I have lived in Utah for 4 years now, and for the most part, I've been happy here. At first I loved it; I felt like I finally belonged somewhere. After a while I started seeing the little oddities that are inevitably found in a community dominated by one group of people. And now, well, sometimes I'm just freaked out.
An example of this occured today while I was reading an article in our campus newspaper, The Daily Universe (excellent issue today, by the way, my compliments to the DU staff). The article initially ran in the LA Times and can be viewed at http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-na-kanab24jun24,0,3479500,full.story
It discussed a resolution recently passed by the city council of Kanab, a small southern Utah town. The resolution regarded the "natural family," a term the council defined as a marriage between a man and a woman, with "hearts open to a full quiver of children." Essentially, a mom, dad, and a whole passel of kids.
Now, I'm all for marriage. In fact, I'm a huge supporter of the Marriage Protection Ammendment. I believe that marriage is something held only between a man and woman, and like the city council of Kanab, I believe that it is ordained of God. Because Kanab is largley a Mormon community, I think most residents would agree. I, however, feel that the Kanab's resolution takes this doctrine too far, and quite a few of Kanab's citizens concur.
My qualms are both moral and political. First, I believe that such a decree violates the Constitutionally required separation of church and state. Until Christ Himself sets up a theocracy, it is simply an ineffective way to govern people of many beliefs. This applies in Utah as well.
Morally, I feel that it is inappropriate to maintain that a specific type of family is superior to another, with the exeption of marriage between man and woman. There are many types of families; a childless husband and wife are no less of a family than a family with twelve children. In more and more cases, people are considering their friends to be more of a "family" than acutal blood relatives. Is this any less valid? The purpose of a family is to love, care for and support one another. When did the look of the family become more important than the purpose?
A quotation from the resolution: "We envision young women growing into wives, homemakers, and mothers; and we see young men growing into husbands, home-builders, and fathers…. We look to a landscape of family homes, lawns, and gardens busy with useful tasks and ringing with the laughter of many children." I personally have a problem with this statement in itself. In my opinion, it limits both girls and boys in their quest to become better, more educated people. It seems to imply that after the good little children graduate high school (if that is even deemed neccessary), they should marry the first member of the opposite sex they see and promptly start making babies. Good little girls grow into good little housewives and spend their days canning produce fresh from the garden, while good little boys grow up to attempt to support a family doing menial labor.
I want to emphasize here that my problem is not with housewives, menial labor or having children. My issue stems from the effect the mindset of the council members of Kanab has of squashing potential in their youngsters. The mayor of Kanab, Kim Lawson, sadly makes a perfect example.
A 17-year-old-intern at the Southern Utah News wrote a coloumn expressing disapproval of the city council, and especially of the mayor. The mayor, rather than allowing the young man to state his opinion, or even rebutting in a open-minded manner, called on the young man's teachers and religious leaders to bring him back in line. In my opinion, such a bold young man should be commended for his attention, thoughtfullness and courage in addressing such a controverisal issue, or in having an opinion on it at all!
Even worse, when the Southern Utah News editor, Dixie Brunner, defended the young man and continued to publish letters on the subject, some citizens started their own newspaper to counter Brunner's, saying it was a saucy liberal rag.
I'm sorry, but I don't think there is a liberal rag in the entire state of Utah, much less a saucy one.
It is this uber-conservatism and ultra-old-fashionness that most bothers me. One shopkeeper says she is hesitant to burn incense for fear she will be shunned as "New Agey." Local ranchers are suspicious of the "dog lovers" who work at the Best Friends Animal Sanctuary (Heaven forbid people should care about domestic animals). When a group of newcomers came out against the resolution, a 78-year citizen of Kanab submitted this to the newspaper: "Maybe (just maybe) when you have lived here even a fraction of that time, perhaps you will have earned the right to call Kanab 'your' community. That hasn't happened yet." This statement is frightening in it's exclusion and distain. It seems that some citizens in Kanab take their conservatism a bit too far. Many conservatives believe that fanatisms comes only from the left, but clearly the right can breed radicals as well.
This ultra-conservatism, the close-mindedness, the inablity of some to respect the opinions and lifestyles of others, and the occasional distain for those who voice an opinion outside of the mainstream are some of the reasons I have grown wary of living in Utah. Don't get me wrong, Utah isn't a bad place, and the people aren't bad people. Occasionally, they're just a little odd.
Dixie Brunner, editor of the Southern Utah News said, "They are good people here, and that's all there is to it. But sometimes, I pull my hair out."
I hear ya, Ms. Brunner. I hear ya.
