[dropcap]J[/dropcap]osie! Josie! Josie! We're thrilled to have our favorite expat back in the studio, and there's been plenty of international news to cover since we last spoke with Josie Gleave.

Due to a protest at Utah's capitol building in supporting of Utah ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment, a long-gestating proposed Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Church felt it important to first have no comment, and then an hour later revise that lack of comment with a reminder that the Church's position on the issue hasn't change in 40 years. (See this primer from 1980 that elaborates in detail on said position.) But what is the issue with a piece of legislation that would codify equality between the genders? We know that women are paid less than men. We know that women face inequities in social situations. We know hat women aren't privy to the same opportunities as men. So what's wrong with formally banning such practices? It's more complicated than you'd think, and as is often the case with these sorts of things, the Church is wrapped up in wording and potentially broad interpretations therein as opposed to the idea of equality itself.

In other political news, the Church has come out in favor of a federal Fairness for All Act as a replacement for the already passed Equality Act. The bill, sponsored by Utah Congressman Chris Stewart (R), is modeled after a similar piece of legislation that made it through Utah's legal apparatus recently. It aims to find a middle ground or a compromise in protection LGBT rights while allowing for some carve-outs that would allow church's and church-owned institutions (see: BYU), as well as small businesses some leeway in not providing services or employment to those who live a so-called "lifestyle" that contravenes one's convictions. Human rights groups have already decried the bill, arguing that compromise isn't appropriate when it comes to fundamental rights for a portion of the populations.

Refugees, and immigration in general, remain a hot-button issue in the United States and elsewhere. The Church quietly released a statement affirming its supported of embattled communities, and encouraging members to accommodate those who are forced out of their homeland in search of safety and peace. However, a seemingly minor inclusion encouraging Latter-day Saints to use "legal" means to support these individuals is bound to become an excuse among a certain ostensibly rule-of-law focused subset of our population to ignore these individuals and continue on a path of discrimination and xenophobia. Don't be that person. These are all God's children who elected to keep their first estate.

Also, the Church proudly reshared a Washington Post article (you don't see this much on official Church channels) discussing the work being done with refugees in Utah after the Trump administration has paved the way for states to block these programs.

Lastly, the Church has now said it will support a conversion therapy ban in Utah.