Comments about ‘Mormon church supports Salt Lake City's protections for gay rights’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Nov. 11 2009 12:00 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Happy Mormon

This is a great development resulting from people with different views sitting down to actually listen to each other. It is reassuring example of how people can find common gorund - - not total agreement, but common ground. This could not have happened on a blog, where people are far more interested in spouting off than listening and understanding each other.


FWIW, Title VII of the (federal) Civil Rights Act exempts all religious organizations from employment discrimination laws. I think this is becuase the 1st Amendment to the Constitution limits Congress' ability to make laws about churches/religions. The SLC ordinance is similar to federal law in this respect.



"If the church has apartment buildings those will be subject to non discrimination policy, just as a Black, or a Jew, or a Baptist, or a woman would be able to rent an apartment,"

You obviously don't know which apartment buildings I'm referring to and you obviously didn't read what I said, so before you mock you need to learn to read yourself. Near temples and mission homes etc the church owns apartments S-P-E-C-ifically(too lazy to be as big of jerk as you) for missionaries, couples missionaries, temple workers etc. Hence and therefore if they can discriminate by not letting people in there, who's to say the government can fine anyone else for not letting people in.


How will they keep the gays of temple square when the majority of city creek apartments and condos swing the other way? It is just getting more interesting.


This has caused me to do some intense contemplation... I have never stood in oposition to the LDS church... BUT this is hard to swallow....

First legal rights, then marriage?


Bryce T.

Me thinks the Church is bracing for another run at there tax exempt status. Funny how the church caves when coffers are threatened. I see a revelation in the near future just like 1978 when the church was challenged on this exact topic with african-americans.


Again, look at the number of comments and compare with other stories. Utah is obsessed with gay issues. I suspect the actions of the Church may be an acknowledgment that marriage is a religious matter and should be separate from the legal rights of our citizens. That is the way it should be. The day will come when marriage will be separated from the state.


Faithfull Latter Day Saints will understand why this took place and this forum is not a good place to spell that out in easy to understand words.We know who guides and directs this church for which I'm gratefull to see that being done.Nothing more needs to be said.The foes have been silenced once again.

A former gay, current Mormon

I'm amazed at the hatred spewing forth from both sides. As a former gay now in a committed temple marriage, I know this much: Those who believe "gay" is a permanent identity should be respected for their freedom to believe such. As Mormons, we believe homosexual desires are temptations to be overcome, not an identity to be embraced. We also believe marriage between a man and a woman is optimum and should be preserved as such. For Latter-day Saints, we are obligated, as an article of our faith, to respect everyone's freedom to believe as they see fit. Mutual respect is key.

LDS Church leaders just reiterated our respect for rights of gays to identify as such and not be discriminated for it. These are individual rights, not rights based on a same-sex unions. The LDS Church has made this same public claim since its release of "The Divine Institution of Marriage" in August, 2008.


Bad move, I can see the day when Temple Marriage is sued by gay couples. This sets the wrong precidence. I think the church leadership should have stood by doctrine and not accomodated the gays with this one.


Temple Marriage is sued by gay couples

the above will never happen. and again this article has nothing to do with gay marriage.

Thank you Des News

Thank you for writing a relatively unbiased article about this. I read a similar article written in another prominent Salt Lake paper that was completely one sided. They made it sound like the Church was pushed into doing this by gay activists, kicking and screaming.

Re: Corey

The church didn't change policy on blacks having the priesthood, it was on hold. Two black men held positions as 70's. It wasn't until Joseph Smith praised the blacks as good or better than whites, spoke of freeing them, etc while running for President that caused it to be on hold. Having the priesthood is more important than when. And that’s why there’s temple work. Those that would try to thwart God's work will be burned at the coming of Christ and not live during the millenium when the bulk of temple work will be done. Those that didn't have it at that time will get it between now and during the millenium until God says the work is done. When God says the work is done, that's it, judgment for the rest. The reason we do temple work by proxy is because everything has to be done while in this life. And those living make that possible through proxy. Those that never heard the gospel will be taught and baptized,- by proxy. We don't judge who’s work is valid, God does. We're commanded to just do the work.


May God and the gays forgive the cowardly bigots among us.

Some people truly are so clueless - the ones beside themselves with dismay that gays should be protected from eviction or from losing their job based SOLEY on their sexual orientation [of which we are born with]. The ones who are so sure gayness will spread to their children. The ones clinging to their irrational fears and chosing discrimination over love and acceptance.

They know no gay people personally and so subscribe to some fey, lisping, limp-wristed gay stereotype ala Hollywood. They think gay people are promiscuous, Godless,
puposeful sinners, all of whom use drugs.

The posters on here who've shared their stories and say they chose the Church over being gay, will you not set these frightened, ignorant people straight?

I don't live in Utah anymore. Maybe that's my problem, you'll say. The gay people I know are wonderful people. I feel blessed by their friendship. They've enriched my family's life. And I'll continue fighting for their equal rights until they are awarded them.


The LDS church agrees that you should not be denied employment or evicted from your home due to your sexual orientation.

And if you've ever gone through puberty, trust me, you have one.

I call that progress since it is 2009 and these protections in SLC are new.

We can agree on this. There will be others we cannot.

We can talk about that too.

And we will.

Been There Done That

"A former gay, current Mormon"

Yeah, right. Make that "Suppressed gay, current Mormon" and I will buy it.


Thanks to the Church when thanks are due.

and to Brett | 6:00 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009

Gays have no more power to sue the Church than polygamists have for the same reason.

Or for that matter, many religious organizations have the power to deny anyone marriage based on policy and doctrine.

Some churches/religious organizations can deny a couple marriage in their church, synagogue, mosque, place of worship if one of the partners does not belong to their faith. Others can deny if one of the members is divorced.

Of course in the Church bishops can recommend or deny a temple recommend which in essence denies temple marriage to a couple. At that, a couple can be denied from a civil ceremony at a chapel.

So Brett, when you say comments like "I can see the day when Temple Marriage is sued by gay couples" the logic for your statement is lacking historical and current legal implications. It is more based on phobias of "what if" than what is real.

To Christy

The accusation of bigotry, like its sister "hypocrisy" places an awful burden on the accuser. From your mass characterizations of people, I would caution that you are at least perilously close (on one side or another) to the bigotry line your yourself. And based on your comments, you appear to me quite a ways over the "self-righteousness" line. Slingers of accusations on all sides would do to examine themselves well before denigrating an entire group of people. Note that the news article that generated all these comments stressed the congeniality and actual friendships that developed as these people got to know each other. It turns out that, counter to your view, the Mormon negotiators were actually good and sincere people. It does not counter your view, however, that all gays are categorically wonderful people. So you're only being challenged on one side of the equation.

Re;Bryce T.

Sorry, but the church doesn't obsess about money the way you obviously do. Money had absolutely nothing to do with it.


So if I, as an atheist, want to get married at the Cathedral I could sue? This is news to me.

See how stupid the idea "if gays are allowed to be married we will be forced to do it" is? Churches are not forced to perform marriages that they do not support.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments