Deseret News | Legislators unveil new gay-rights legislation

Reader comments
Legislators unveil new gay-rights legislation

YES! | 3:08 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008

Finally! Something positive that both sides of this fight can get behind!

Utah Mom | 3:09 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008

I'm happy to see the gay community is reaching out to find common ground. Let's see if the Church is willing to do the same.
Let the healing begin.

Robert | 3:12 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008

To repeal part two of Amendment 3 is wrong. Parts 1 and 2 go hand in hand, and each is necessary for Amendment 3 to accomplish its goals.

Comments continue below

Proclamation | 3:20 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008

So the gay rights movement really expcet the LDS Church to abandon the following principles? Good luck with that one:
"The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. ..Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity...We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society" PROCLAMATION ON THE FAMILY

Shazam | 3:28 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008

I voted that marriage is defined by man and woman, and I will stick to that. But I do hope that good things happen. I'm fine with the ideas that these people are proposing.

Dr Chip | 3:32 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008

Honestly, I think the government has no business condoning marriage for anyone. I think that the individual churches should decide and that the government should approve it with a civil union. However, this also means that churches that approve of gay marriage should be able to do so. Religious Freedom works both ways.

Yes! | 3:49 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008

Excellent development. If the LDS church is true to the words it spoke, it will line up behind this. If it does not, then I'm not sure how you make sense of all their many statements that they support these legal rights for gay couples. This will be enlightening.

Al | 4:40 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008

Yes, good for your law makers! But these rights are currently guaranteed under California family law. Still this community insists on more in California. I hope we can find a common ground. I wonder... who will invite who first to the table to talk? I pray it is not too late....

LETS BE REASONSABLE | 4:43 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008

Recently when the 4 California judges negated the previous electorate choice regarding the marriage issue, what happened? Were there demonstrations and inappropriate measures taken towards the gay & lesbian communities? No!

While Churches (many, not just the LDS Church) voiced opposition to what had taken place, they did not demonstrate, and do all that type of stuff. But INDIVIDUALS, of all religious and political persuasions, as well as those who are not affiliated with any church, took the matter up in a legal way in the form of a constitutional amendment. This was all done without kicking and screaming in an immature way.

It is certainly immature to single out a church, demonstrate and show disrespect etc. for something that was put before the people who then spoke their desires via the ballot box.

Character counts. We look forward to the gay and lesbian community and their supporters to do whatever they do from this point on, in a way that shows REAL character, not immaturity and pettiness.

We can disagree, but hopes are that it can be done in a civil and respectful way.

A silver lining? | 4:55 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008

To all the church members out there who have been feeling a bit queasy about the church's role in Prop 8 (and I know there are a lot of us) this is a good chance to encourage our church leaders to throw their support behind these ideas and to take a big step toward closing the rift caused by Prop 8. Let's hope that the church stays true to its word and offers support for these proposals.

To:Utah Mom | 5:49 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008

I am not sure where you get, "I'm happy to see the gay community is reaching out to find common ground.", from. Where does this article say anything about the gay community? It is Utah Legislators that are acting, or reaching out, not the gay community.

Support from a LDS church member | 6:17 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008

I am living in Arizona. And I voted for Prop 102 in AZ. I would be in favor of these kinds of proposals that would extend these basic rights to gay couples in Arizona. I feel, as Elder Whitney said in his statement about Prop 8, that the purpose of this amendment is not to punish gays, but to keep marriage from further denigration and to protect our religious rights.

Dear Proclamation | 6:23 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008

So you're going to make out-of-wedlock births illegal?

What about divorce? If marriage comes from God, how can the government/society create divorce?

If you re-read that "proclamation", you'll find that it has NOTHING in it that prohibits the church's support of gay marriage. Nothing.

I hereby issue this PROCLAMATION: "We should honor God's plan for us, and honor everyone AS CREATED BY GOD."

There. That wasn't hard, was it?

Dear "Support from" | 6:25 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008

WHO is denigrating marriage?

I think Bristol Palin's teenaged unwed pregnancy is more denigrating to "marriage" (as you define it) than a thousand gay people marrying.

Notice Little Miss Palin hasn't married yet? And won't? So there's another child bereft of a father....as you see it?

Huh? | 6:47 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008

When it comes down to it, marriage is a legal contract between two people that guarantees a certain amount of rights. This fact has nothing to do with religion. Thinking that denying these rights to gays and lesbians equates to religious freedom is illogical. This really equates to shunning people from society and not allowing them to have rights. And what's really going on here is that a particular religious faith and belief system is being forced onto others in the name of "Freedom of Religion" while it's actually encroaching on other religion's freedoms that don't happen to follow yours. All of this just because two people want to live and know for sure that they are guaranteed the same rights as other couples.

observer | 7:16 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008

So, a group of legislators want to use another back door to promote same sex marriage, ignoring the clear majority of the people, to say nothing of the the history of ALL civilizations and ALL religions?Democrats, what a surprise!

People of their word? | 7:25 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008

so lets see if the LDS church will actually show some honor for once or if it was all just more hollow rhetoric to get their way.

Proper Channels | 8:16 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008

It is exciting, after all the protests & proposed boycotting, to see people actually going through proper channels to petition.
I don't agree with their ideas, but I do agree that they have as much right to put something to a vote (and let the people's voices be heard & respected) as anyone.

to : to utah mom | 8:38 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008

the proposals are from equality utah a GLTB organization the Legislator's that the article were talking about are all gay

We make the law | 11:58 p.m. Nov. 10, 2008

Listen. Prop 8 was voted on and did not pass. We cannot attribute its failure to a single organization.

People vote for what they morally feel is right. Politics is not amoral. Laws are derived from who we are.
This is not a church voting against gay marriage or against rights of any kind. Any non-profit organization has a constitutional right to voice its opinion, as many did in this case. This is America saying, state by state, no thank you. You vote how you want and I'll vote how I want and see what happens. When America is ready to accept gay marriage, America will vote for it. We all win and lose in a democracy, vote by vote, election by election.

Both sides are just doing what they feel is RIGHT. That is democracy. If you don't like it, go somewhere else.

To Dear Proclamation | 6:23 p.m. | 12:20 a.m. Nov. 11, 2008

The Proclamation speaks in affirmations and warnings. "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 Creatorï¿½s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.... ï¿½

ï¿½We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife....ï¿½

ï¿½ï¿½[W]e warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophetsï¿½.ï¿½

Many legislators believe in God. Many answer to Him through a prophet who has instructed: ï¿½We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.ï¿½

Promoting measures in conflict with Constitutional Amendment 3 could send the matter to the Court and we could risk losing Amendment 3 altogether. I believe this is an intended strategy of the gay legislators promoting these bills.

Only as good as your word... | 4:39 a.m. Nov. 11, 2008

It will be interesting to see if the LDS church really means what they said or if they were only blowing so much smoke.

@ Proclamation: The LDS church publicly stated their support for domestic partnerships/civil unions. This new legislation merely requests they stand up for their most recently espoused principles.

@ Observer: You don't seem very observant. Those who oppose marriage for same-sex couples are the ones who offered and stated their support for this "back door." The question is, were they being honest about their position, or were they lying?

@ We make the law: Actually, prop 8 did pass. Prior to the vote on prop 8 many of it's supporters stated support for measures similar to those being sought by Equality Utah and the 3 named legislators. Were prop 8 supporters acting/speaking with honor or were they doing whatever was necessary to get votes?

So again, is the LDS church an honorable organization or do they buy into that oh-so-satanic principle of the end justifies the means and it is okay to do evil to work good?

My Rights | 5:10 a.m. Nov. 11, 2008

I have a right to not accept gays as a couple of marriage. Why should there be laws to give more rights to a group that exceed the constitutionals rights of others? Homosexuality is an illness and lifestyle they have chosen. So do we need laws to protect every lifestyle individually? Do we need laws to protect and guarantee rights of a marriage between a man and a worman? It's getting rediculous that we are creating laws to protect religious and moral beliefs on an individual basis. Government and laws should not be needed for morality issues as morality can't be legislated. The gay's are causing their own grief and acting like the Taliban trying to dictate their beliefs. This country has done well under christian doctrine and survived because of it and proves that christian doctrine works as a nation. America is being divided by race, religions, culture, and beliefs all expecting individual laws they seem to think they need. No one has denied the gays to practice their behaviors and their cause is unfounded. Marriage is a religious and civil acceptance used around the world for procreation and same sex can not procreate.

Johnny J | 5:45 a.m. Nov. 11, 2008

There's no way Proposition 8 can stand. Regardless of your feelings toward homosexuality, Prop 8 is a classic example of the majority oppressing the minority and it's the judicial branch's role to put the kibosh on it. It's sad to see Dobson and the like do this to a minority group in the name of righteousness. They will ultimately fail. Reason and decency will prevail.

silly | 9:24 a.m. Nov. 11, 2008

This is sodam and gamora all over again This will not help america,, next we should think about giving more rights to criminals like bin ladden i don't think he has said his say yet.

The nation is watching... | 9:25 a.m. Nov. 11, 2008

This story also ran in the New York Times and is all over the web.

Concerned mom | 11:40 a.m. Nov. 11, 2008

In a statement released Nov. 5, officials of The Church said they do "not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights." It would be healing and show true leadership if church officials actively support passage of these new laws.

To: Huh? | 6:47 p.m. | 12:27 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008

The problem with your thinking:

"And what's really going on here is that a particular religious faith and belief system is being forced onto others in the name of "Freedom of Religion" while it's actually encroaching on other religion's freedoms that don't happen to follow yours"

is that as soon as gay marriage is sanctioned by the government, then if anyone speaks against it, including a church, then it can be called "hate speech". This is where we lose Freedom of Religion. In a few places this has already happened. One church, not the LDS church, actually lost it's tax exempt status due to a similar circumstance.

The LDS church will always speak out against sin, such as homosexuality, and could therefore place itself in such a circumstance. This would not help anyone, and would be a tragedy considering the fact that the Church does so much to help people in each community it is in, and people around the world through its humanitarian efforts.

What the Church said... | 12:29 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008

I find it interesting that some are jumping to the conclusion that the Church should/will/said they would support this. They never said that they would support this kind of legislation.

They did say that they don't object to rights of "hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference." (Pulled directly from the official statment on newsroom.lds.org in the 13 Aug. 2008 statement)

So for the gay community and their supporters to come out and claim that the Church has to support the laws to stick to it's word, is a plain and simple straw man. They're essentially putting words in their mouth.

For the Church to stick to their word, all they have to do is not speak out in opposition when legislation granting the above noted rights are up for vote. They don't have to support it to do what they said they would do.

Not opposing something is not the same as supporting it.

BobN | 12:33 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008

Something tells me that Elder Clayton's statements have made him very, very unpopular back at HQ. His openness to Civil Unions is in direct opposition to established LDS policy.

heehee

Derek | 2:11 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008

I wish every one on both sides could get this very clear.
This is a civil matter, not a religious one.
I understand and respect anyoneï¿½s choice to believe how they choose. (Which is protected by the Constitution)
However the Bible is not the Constitution;
and there in lies the problem.
Our country is not governed by the Bible... Which seems to be the driving force behind prop 8 and clearly not the Constitution?

THIS IS NOT A RELIGIOUS ISSUE !!!!!

DaveD | 2:45 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008

Keep in mind, that just because the church says it doesn't oppose something, doesn't mean that it SUPPORTS it.

The church doesn't take positions on political issues. These issues are political, and should be decided by the legislature based on their merits, not whether the church fails to not withhold its support (lack of clarity intended).

arc | 6:03 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008

"Even more, the Church does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches. "

Repeat: "so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family"

You cross that line, and I don't think any proposed bill will or should have a chance in Utah.

Weary | 7:31 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008

Is anyone else out there as SICK of all this same-sex stuff as I am? Apparently, our legislators can't do enough for this very LOUD and OBNOXIOUS minority group. If we elect gays and lesbian supporters, we shouldn't be surprised when they start pushing their agenda on everyone. Before we get too carried away with all this tolerance, we should really decide whether we want to legalize abnormal behavior. As the saying goes, "be careful what you wish for because you just might get it." Once Pandora's box is open, there will be no end to the unexpected consequences.

Utah has been blessed | 7:45 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008

because we have not, through our laws condoned or encouraged the abomination of homosexuality. For the most part our economy is good and we have beautiful, relatively crime-free neighborhoods (except where urban liberals rule). Now McCoy and others want to push for more acceptance for their sinful lifestyle and put the rest of us at risk of God's wrath for aiding and abetting such sinful behavior.

John Howard | 8:01 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008

I think every state should implement Civil Unions that are defined as "marriage minus conception rights" - that is, the couple is prohibited from attempting to conceive a child that is the union of their genes, their own genetic offspring, but they have all the other rights of marriage. Marriage thus retains its unique essence as approving of the couple conceiving children together. We need to come up with a good federal anti-cloning law anyhow, one that prohibits all methods of creating a person besides joining of a living man and a woman's unmodified genes. We should not allow people to try to create a child from genetically modified gametes, which rules out same-sex conception because it requires modifying the genes of one partner to make the other kind of gamete.

John Howard | 8:09 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008

The LDS should now put its attention to getting Congress to enact an "Ethical Conception law" to stop genetic engineering of designer babies and same-sex conception. At the same time, Congress should repeal DOMA so as to federally recognize state Civil Unions that are defined as "marriage minus conception rights", and finally to affirm that every marriage in the United States has a right to conceive children together, using their own genes. This would allow marriage to continue to fully protect the couple's right to conceive together.

This would be a good time for the LDS leadership to make a statement about the Mormon Transhumanist Association, who oppose not only Prop 8 but vehemently oppose a ban on genetic engineering, which is the essential technological tool of Transhumanism. They understand how linked these issues are. I hope the LDS leadership will disagree with MTA and agree with me that same-sex conception needs to be prohibited.

Anonymous | 11:22 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008

The Church does not need to be anymore contrversal.

The FLDS has done enough harm.

Now politics trying to influence out of state issues have brought us more harm.

Don't drag the Catholics in on this mess or it can backfire on us again.

Stick on religious issues within the church. Stay out of politics. Taking political sides will always upset around half of the people in the United States, or more. Be positive towards all people. Stick to the basics of Christ teachings and Judge not, lest ye be judged.

Anonymous | 11:33 p.m. Nov. 11, 2008

Why don't you ever print any of my post? Bias???
I often give a very respectful, but sometimes opposite point of view. The post never gets printed. Have I been boycotted? if so, why? I am never disrespectful or rude. I often lend a different point of view that never gets printed.

Let's get real | 11:03 a.m. Nov. 12, 2008

"The church does not object to" is far different from "the church should support." This would be like a neighbor who wants to plant a bunch of big trees in his yard that will block your view. You may or may not object, and in fact, legally you probably cannot object. But that doesn't mean you have to help dig the holes and plants the trees for your neighbor. Equality Utah just makes themselves look like fools by doing this.

Bliss Tew | 8:30 a.m. Jan. 26, 2009

As I understand the Constitution, every person already shares equal rights: the Right to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religious beliefs, the right to keep and bear arms, etc.

Homosexuals already have the same right, the right to marry. Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. Homosexuals enjoy that same right already, they simply don't want to exercise it, but would rather have a same-sex relationship, which is not a marriage between a man and a woman. So the right is there, it is just not excercised, by choice.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.

1 photo

Stuart Johnson, Deseret News

Mike Thompson, Executive Director of Equality Utah (far right) and others supporting gay and lesbian rights held a press conference on Monday asking the LDS Church to support their quest of three new bills for the 2009 General Session of the Utah Legislature.