavering support of recently rescinded mandatory church courts for fellow members who happen to be living in legal, loving, monogamous relationships?
If they don’t support their LGBTQ children when they come out, will they use the Proclamation as the basis for their exclusion of their children? Will the way we talk about the Proclamation give them ammunition to ostracize their loved ones? Or will our words encourage them to be inclusive, to be loving, to be advocates?
Our words influence those who hear them. And I think it is incumbent on those of who speak to be aware of that influence.
I am not sure that I see the covertness but I only went to an LDS church for two years. I am not a big fan of guessing how people will interpret my words. I know what I mean and what I said, if you take it some other way then that is on you… and I am not a big fan of people fighting for equal rights when the western world basically supports 100% acceptance. There is nothing left to fight for but groups take up the mantle to fight for something special, making them more equal, and often infringe on others’s rights in order to expand theirs.
Taking the position that it‘s others how your words are interpreted is a way to abdicate responsibility. It’s a way for people to justify being able to say whatever they want.
If your words are potentially hurtful, it’s on you to learn why and to do better to change your rhetoric.
Nothing left to fight for? Gay Americans won the right to marry less than 4 years ago. Trans people still don’t have full access to health care. Indigenous people are still systematically oppressed. People of colour are still incarcerated at higher rights than white people. Women are still raped at higher rates than men and most of their rapists are never prosecuted. Poor people still have to fight just to get a raise.
We are far from living in an equal society.
Your last sentence doesn’t even make sense. You say there is nothing left to fight for, but then you claim that some groups are fighting to be more equal. If you’re not yet equal, then there is still more to fight for.
Yes, sometimes others getting more rights infringes on the rights of others, but the opposite is also true: maintaining the current rights of some infringes on the rights of others. Rather than having the current system, where some groups have more rights than others, we can work toward a system where all groups have the same rights, even if that means some groups lose their current privilege.