Reader comments
Mormon Church backs protection of gay rights in Salt Lake City
85 comments | Read story
Terry | 7:19 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
This is good news for the Church and gays. I hope that some ground can be gained
for everyone. This proves the Church is good.
Jim | 7:19 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
Bravo!
Heather | 7:22 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
I'm glad to see this reaffirmed position by the Church.
Comments continue below
my slc | 7:29 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
uhmmm, right.
Diligent Dave | 7:32 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
I disagree with the concept of granting implicit special rights based upon
selective aspect of a person or people. If we say one cannot discriminate on the
basis of race, religion, or sexual preference (or lifestyle), we are dictating
on what basis individuals and groups can make choices.
Congress has and does overstep its bouds. Just tonight, for the first time in my life, I have heard someone finally talk about how they believe congress has done this in a number of laws (I have long believed and talked about this).
The right of association is, I believe, a right left to the people, and this granted by the Bill of Rights–
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, OR TO THE PEOPLE.
One of my best friends is a black man. Another one of my best friends is a Catholic. I am LDS, and of course, also have many LDS friends and friends of other faiths. I also have family members and friends who are practicing homosexuals.
(Continued)
Congress has and does overstep its bouds. Just tonight, for the first time in my life, I have heard someone finally talk about how they believe congress has done this in a number of laws (I have long believed and talked about this).
The right of association is, I believe, a right left to the people, and this granted by the Bill of Rights–
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, OR TO THE PEOPLE.
One of my best friends is a black man. Another one of my best friends is a Catholic. I am LDS, and of course, also have many LDS friends and friends of other faiths. I also have family members and friends who are practicing homosexuals.
(Continued)
Amazing Grace | 7:33 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
This is wonderful news! Way to go, LDS Church!
Gregory in SLC | 7:35 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
As a Gay man, former Mormon of 30 years, I appreciate the LDS church backing
this ordinance. I can also appreciate their determined views about Marriage
however, it still seems they have no idea on how damaging their policy of trying
to prevent society from recognizing LGBT marriages is to persons such as myself.
Uphold whatever standards you wish within the church but Please, Please,
Please! Do not try to force your views to the general public. Open your minds
and your hearts to the damage this stance takes.
Good Stance Church | 7:39 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
I like this article. It shows the church cares about the rights and wellness of
all people, yet firmly sets their position against gay marriage.
Good article and good job church.
Good article and good job church.
Charlie | 7:40 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
No landlord should not deny someone the right to rent just because he or she is
gay.
M. Silver | 7:41 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
Only three comments? Where are all of the serial commenters that are usually so
quick to criticize the church if it even approaches getting involved in civic
affairs?
WWJD? | 7:42 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
Thank You!
RE: Gregory in SLC | 7:50 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
Clearly you missed the point in this article where it says "the church
stands firm on its position for marriage between a man and a woman."
The church will NEVER change that stance, so quit asking.
The church will NEVER change that stance, so quit asking.
One Human Family | 7:51 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
The church representative should have said this and only this:
"The church supports this ordinance because it is fair and reasonable."
Why does everything surrounding anything gay have to go to marriage? I am happy that the church leaders have FINALLY done SOMETHING to support gay people. It is about time.
"The church supports this ordinance because it is fair and reasonable."
Why does everything surrounding anything gay have to go to marriage? I am happy that the church leaders have FINALLY done SOMETHING to support gay people. It is about time.
John | 7:51 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
This position makes sense legally and morally. I have no problem with it at all.
MM | 7:54 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
I don't see what's shocking about this. It's the stance that the
Church has always taken and always will. It's not like the Church has moved
in its position on any issue in any way. No one has ever been taught to be
hateful or discriminate in any meeting I have heard of.
The teachings have anyways been to love your neighbor and treat others with Christlike love and dignity, and at the same time sticking up for your values.
The teachings have anyways been to love your neighbor and treat others with Christlike love and dignity, and at the same time sticking up for your values.
Dream On | 7:54 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
This is good news, and I certainly don't begrudge the gays and lesbians
normal civil rights to housing and employment. But, according to the article,
the statement by the Church clearly proscribes gay marriage. Don't hold
your breath for the Church to change its mind on something so totally against
everything we believe in. Accepting and validating gay marriage would mean
negating all of the scriptures, and all the counsel and revelations of the
Prophets, including the most recent one, Family: Proclamation to the World, by
President Gordon B. Hinckley. It really would be a major upheaval, not just for
us, but for all Christian churches who have not already changed the Bible to
suit the whims of a minority.
irchr | 7:56 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
This is not new, the church has always been for fair treatment of all peoples.
I have never heard any thing to the contrary in all the years since I joined the
LDS church. This just confirms what I have been taught for many many years.
dave4197 | 8:04 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
Good for the Church, to speak out for fair treatment of gay people, such as in
the SLC anti bias ordinance. Hopefully all church members will recognize the
need for them to individually act compassionately towards gay people. Marriage
is a union between a man and a woman, we need to recognize that the gov't
would be wrong to change that religious tenet. Gay people deserve equal
treatment in legal issues, in housing, in business, in civil unions, and over
the back yard fence.
Angela | 8:06 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
I agree with the church. No human should be treated differently. But marriage
must be protected as well.
@Samuel | 8:06 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
"Now if only LDS could be protected"
Religions and religious have had non discrimination protections for decades. Get over your persecution complex. I applaud the LDS church. A step in the right direction.
Religions and religious have had non discrimination protections for decades. Get over your persecution complex. I applaud the LDS church. A step in the right direction.
G | 8:06 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
Oh, yes. I'm sure the church is shaking in their boots about some movie.
The church has only reaffirmed the position they took before the election.
The church has only reaffirmed the position they took before the election.
Darren in Gig Harbor | 8:11 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
This is the inclusiveness that the Savior would give. He wouldn't approve
of the sin but would love the sinner. This is not a referendum on homosexuality
and it does not show approval for the sin, but it does show that nobody deserves
not to treated badly. If you are having problems with this and you question the
leadership of this church, you need to kneel and ask your Heavenly Father
who's church this is and if those running this church are chosen, called up
and set apart. The Lord said that he would not let a leader of this church lead
it astray. That man would be removed and another be put in his place. I remind
you that President Monson is a Prophet, Seer and Revelator and is called by
Jesus Christ to lead his church.
Madden | 8:14 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
Despite this, many people will still hate the church for their stance on gay
marriage (since a difference of opinion can only = hate and prejudice) and many
LDS people will still mistake opposition to gay marriage as carte blanche to act
and speak out against gays rather than treat them with the dignity all of our
brothers and sisters deserve.
Still, it is nice to see the church leaders trying to define the line yet again.
Still, it is nice to see the church leaders trying to define the line yet again.
Brandon Chase Bell | 8:26 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
For those saying that this is not new, the point you are missing is that prior
to this the church has not come out and been willing to support a specific city
ordinance or other piece of legislation- city, state, or federal. There has not
been a piece of legislation prior to this that meet their requirements of
ensuring /securing fundamental rights and protections against discrimination
that was crafted in a way that was consistent with the Church's position
and thus that they could support. When asked to support some prior legislation
by gay rights groups, here in Utah, (just after Prop. 8 in California, or maybe
just before, regarding civil unions, the church was silent and took no action,
one way or the other)...
Gayle | 8:26 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
Backtracking like this is disappointing. As Latter-day Saints we need to hold
steadfast and stick the road we have set ahead. I do not understand this move.
Brandon Chase Bell | 8:27 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
What this does, although there has been no change in position, is show that the
Church is serious, about making sure gays are not discriminated against and
ensured fundamental civil protections in a way that does not alter or affect the
definition or institution of marriage. Though it likely will not be enough for
gay rights groups (and in all likelihood never will given the differing
positions of the Church and these groups) it shows to society that the Church is
serious when they say that they care about ensuring protections for all people
when it doesn't affect the definition of marriage, and gives the Church
credibility to those who are watching on the sidelines, that the Church is
acting in good faith, according to the principles they believe in, and that
their stance against gay marriage isn't just an "anti-gay" stance
but one that seeks fairness for all, while seeking to prevent a re-definition of
marriage. It gives them a *TRACK RECORD* of supporting rights for all, where
they feel they can, to back up their rhetoric.
you know me.. | 8:34 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
Imagine, the words of John Lenon, people are always arguing, I wish people would
just live their lives with the intent of helping one another have a better day,
we are all (myself included) so focused on passing others, being better, and I
am Mormon, I am not gay, but if two people want to be together let them be
together, if they want to get married let them get married, it shouldn't
and doesn't bother me, but I will say that I don't understand the
emphasis placed on a piece of paper declaring your love for another, and perhaps
its my character, but I dont care what people think about the love of my life
and I in our relationship, my love for her exists beyond, I dont need or will
ever need paper to tell her that, I believe that we all need to be more open
more loving and more genuine towards one another, accept eachother, but
unfortunately I have doubts that we will be able to fully love one another, but
I hope you understand that I care, and that I hope gay or straight black or
white you are happy.
Good Litmus Test | 8:42 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
With the LDS church professing to be THE Church of Jesus Christ on the earth
today, the litmus test of that claim should be: "Did the church
representative say the thing that Christ himself would have said?" I think
the answer here is that yes, I think everything that he said on behalf of the
church (regarding this issue and the church's stand) was indeed what Christ
himself would have said if he were here on the earth doday. Very good.
Anonymous | 8:56 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
re: One Human Family | 7:51 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
[The church representative should have said this and only this:
"The church supports this ordinance because it is fair and reasonable."]
Don't you mean fair and balenced?
Seriously, have none of you heard of equal protection under the law?
[The church representative should have said this and only this:
"The church supports this ordinance because it is fair and reasonable."]
Don't you mean fair and balenced?
Seriously, have none of you heard of equal protection under the law?
Bob | 9:03 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
@Gayle: If you read the article you will note that the church is simply
reaffirming a statement made before Prop 8. No backtracking. It may be a bit
uncommon for them to take such a public step, but the stance hasn't
changed.
Robert | 9:05 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
The headline, as usual, is misleading. It should read "LDS Church Reaffirms
Dignity of All".
Anonymous | 9:29 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
If SLC had an ordinance denying housing right to idiots, half of those
commenting would be homeless. Housing is not a moral issue. Of course the
church would support fair housing for one and all. This is consistent with all
they have said and done. I am confident that the church is in good hands and
some of those who oppose it will eventually come around.
Robert - St. George | 9:29 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
I say BRAVO too to the LDS Church for their support of this important policy for
Salt Lake City. I agree it is a good first step. I just hope this means that
the Church is going to try hard to reach out to its gay members inside the
Church instead of running away from them and trying to ignore them. There are
active gay Mormons who really want to fit in but it is such an uphill battle.
The constant attack oh the gay lifestyle by the Church translates to bad
behavior by most (not all) members and therefore makes an already lonely life
even lonelier. This announcement today is a slimmer of sunlight and hope.
Yeah.
Fait Accompli | 9:30 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
It was going to happen. This will mean something if they make it happen at the
state level.
Devan Jensen | 9:32 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
I applaud the Church's stance on supporting the city council's
decision not to discriminate against homosexuals in hiring and housing
practices. It is important to distinguish that the Church's long-standing
doctrine of marriage between a man and a woman remains unchanged. Fairness in
city laws is admirable; however, the LDS doctrine of marriage between a man and
a woman is a bedrock doctrine that will not change. At the same time, I feel for
the plight of committed homosexual couples who are seeking legal protection and
hope that civil unions may provide some of the answers they are seeking.
karlton | 9:34 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
Everyone commenting here is entitled to their own opinions. Thank goodness for
that.
To: D-Dave | 9:44 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
"If we say one cannot discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or
sexual preference (or lifestyle), we are dictating on what basis individuals and
groups can make choices."
WHAT? The very definition of discrimination is -- unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice.
How is that a good thing?
WHAT? The very definition of discrimination is -- unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice.
How is that a good thing?
Balance | 9:45 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
What the gay activists fails to realise is it doesn't take into
consideration anything else but their own needs in their persuits, the
don't bother with trying to protect religious freedoms, freedom of speech,
etc. The LDS church supports the ordination because it IS fair and reasonble, in
includes exceptions to religious organizations and oganizations with less then
15 members, which is the same as in federal law. The SSM forces have failed to
inculde any such protections in it's pushes, merely focusing on getting
what they want rather then respecting all people. All they have done here, as
said, is reaffimed their position as is was when they started down this road,
their opposition is too busy throwing mud to even notice.
To: Gayle | 9:55 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
"Backtracking like this is disappointing. As Latter-day Saints we need to
hold steadfast and stick the road we have set ahead. I do not understand this
move."
You don't understand that firing someone just because they are gay is wrong? You don't understand that evicting someone just because they are gay is wrong?
Really?
You don't understand that firing someone just because they are gay is wrong? You don't understand that evicting someone just because they are gay is wrong?
Really?
Bad Move | 10:04 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
by the Church. I am extremely disappointed!
Bad Move? | 10:27 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
How is non-discrimination a bad move? Can you explain that to me?
Wouldn't you have thought non-discrimination against the pioneers a good
thing back when?
I view this as a pretty bitter-sweet victory. Rights are being recognized and met. Awesome. Still, others aren't.
Press on!
I view this as a pretty bitter-sweet victory. Rights are being recognized and met. Awesome. Still, others aren't.
Press on!
Ace | 11:01 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
Gayle, if you don't understand this move, you've never understood the
Church's position. The Church has held the line protecting the institution
of marriage and the rights of churches. This ordinance doesn't affect
marriage, and it contains an exception allowing religious institutions to act
according to their beliefs without fear of being in violation of the law.
Too many Mormons assume their Church is anti-gay, and use that as an excuse to be anti-gay themselves. The church is anti-gay marriage, not anti-gay.
Too many Mormons assume their Church is anti-gay, and use that as an excuse to be anti-gay themselves. The church is anti-gay marriage, not anti-gay.
vontrapp | 11:34 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
While on the one hand there is freedom of association for which I feel strongly,
I don't particularly have a problem with this position. The legislation is
fair and reasonable, as it says. It cements the fact that the church does not
care to discriminate against gay or lesbian people, and that there is plenty of
love and tolerance. About the freedom of association and the constitution,
particularly the bill of rights, well, this ordinance has nothing to do with the
federal government, these rights are reserved to the states or the people, thus
it is the state's or the people's (in this case the city of Salt Lake)
choice to implement such measures. I have to admit I knee-jerked a little on the
association thing, but on second thought, it's in line with the principle
of federation.
Californian #1@94131 | 11:45 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
This headline is deceptive. The Church is not kowtowing on "gay
rights" and not supporting any special rights for "gay" people.
It is supporting a city ordinance prohibiting people from being discriminated
against. There is a huge difference.
As for same-sex "marriage," there is nothing inconsistent about the Church defending traditional marriage while it supports laws against discrimination. This is obvious to any rasonable, fair-minded person.
Despite the misguided attempts of "gay rights" activists to link same-sex "marriage" and the injustice of true discrimination in the public mind in order to gain sympathy for their cause, these are totally separate matters.
As for same-sex "marriage," there is nothing inconsistent about the Church defending traditional marriage while it supports laws against discrimination. This is obvious to any rasonable, fair-minded person.
Despite the misguided attempts of "gay rights" activists to link same-sex "marriage" and the injustice of true discrimination in the public mind in order to gain sympathy for their cause, these are totally separate matters.
Anonymous | 12:39 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
As well-intentioned as this stance by the church is, it nevertheless perpetuates
the belief in "fair, but not equal".
jzman | 12:47 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
strike the "violence" against marriage comment Otterson. This is
uncalled for. Support anti-discrimination laws, but stop with slipping in these
veiled attacks on gay marriage. It is offensive, backhanded and negates the
good effect of your support for local anti-discrimination measures.
I can't believe this | 12:50 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
How is it that the LDS Church who stands against gay marriage, is changing their
position yet again on this issue?
Make up your minds, people...don't arrest gay people on your plaza and claim they're in violation of the law for being there, and then turn around and go before the city council advocating for gay rights?
Look, you're either with the gays or you're against them.
You're either for traditional marriage or you're not.
I think the LDS Church is being hypocritical here, in word and in deed.
You can't pick and choose when it comes to this--if you are against gay marriage, then you are to be against rights for gays.
You cannot deny rights to gays in your worship services and temples and recognize gay rights outside your churches and temples in society. It's not that simple.
Make up your minds, people...don't arrest gay people on your plaza and claim they're in violation of the law for being there, and then turn around and go before the city council advocating for gay rights?
Look, you're either with the gays or you're against them.
You're either for traditional marriage or you're not.
I think the LDS Church is being hypocritical here, in word and in deed.
You can't pick and choose when it comes to this--if you are against gay marriage, then you are to be against rights for gays.
You cannot deny rights to gays in your worship services and temples and recognize gay rights outside your churches and temples in society. It's not that simple.
Good move by the Church | 12:56 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
This should help the LDS Church in reaching out and having dialogue with the gay
community.
We do not support same sex marriage, but we certainly are not going to stand for people being fired from a job, kicked out of a rental property, or denied medical care because of their sexual orientation.
To do that is no different than telling a black man to go to the back of the bus, assuming that Latinos are here just to commit crimes and steal jobs, and thinking women are good for nothing but being barefoot and pregnant all the time.
When it comes to this issue, I will stand with anyone--no matter who they are.
We do not support same sex marriage, but we certainly are not going to stand for people being fired from a job, kicked out of a rental property, or denied medical care because of their sexual orientation.
To do that is no different than telling a black man to go to the back of the bus, assuming that Latinos are here just to commit crimes and steal jobs, and thinking women are good for nothing but being barefoot and pregnant all the time.
When it comes to this issue, I will stand with anyone--no matter who they are.
glad to be alive | 4:08 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
I did not create myself, but He in Whose image I am gave me life and free will.
He placed thorns in my flesh to teach me humility and to induce me to call upon
Him for help. When I cease to pit my will against His and acknowledge that His
ways are just, His mercy heals my spirit and gives me power to do His will.
Then, I am filled with His love and glad to be alive.
InAZ | 7:41 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
It is not hypocritical for the Church to support gays in the ways mentioned in
the article, and yet being opposed to gay marraige. Marraige is ordained by God
between one man and one woman...no exeptions. People who live gay lifestyles
are still children of God and should not be discriminated against. It appears
some of you just can't separate the two issues. Denying Gays the
'right' to marry is not discriminatory. For those gays that are
married are recognized by that respective state only, not by the nation, and
certainly not by God.
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.
Related content
- Tamiflu-resistant H1N1 cluster in NC 3:45 p.m.
- Poor striping causes near misses 3:27 p.m.
- Miley Cyrus tour bus overturns 3:11 p.m.
- Giuliani back in spotlight, but why? 3:11 p.m.
- Reid health bill helps chiropractors 3:10 p.m.
- US to drop Blackwater guard case 3:10 p.m.
- Drug in Jackson case from Vegas firm 2:48 p.m.
- Stocks fall for 3rd day 2:40 p.m.
- Farmington recycling starts Nov. 30 2:30 p.m.
- Violent scene at Green Street 2:16 p.m.
- Mailman's nomination delivered
- Jazz finally win in San Antonio
- U. professor dies after fall from bus
- 'New Moon' doesn't rise to occasion
- Officer cleared Cardall Taser case
- 'New Moon' rising: Vamps vs. 'wolves
- Archuleta still calls Utah home
- Horrifying scenario described
- Utah jobless rate at 6.5%
- Palin plans tour stop in Utah
- Buttars wants to limit gay rights laws
179 - Palin plans tour stop in Utah159
- MWC expand? Get rid of deadweight141
- BYU, Utah struck gold in coaches123
- Lies shatter Utah family122
- BYU cuts Women's Research Inst.93
- Utes knock off rival Aggies92
- Officer cleared Cardall Taser case91
- Wounded Utes limp home91
- Jazz finally win in San Antonio88
A little after midnight Wednesday morning, about 21 hours ago as I write...
There's a lot of reason to leave your plastic home as you shop:
Latest comments
Prepfootballfan Alta made it to the final 4 in 5A
Doesn't a fake Warhol actually make it even more authentic?
Please don't use this as another excuse not to do what's right.
BYU 7 Boise State 73 Utah 14 Boise State 62
@Charles: I'm not ranting FYI, all I'm doing is just explaining possibly why...
Yeehaw! I for one am looking forward to yet another well run government...
Thanks for some inciteful comments. There are far too many emotional and and...
This photo looks exactly like the BYU basketball team photo. Such handsome...
speed beat size everytime...except sumo wrestling.
This isn't the first time an Amnesty has been proposed. The Immigration...
Advertisements