Quantcast
Utah

Mormon church supports Salt Lake City's protections for gay rights

Comments

Return To Article
  • Mishey
    Feb. 18, 2010 4:36 p.m.

    Okay to any of you talking about the Church changing....look at the reasons. Polygamy was stopped because the United States made it illegal and we believe in "obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law." And in reference to "blacks holding the priesthood," that came about at a time when the entire country was having civil rights issues and had it come at an earlier time it would have been rejected by the people in and out of the church. The Church doctrine has never changed and will never change.

  • Anon
    Nov. 19, 2009 11:19 a.m.

    Why Hate: the Mormons don't get judged and looked down upon like you do? Are you kidding me? Maybe not in Utah, but step outside of Wonderland and we are despised. I've lived outside of Utah for most of my life after my mission. Believe me, Mormons are hated passionately. And the shock isn't about us not loving our fellow man. I've worked with gay men and they were good guys. We just don't want our freedom and our agency taken away and dictated to us by groups that we don't particularly want to associate with or have their influence in our lives. We love the sinner, but hate the sin. Sorry, I think it's sinful. I think most people are afraid that this opens the door to future legislation. Other gays commenting on here say this is just the first step in the right direction. Exactly my point. They want MORE steps. The LGBT community is like the proverbial mouse given a cookie. You will want a glass of milk next. This is Pandora's Box being opened with more and more steps being pushed. IMHO this was a bad decision.

  • Anon
    Nov. 19, 2009 9:57 a.m.

    So, is the LDS Church prepared to have it's members forced to hire or rent to homosexuals? What if say a Mormon Bishop has a basement apartment to rent. The first couple to show up to the ad is gay. They have great credit, good income, etc etc. He can't turn them away. So, now, a man who is to be setting a religious example for his children and members of his ward is obligated to have homosexuals right in his basement. What if someone has an extra room in their house to rent? That's even worse. Can't deny a homosexual person the right to rent your room now. Suppose you have young children and you don't want that influence in your home? Too bad. Now you can be sued, lose a lot of money in court fees, maybe even lose your home because your Church just opened Pandora's Box for you. This is only going to lead to a lot of misery and it's going to backfire BIG TIME!!

  • Why Hate
    Nov. 18, 2009 9:08 p.m.

    Reading through these comments I am just amazed.. Something good happened for us Gays here in Utah and now the LDS is going to freak out, and say childish things like "the government can't tell me who i can and can't rent to." Well, im sorry to say but yeah they can. Mormons, you have good surrounding you everyday, you do not get judged and looked down upon like we do, but we dont throw fits do we? As part of a religous community you have a responsiblity to your family or to your church, whatever if your not a gay then i dont see how this affects you. Please have some respect. I, as a Lesbian, have had many of Mormons disrespect me, and i have yet to do to you. Maybe you Mormons should take lessons from us Gays. We seem to be ahead in the respect department.

  • Soldier
    Nov. 17, 2009 10:20 p.m.

    For those who do not recall the atrocities that we "Mormons" were NOT protected from when trying to practice religious freedoms, try reading through the accounts of what would be called "hate crimes" today. Even after all of what happened to our fellow members during the 19th century, we still follow the tenets that a crime is just as atrocious regardless of the sexual choices that a person has made in life when they are beaten senselessly, and worse. Special protections are inappropriate and provide elitist divisions in the very people that government is "trying" to integrate, forcefully. What most do not seem to consider is that the politicians we have running the country now hate it for the very things we cherish such as the freedoms we DO have. These very politicians consider themselves elitists, most anyway. Who needs to do what their constituents want once they get in office and get their guaranteed salary for life including fringe benefits even if not re-elected? When most of our politicians are lawyers, they confuse the fact that legislators are supposed to make laws, judicials interpret them, and executives enforce them.

  • Sebastian
    Nov. 15, 2009 7:28 p.m.

    Thanks be to God! I am encouraged to see the Church embracing social justice. I was raised LDS (I am now a very socially-liberal Roman Catholic who adores my RC religious path). We see a new era in the LDS Church. My love for my LDS roots are renwed. My opinion of Pres. Monson is softening.

  • Justan
    Nov. 15, 2009 7:06 p.m.

    @Anonymous: I have had my name removed from the records. It was a lengthy process, and I had to threaten legal action to get it done, (I didn't want to go there). And I didn't leave just because of what people said. I was threatened with excommunication at 16 because someone from my school went to their bishop and told them I was sexually active with a fellow male classmate. It wasn't true. She was upset that he didn't like her "that way". But there are many reasons I left. I won't bring them up because I don't want this thread to go to that issue again. But I'm glad you don't let it bother you, none of us should take anything personally unless it personally affects our daily life. Thank you for your response! Have a wonderful day.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 15, 2009 4:15 p.m.

    Justan:: You do know that unless you have had your name removed from the church records you are still considered a member. I am an lds person and if I had let what other lds people have said to me, bother me i would have been gone a long time ago. but it just don't let what they say bother me anymore.

  • Justan
    Nov. 15, 2009 12:45 p.m.

    I am a gay man living in Utah County. I have lived in SLC. I was raised LDS, and recently resigned from the Church. However, I hold no hard feelings toward my fellow LDS brothers and sisters. At one point, I had much bitterness because of the actions of a few LDS people. I understand where LDS people can feel bitterness to those few gay people who constantly attack the Church. I have been to many protests, but never because I hate the Church, only upset, because I stand for my rights. No matter the intentions of the Church on backing this ordinance, (I'm sure they're good) I am happy, and grateful for their support. Wherever I or (we, the GLBT comm.) can gain support, is progress. I am so thankful for all of you here who support my basic human rights, and still love your Church. This is what we need, more love and acceptance on both sides, and less hate. I am very happy and thankful for the support we are getting from those of you who love unconditionally. I will always do my best to respect you as well.

  • David Cutts
    Nov. 15, 2009 8:12 a.m.

    It's hard to read some of the comments here and not conclude that the gays were right about the motivations behind Prop 8. If you think Prop 8 was a victory and this is a step back, then clearly Prop 8 was about hating gays, not about protecting mariage.

  • Confused in Sandy
    Nov. 14, 2009 10:43 p.m.

    After the victory we had in with Prop 8 this is just sad and big step back. I cannot believe what the church leadership has done with this. Seems like a big step back after a solid victory on California. I am confused as to what is expected of me.

  • This is so sad
    Nov. 14, 2009 9:40 p.m.

    Your church made a statement that they stand behind Salt Lake City;s new ordinance to protect the housing and employment rights of all citizen's, and you are upset?!? May I suggest you pray for a more loving attitude towards all of your brothers and sisters. Please pray to accept what your leaders have proclaimed here, or maybe you really don't believe what you confess.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Nov. 14, 2009 7:12 p.m.

    Reading the law, Deseret Book and all other properties fully owned by Deseret Management would be exempted. If a Church owns 60% stock in a car wash it would not be exempted. My interpretation of religious to include schools with a religious mission without affiliation with a particular Church would hold up in light of various court rulings on the term. Charitable and non-profit organizations are exempted from the housing rule, as are all Public and Private dormitories of public and private educational institutions.
    The employment law also exempts those with fewer than 15 employees and "expressive associations". The 4 unt exemption is slightly confusing, expecially the long provisions on use of agents in selling. Since not many people have griped "I don't want to sell my home to so and so" just about renting it, the fact of the matter is as long as your basement is no more than three units don't worry. On the other hand if you rent your attic, half the room on your main floor, and two units in the basement, you might be considered since you live in a 5th unit in your house.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Nov. 14, 2009 6:56 p.m.

    To the 4:53 commentator,
    The legislation excludes ALL religious organizations, it does not "exclude the Church" per se. It excludes Muslims, every Christian denomination, Jews (especially Orthodox Jews who are about the only ones who would use it) and so on. Based on court rulings it also excludes privvate religious schools and other para-church organizations that have a religious focus but are not connected with a particular religion.
    However, I am not sure all of the Church's operations are excluded. Many of the operations controlled by Deseret Management Corporation might fall under these rules. I am not sure though, since I have not read the actual ordiance.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 14, 2009 4:53 p.m.

    This is such a public relations game the Church is playing! The legislation excludes the Church! It does not impact them at all! So they have nothing to lose by endorsing this. Pathetic!

  • My opinon
    Nov. 14, 2009 4:35 p.m.

    I believe that this decision by the LDS church makes their stand even stronger, not weaker. It makes it clear what it is all about. We are against any change in the traditional family. Even though we do not agree with the gay position, we must treat all people with respect. Even though their actions are considered to be very wrong, we can't change them and we must treat them with respect. This is not softening the church's stand. This is clarifying it. The church will never change it's position on marriage. Of this I am 100% sure.
    I still would never allow one of them to teach their ways to my children - or to me.

  • Millennial Mormon
    Nov. 14, 2009 1:21 p.m.

    See my post on Millennial Mormonism Today. I fully support this step towards tolerance and peace. We as Mormons would want to be treated in a kind and tolerant way and we should do the same with the LGBT community. It is the Christ-like thing to do. Let's not be Nicodemus Mormons!

  • Ron Carter
    Nov. 14, 2009 11:23 a.m.

    I agree in whole with the decision of the LDS chruch. I am a landlord and agree.

    Ron Folsom CA

  • ron carter
    Nov. 14, 2009 11:17 a.m.

    Everyone needs shelter food and love. I stand firm in pro creation, for without it all would surley be lost. The world may repeat/feel or may not repeat/feel what I say here. However no one will circumvent the lord now or ever. May God Bless all.
    Our Father in Heaven created us, we need to perfect ourselves in which we are individually reasonable for.

    Ron Folsom California,

    GOD be with YOU!!!
    CTR

  • RE:Christa Jeanne
    Nov. 14, 2009 10:27 a.m.

    You state: "Your race is defined by what you ARE - how you're born. There's nothing you can do to change that."

    It is interesting that you feel that homosexuality is a choice, when even the LDS church no longer believes this.

    Have you noticed that the Church no longer says that same-sex attraction is a sin? Now the official stance is that only acting upon those attractions are a sin.

    Why the change? Years ago, the BYU Psychology Department/Clinic-sponsored research studies that included electric-shock therapy experiments to try to cure homosexuality. The studies examined aspects of homosexuality, its origins, and its modifiability.

    The results of these studies were communicated to Salt Lake and the Brethren, and it is because the results indicated that homosexuality may be inborn and is extremely resistant to the most powerful forms of electro- and chemical- therapies that the Brethren have taken the official stand they have taken. Officially, same sex attraction is not a sin—only homosexual behavior is now considered a sin in the Church.

  • Steve Smith
    Nov. 13, 2009 7:13 p.m.

    I am neither gay nor Mormon. As an impartial observer, I have to say I don't see a lot of Christian tolerance on display here.

  • mark
    Nov. 13, 2009 6:39 p.m.

    @Vince
    Temple marriages can also be between a wife in good standing and her deceased husband who never went to ANYTHING concerning the Church....that's what my grandmother did a year after she was widowed

  • Vince
    Nov. 13, 2009 5:41 p.m.

    Person with an English degree | 4:32 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009

    Dictionaries extend the definition of marriage to include same-sex marriage also (where it is legal, of course).

    Those would be civil and some religious marriages. The churches performing religious marriages do so on their own accord, not because anyone is suing them.

    Temple marriages, since you mentioned it is much more limited to just than a man and a woman and much more limited than a religious marriage. They both need to be people of good-standing in the church and they need to receive a recommend.

  • Yes I can...Can you follow law?
    Nov. 13, 2009 5:10 p.m.

    3:56,

    Yes, I can separate my faith from my countries laws. I think what the LDS church did in this instance is a perfect example of that. Marriage's definition can be protected while upholding everyone's Civil Rights.

    So my country can protect civil rights without changing the definition of marriage, too. In fact, marriage upheld as between a man and a woman has not discriminated against civil rights since the countries founding of this great nation's laws. So the law and my belief haven't differed much for more than 200 years, in this regard. Can you separate your beliefs from your arguments about law?

  • mark
    Nov. 13, 2009 4:48 p.m.

    @Person with English degree

    Get a law degree and some geography lessons too.
    MA IA, VT, CT, and NH

    Have marriages, not gay marriage and straight marriage....just MARRIAGE.

  • mark
    Nov. 13, 2009 4:42 p.m.

    At societal Impact

    Imagine if Catholic and Protestant churches got tax exemptions from the government, and the government called not taxing Mormon church CHARITY, and only covered most of the tax exemptions the other religions received.

    What would Mormon's response be? Would equal coverage be enough or would you also insist your church's exemptions not be called charity?

  • Person with an English degree
    Nov. 13, 2009 4:32 p.m.

    Marriage whether it is in the temple or civilly is still a union between a man and a woman. The basic definition is not undermined in that sense. Gay marriage if defined correctly involves a gay person forming a union with a person of the opposite sex if you want to get technical about the meaning of words.

    gay = same sex attraction person
    marriage = union of a man and a woman

    gay marriage, therefore must equal a person attracted to the same sex having a wedding with someone of the opposite sex.

    Usage dictates a different but wholly contradictory meaning by standards of English Language practice. In other words the term gay marriage doesn't make any sense.

  • Societal impact > you understand
    Nov. 13, 2009 4:26 p.m.

    Pagan,

    Equality isn't about making unequal actions equal to each other. Marriage and the "other" aren't equal to each other.

    Why again do gays need to "broaden the term" of marriage? Why isn't the term Civil Union good enough? Or Gay Union? etc. etc.?

    If homosexual relations are just as good as marriage then can't those unions stand alone on their own merits with their own name and own legislation? You treat yourselves like second class citizens.

    When women fought for their rights we didn't just start calling them men. You don't "broaden" the definition of words in the law you "broaden" the law. Would it have changed me as a man if we changed the term to include females? No! But not making an important distinction in the uniqueness of people and relationships diminishes from the use of those terms. It confuses and distorts reality for all.

    You seriously can't see how "broadening a term" not only changes the meaning but makes a word something that it is not. It is definitely damaging. Hot is not cold. Good is not evil. Light is not dark. Gay marriage is not marriage.

  • Pagan
    Nov. 13, 2009 4:15 p.m.

    'Yes, everyone should treat everyone as first class citizens and leave sexual attraction/life doesn't even need to be part of the conversation. But...'

    Right there.
    Right there is where people claim all is equal HOWEVER the gay community is less of a human being and should not be allowed marriage as a hetersexual person.

    'Why should we change the definition of our marriages?'

    Your not.

    Please give me one example of how a gay marriage will affect one law, one right, one ability of a straight marriage.

    There is none.

    That whole argument is based on the PRINCIPLE of marriage. Not the fact.

    If we're going to the basis of marriage, women would still be sold as property.

    I think many argee that is no longer the case.

    If you want to stick to the IDEA of a marriage, please,

    keep it in your head.

    The rest of us would like to live our lives now.

  • mark
    Nov. 13, 2009 4:00 p.m.

    Marriage was merely a financial arrangement between one man and HIS PROPERTY.
    Marriages were arranged through most of human history by parents, with the two people being married, having no say in the marriage.
    The woman was the property of her father, he gives a dowery to UNLOAD her, it's a bribe. The woman switches from the property of her father, to the property of her husband.
    Several Ancient societies Greece, Persia, Macedonia, and Rome had financial arrangements between same sex couples too. Including a dowery the younger man's family provided the older man. There were also divisions of property based on their unions, if one partner died.
    St Bacchus and St Serge were married by the early Christian church, as were other male couples.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 13, 2009 3:56 p.m.

    "Homosexuality itself will never be acceptable by those who believe in a higher law, but with the law of the land no one's trying to stop you from practicing homosexuality, just from changing what marriage is to the rest of us. Why should we change the definition of our marriages?"

    Can you separate your faith from your countries laws?

    Look at it like civil marriage v. temple marriage.

    Just because the state has civil marriages does not in any way change or dilute or mock your temple marriage.

    The same for gay marriage. It is a civil law and will be dealt with by civil authorities.

    You have not had any belief forced upon you. You will STILL believe in temple marriages. Life will not change and law abiding citizens are treated equally under the law.

    Easy.

  • Counterfeit marriage affects all
    Nov. 13, 2009 3:33 p.m.

    1:58,

    You must be one of those who "do not know the difference between acceptable by their beliefs and acceptable by law." Equal rights already exist for all, homosexual or otherwise, but for some reason you believe that a new law should be put in place to match your belief in homomarriage, but that's a contradiction in terms.

    Homosexuality itself is acceptable by the law of the land. Yes, everyone should treat everyone as first class citizens and leave sexual attraction/life doesn't even need to be part of the conversation.

    But changing the definition of marriage from its original and intended meaning as a union between a man and a woman is still not acceptable by most state laws. If you are law-abiding you will quit trying to force your beliefs on us and make what isn't acceptable by law, become acceptable.

    Homosexuality itself will never be acceptable by those who believe in a higher law, but with the law of the land no one's trying to stop you from practicing homosexuality, just from changing what marriage is to the rest of us. Why should we change the definition of our marriages?

  • Adam and Even = first marriage
    Nov. 13, 2009 3:16 p.m.

    "It originally meant just two people of consenting age who are not family."

    Just keep telling yourself that. Better yet, try explaining that to your Maker.

  • MPT
    Nov. 13, 2009 3:15 p.m.

    A pact to support the gays is not in the best interest. They will take and take and take until they can finally marry in a desecrate the Temples. This was a bad move and one that the gays will just take advantage of.

  • mark
    Nov. 13, 2009 2:45 p.m.

    The laughable response that IT'S NEVER ENOUGH to please LGBTs.

    EXCUSE me this is the VERY FIRST baby step the LDS church has EVER made towards my community, which didn't entail calling us HOMOSEXUALS (which none of us call ourselves), or pervert, or sodomite or saying we are ill pschologically,, or abnormal or child mollestors, or equal to incest, beastiality, or polygamy.
    This baby step probably was unneeded for the ordinance to pass....anyway.
    So get over saying how you have given, and given, and given to those selfish gays and it's just not ENOUGH. It only makes you look foolish, and doesn't mend a thing with LGBTs.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 13, 2009 1:58 p.m.

    "B/c more than equal rights, it is about wanting unseemly actions recognized as equally acceptable."

    Ok, maybe I found the problem.

    Some people do not know the difference between acceptable by their beliefs and acceptable by law.

    Homosexuality is ALREADY acceptable by law. It has been for years. Because of that, homosexuals do NOT have to have your approval. You are free to feel about them any way you want. You just are not free to treat them as second class citizens. They are not. They are law-abiding, tax paying, American citizens.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 13, 2009 1:49 p.m.

    "How does changing the definition/meaning of marriage not attack what marriage is?"

    It is like civil marriage and temple marriage. Does having civil marriages attack temple marriages? Why would having gay marriages attack other marriages? Merely a broadening of the term.

    (Besides, Since 2001, there has been gay marriage in this world. A little too late to fight for the word, isn't it?)



    "Or not change the meaning of every other important societal definition--like family?"


    Is an aunt raising her nephews a family? Yes. Is two octagenarians that just married a family? Yes.
    Is two gay men raising 3 crack babies a family? Yes.

    Why is your defination so narrow? All families deserve to be protected and cherished.

  • Pagan
    Nov. 13, 2009 1:33 p.m.

    'Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. That's just what the word means.' - 1:04 p.m.

    Unacceptable, that's what the word means NOW. It originally meant just two people of consenting age who are not family.

    Funny how those laws changed recently and every claims that's how it's always been?

    'How does changing the definition/meaning of marriage not attack what marriage is?'

    Because this marriage does not affect yours! Your trying to say a gay marriage affects yours? Give me a real-life example! Your trying to deny others a very real marriage based on your very made principals.

    '...use words that better define them...'

    What, like abomination? Not human?

    If this WERE about equality with you, then there would be no hesitation. As yet, you still view the other as not good as your own.

    And that, is truly sad. As I take no issue with any straight persons marriage against my life.

  • Unacceptable
    Nov. 13, 2009 1:04 p.m.

    The debate always comes back to the same point:

    Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. That's just what the word means. That definition already includes all of humanity, unless you exclude yourself by not participating.

    So work on changing the law if you want a union outside of marriage recognized more by the law.

    Civil Rights for unions outside of marriage is a matter all its own. The LDS church is the only organization I know of who is sensible enough to recognize that Civil Rights can be granted everyone while still protecting the definition of marriage.

    Ask yourself:

    How does changing the definition/meaning of marriage not attack what marriage is? Or not change the meaning of every other important societal definition--like family?

    When you know how important families are you don't try to undermine their meaning in any way.

    Also ask:

    Why do gay marriage advocates want to change the definition of words in a law instead of seeking to change inclusion in the law (use words that better define them)?

    B/c more than equal rights, it is about wanting unseemly actions recognized as equally acceptable.

  • To Born that Way
    Nov. 13, 2009 11:47 a.m.

    "I despise the idea that I have no choice because I have a homoerotic thought. It is manipulative and heavy-handed rhetoric that casts me as a victim who cannot contain my inclinations. There are many reasons to keep such matters private."

    Many people actually are bi-sexual and are able to lean towards the heterosexual and acceptable behavior.

    Believe me, there are those who, no matter how hard they pray, how many times they fast, no matter what are going to be attracted ONLY to the same sex. Even the LDS church admits that some gays will not be able to change in this lifetime.

    Be a little more charitable, can't you? All of you!

  • Pagan
    Nov. 13, 2009 11:45 a.m.

    'The public gay response has been despicably backhanded, skeptical, and shameful--that continual push to destroy marriage.' - 11:10 a.m.

    Born, please give me an example of a straight marriage being completely destroyed by a seperate gay marriage.

    I'll wait...

  • Observer
    Nov. 13, 2009 11:37 a.m.

    Bravo to the church for taking a positive stand. Lets see more of this action so we can clean up the PR fiasco of Prop. 8

  • Pagan
    Nov. 13, 2009 11:23 a.m.

    'i doubt very much that there are any gay bishops in the church.' - 10:04 a.m.

    Good thing that's a doubt. And not presented as a fact. Regardless if someone is in the closet, that does not make anyone less gay.

    Now, as for open gay bishops... ok!

    Gene Robinson, go ahead, google it.

    You can be gay and religious. Many are just not given the chance.

  • Pagan
    Nov. 13, 2009 11:10 a.m.

    'This exact same article was commented on only twice where I live in North Carolina.'

    Well, it's been commented on 321 times & counting in Utah.

    And if we're talking recognition, gay marriage is allowed in the Netherlands.

  • Born that Way
    Nov. 13, 2009 11:10 a.m.

    Sadly many good people struggle with the chains of their choices, thinking all the while they are being true to themselves. Many young people have an assortment of sexual thoughts as they grow and develop. By perpetuating the idea that because one has seemingly inborn budding tendencies to view sexuality and hypersexuality through the lense either gay or straight has done untold damage to many souls.

    I despise the idea that I have no choice because I have a homoerotic thought. It is manipulative and heavy-handed rhetoric that casts me as a victim who cannot contain my inclinations. There are many reasons to keep such matters private. And having lustful thoughts does not entitle me to unethical or intolerant behavior.

    Repeatedly the LDS church has shown a willingness to accomodate differing points of view where they do not impact revealed church doctrines, for which I'm grateful. The public gay response has been despicably backhanded, skeptical, and shameful--that continual push to destroy marriage. It is never enough. Sadly it only demonstrates their bigotry, and a desire that those in their community that think differently do so quietly or not at all.

  • ColleenHarper
    Nov. 13, 2009 11:08 a.m.

    I would be very interested to see what political donations were made and by whom in the Washington State referendum for "Everything But Marriage." Which way (if either) did the LDS go? Did they support or oppose this referendum? After all, the title tells the whole story.

    Having said that, I would like to know how this modern support for gay and lesbian non-discrimination coincides with past history. Is it a case of revisionism (as I suspect) or was the LDS church in support of gays and lesbians prior to the 1969 Stonewall incidents.

    And I haven't even asked if transgender people are to be shown the same non-discrimination protections.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 13, 2009 11:07 a.m.

    There are gay Bishops in the Church. I know, wink!

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 13, 2009 10:25 a.m.

    This exact same article was commented on only twice where I live in North Carolina.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 13, 2009 10:04 a.m.

    i doubt very much that there are any gay bishops in the church

  • re -- John Pack Lambert | 8:54
    Nov. 13, 2009 9:44 a.m.

    ["The law is a teacher, and marriage is not merrly allowing but proactively granting government recognition"]

    yeah John - you're right. it's like a drivers license... kids just can't wait to sign up and get their certificate...

    where do you get these bizarre ideas? just because something is allowed doesn't mean people that aren't inclined to use it will suddenly decide they want to. you REALLY think non-gay people are going to marry same sex simply because it is allowed?

    if you would give it ANY thought whatsoever, you would realize that all these laws and changes for gays is simply so gays - real gay people - can come out of the closet and stop hiding from society. NO ONE that is NOT gay is going to say they are simply due to peer pressure... NO ONE IS GAY ON PURPOSE!! why is that so hard for you to understand.

    if there were purple people, and no one liked them, so they hid their color with makeup so they could fit in, always wondering who was judging them - and then we made laws so they couldn't be picked on - wouldn't that be a good_thing?

  • John Pack Lambert
    Nov. 13, 2009 9:37 a.m.

    Now I really wonder why I do not double read. In my last post I somehow thought the post I was speaking of was 8:54 AM, but I looked again, and it is PM, so that is when I wrote it.
    I have some very specific questions on the current law.
    Can you refuse to rent to a man and a woman if they are not married to each other? Can you refuse to rent to any married couples at all? Can you make having sex in an apartment grounds for kicking a tenant out? Can you specify non-marital sex, our would you have to ban any sex at all?

  • to -- amy | 7:31 p.m
    Nov. 13, 2009 9:33 a.m.

    ["So sad that we are so worried about pleasing man that we have forget why we are even here. The primary goal in life must be to fear God and keep his commandments"]

    and honestly, amy, you scare me talking like that. You think you are on earth to fear for your whole life? That's why man created gods like Zeus in the first place - to make you live in fear. I'll never understand how anyone can worship someone or something that they live in fear of. It makes absolutely no sense. I guess it's like kidnap victims sticking up for their abductor after a certain amopunt of time - but for you it boils down to your upbringing.

    I feel bad for you, living in fear. just don't force it onto others.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Nov. 13, 2009 9:32 a.m.

    The 4:17 post is a false post. It was not made by the same person who made the majority of John Pack Lambert posts.
    Also, since one of my previous posts was removed, the 8:54AM (which reflects when it was processed, not when I sent it in, what late in the evening, about 11:00 my time, or 9:00 Utah time) apology for its shrillness will not make full sense, because the original post no longer can be found.
    Sufficite it to say I have realized that even people who seem set in the ways of hate can be talked to and reasoned with, even though it often is more easy to just attack them.

  • @ Different Light
    Nov. 13, 2009 9:18 a.m.

    How exactly do they require that gay bishops remain faithful to their wives?

    Have you heard of closet behavior and denial?

  • Pagan
    Nov. 13, 2009 8:18 a.m.

    'This law supports the gay movement and I am against this movement.' - shocked.

    Why? No one is against your movement.

  • shocked
    Nov. 13, 2009 1:47 a.m.

    This law supports the gay movement and I am against this movement. There is no such thing as an unaccountable act. What do two gay people see in it? 1+1=0? The flaw in their argument is the FALL of man! Darwin missed it, Korihor missed it and so do the people of this time. Man believes that things were always how they are now. This is the problem with radiometric dating, evolution and uniformitarianism.

  • Christy
    Nov. 13, 2009 1:30 a.m.

    I've tried 4 times now to post my response to the person who said my accusations of bigotry were dangerously close to 'it's sister hypocrisy'. I don't know, maybe I should have began my post with a knock-knock joke.
    In my lost post I copy/pasted every ugly anti-gay slur posted here against the proposed legislation. Guess it was too mind-blowing to package it all together in one post.
    (Also, there's been plenty of nasty comments since my original post.)

    Show your true colors people.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Nov. 12, 2009 8:54 p.m.

    No up until the false apology post all the posts had been made by me.
    I think I may have gone a bit over the top in one of them, in attacking those who oppose fair housing legislation, but I should have explained it more fully, and then my position would have worked better.
    If these people are, as many of them actually are, those who so loadly proclaimed they followed the Prophet on Prop 8 than why did they not believe the Church when it said it did not oppose fair housing laws?
    If you agree with Elder Oaks that people should not be fired for donating to a political campaign, than why should they be fired for sexual activity not on the job?
    I clearly stand by my opinions about the Massachusetts issue. The law is a teacher, and marriage is not merrly allowing but proactively granting government recognition.

  • amy
    Nov. 12, 2009 7:31 p.m.

    So sad that we are so worried about pleasing man that we have forget why we are even here. The primary goal in life must be to fear God and keep his commandments. Galatians 5:16 say's so I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. In today's society this is so hard for us to follow but it is God's word do we doubt Him or what he say's do we really think we know more or that this was just back in the day I pray for our Country and our children that have to come against all the sinful things this world has to offer.. All I can do is please my Lord and Savior help us today to remember your truths.....

  • TO -- Molli | 3:35 p.m
    Nov. 12, 2009 6:12 p.m.

    ["are we defining "marriage" so narrowly that all it means to us is the certificate that a couple receives when they are married"]

    yes. that's all this is about. Gays just want the certificate so they can have the same rights as you. it's not a big deal - i don't know why people are making it one..

  • Just Sayin'
    Nov. 12, 2009 5:57 p.m.

    JPL, don't try so hard to be a defender of the faith. If it it true then people will realize it. The vast vast majority of people don't believe the church has any truth and you make it even harder.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 12, 2009 5:30 p.m.

    Molli:::The churcg is and always will be against gay marriage. They however are not against gays having a job and a place to live.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Nov. 12, 2009 4:17 p.m.

    I am not a liar. Quit using my name and smearing my reputation. I reiterate that the Deseret News needs to have contributors log in and validate thier identity. This would stop the ten some post that were attributed to may name in an attempt to discredit myself and the LDS Church.

  • To Molli
    Nov. 12, 2009 3:55 p.m.

    "are we defining "marriage" so narrowly that all it means to us is the certificate that a couple receives when they are married?"

    In a word, Yes.

    We cannot legislate laws banning the practice of this sin in this country. It was ruled unconstitutional.

    We are defending the defination of marriage to mean the legal union of one man and one woman.

  • Pagan
    Nov. 12, 2009 3:41 p.m.

    Knock, knock...

    Whose there?

    A couple of gay guys wanting to get married in city hall!

    But...my morals!

  • @LDS In Washington
    Nov. 12, 2009 3:38 p.m.

    "I was disappointed in the church when it spent so much effort on Prop 8 and ignored an opportunity to oppose Physician Assisted Suicide in this state... I thought standing against killing yourself was a greater moral imperative."

    ----------

    This is a very interesting thing to say, "LDS-In-Washington." I would suggest, however, that when it comes to choosing between life as a homosexual, and death by suicide, the Church and many LDS families would prefer the suicide. Take, for instance, what may be the highest-profile gay Mormon suicide in recent years: Stuart Matis.

    In the book "In Quiet Desperation," written in part by his parents, they say: "Although losing our son was difficult, it has been comforting to know that he was faithful to his temple covenants," and later, "Stuart... continues to be a schoolmaster for us. How grateful we are for his integrity and courage to remain faithful!"

    Is suicide not a violation of temple covenants? Is self-murder an example of integrity, courage, and remaining faithful? I can't judge Stuart, but these comments suggest that (for some LDS) it is better to be dead than gay! Is killing yourself REALLY the lesser sin?

  • hey Knock Knock.... |
    Nov. 12, 2009 3:36 p.m.

    How many Baptists have married in the temple? None, but they are a protected group.

    How many Mormons (another protected group) have had their marriage in a Cathedral? None. Catholics are protected in their right to only marry catholics in their churches.

    Why do you think this will change?

    How many gays have even asked to be married in the Boston temple? None. Why would they? Alberta temple? None. Both of those areas have gay marriage for over 5 years,


    Why do you think this will change?

    Aren't you fear mongering?

  • Molli
    Nov. 12, 2009 3:35 p.m.

    To the couple of people who tried to help me understand. I am still confused by the church's position here. If we are encouraged to not support legislation which goes against God's commandments, which is why legislation allowing same gender marriage is not supported, its no stretch whatsoever in my mind that supporting legislation which provides protections to gay to co-habitate is not much different than supporting gay marriage. Come on ..... are we defining "marriage" so narrowly that all it means to us is the certificate that a couple receives when they are married? Or are we going to define marriage in the spirit in which the word is intended. I am NOT anti-gay; I am just trying to understand how the church can support this kind of legislation. This just doesn't make any sense to me at all ... hopefully the GA's will explain the distinction one of these days.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Nov. 12, 2009 3:26 p.m.

    To the 1:59 commentator,
    In case you missed it, I support the law as passed by Salt Lake City.
    My point was that the claim that MOST states other than Utah have such ordinances is FALSE.

  • mark
    Nov. 12, 2009 3:14 p.m.

    Here's a good rule of thumb
    If you would need to rent an apartment to a Catholic or Baptist, or hire a Catholic or a Baptist...then you will now have to allow a LGBT person to live there, or work there.

  • mark
    Nov. 12, 2009 3:11 p.m.

    MN my home state had ENDA statewide and was overturned.
    I was mistaken saying "most" states, but the 12 states protect 40% of Americans, and 100 Cities have ENDAs too.

  • re China
    Nov. 12, 2009 3:05 p.m.

    A 2008 survey by sexologist Li Yinhe shows a mixed picture of public attitudes towards gays and lesbians in China. 91% of respondents said they agreed with homosexuals having equal employment rights, while over 80% of respondents agreed that heterosexuals and homosexuals were "equal individuals". On the other hand, a slight majority disagreed with the proposition that an openly-gay person should be a school teacher, and 40% of respondents said that homosexuality was "completely wrong".


    Gay marriage legslation has been brought before their National Peoples Congress since 2001. Nothing has passed yet.


    In the early dynasties, homosexuality was not viewed as abnormal and celebrated in poetry and art. The devastating event for Chinese homosexuals was, ironically, the enlightenment that came after the Self-Strengthening Movement, when homophobia was imported to China along with Western science and philosophy.

  • To truth is eternal
    Nov. 12, 2009 3:03 p.m.

    "I always find it interesting how when someone is living in sin, and the scriptures clearly state it is a sin, and someone points it out as such, he is immediately labeled a bigot, judgemental, uncompassionate, and old fashioned. What's more, because more and more people are living the sin, they rationalize that it's no longer a sin? Clearly, we are living in a time when "evil is good and good is evil" in the eyes of many people."


    You can believe that it is a sin. You can tell anyone you want to that they are sinning.

    BUT we are talking about the law - US secular law that does not favor any belief. Everyone (not just those that you deem righteous) is equal under the law. The 14th amendment guarentees that.

    Can you see the difference?

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 12, 2009 3:00 p.m.

    John Pack Lambert | 1:46 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009
    To the 1:08 commentator,
    When the Church proactively makes every policy possible to keep missionaries from in any way participating in political action, and add is not a parable, it is a lie.

    It was SYMBOLISM, John. If you ask people in CA who those young men are in white shirts and suit pants, who do you think they say? Mormons. They were using that image to invoke that thought process so that the viewers would think, "Mormons" - not missionaries.

    Not a lie, just a parable.


    Accept it.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 12, 2009 2:55 p.m.

    To UM,

    Bigotry is irrational. No explanation is possible or required. Bigots, like yourself, do not live in a real world.

  • Pagan
    Nov. 12, 2009 2:52 p.m.

    'But the constitution also allows for the free exercise of religion, conscience, business, association, speech, etc. as long as it does not interfere with another person's right to the same pursuit.' - 1:20 p.m.

    So, firing a gay person does not interfere with that person's ability to do business? Association? Speech?

    You KNOW what these mean, right?

    'My gripe is with more government intrusion--I want government out of my private life, period.'

    But it's ok in mine.

    Thanks for showing why the rules should only apply to you and not the gay community.

    You help make the case why these laws are needed.

  • Truth is Eternal
    Nov. 12, 2009 2:27 p.m.

    I always find it interesting how when someone is living in sin, and the scriptures clearly state it is a sin, and someone points it out as such, he is immediately labeled a bigot, judgemental, uncompassionate, and old fashioned. What's more, because more and more people are living the sin, they rationalize that it's no longer a sin? Clearly, we are living in a time when "evil is good and good is evil" in the eyes of many people.

    In truth however, nothing has changed. The Savior still loves them, but the guilt remains and it will always be there until such time as the sin is fully repented of.

    God is unchangeable. If he were, he would cease to be God. As compassionate and loving as he is, He does not change his position on sin simply because more and more people engage in that sin. And because He is an eternal and loving God, his love is never diminished when we choose not to follow Him.
    As in the case of all sin, this too can be overcome and repented of. It may take a lifetime of endurance and faith, but it can be done.

  • Um, gays, please explain...
    Nov. 12, 2009 2:02 p.m.

    If you as gays say that gay marriage is a purely RELIGIOUS thing and start bashing religions, how is it that the very ATHEIST People's Republic of China does not allows "civil unions" of homosexuals or "marriage" between homosexuals.

    Please explain the world's abhorrence of homosexual acts and marriage. It is because it is wrong, unnatural and quite frankly disgusts the majority of those in the world.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 12, 2009 1:59 p.m.

    John Pack Lambert | 1:25 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009
    To the 1:00 commentator,
    "You are right, I did some interesting math. However, my point that 12 is not EVEN CLOSE to a majority still stands."

    ----------

    20 years ago, it was 0%. Now it's 24%. Given more time, I think you will be surprised at how quickly this changes.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Nov. 12, 2009 1:46 p.m.

    To the 1:08 commentator,
    When the Church proactively makes every policy possible to keep missionaries from in any way participating in political action, and add is not a parable, it is a lie.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Nov. 12, 2009 1:25 p.m.

    To the 1:00 commentator,
    You are right, I did some interesting math. However, my point that 12 is not EVEN CLOSE to a majority still stands.

  • Re: Pagan
    Nov. 12, 2009 1:20 p.m.

    Being a jerk and a bigot is a right. We live in a free country that allows people to be whatever they want, thank Heaven as that is the very basis of the argument against discrimination. But the constitution also allows for the free exercise of religion, conscience, business, association, speech, etc. as long as it does not interfere with another person's right to the same pursuit. Public laws and services must be non-discriminatory as they are shared by the group. But private business, associations, dwellings, etc.?

    I don't believe this is a religious issue, it is a social policy issue that has been voted on by the representatives of SLC. They chose, through their representatives, to make these laws and they have that right and will live with the consequences.

    My gripe is with more government intrusion--I want government out of my private life, period. (And I agree that marriage should be something done in churches, and civil unions should be the only social policy offered by government to cohabitants if at all.)

    It is not about right or left, it is about protecting individual freedom from either one in the majority.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Nov. 12, 2009 1:09 p.m.

    To the 5:12 commentator,
    Religious organizations are ONLY exempted from the religious component of non-discrimination in Title 7. For people who qualify as "pastors" (including teachers whose main subject is religion) the pastors exemption makes all rules unapplicable, but for positions like janitor the firing must be based on religion. However, this is how the group interprets religion. The classic case was the 1987 upholding of the Church firing a janitor at the Deseret Gym for failure to hold a current temple reccomend, which was a condition of his employment.
    In another case a Christian school did not ask an employees religion before highering them, but their firing an employee for wearing an Islamic head scarf was upheld on the grounds that they could regulate the religious behavior of their employees at school.
    So probably religious groups could win an exemption to this law if it were not written there, but we should seek laws that incorporate the principals of religious freedom.

  • Oh John...
    Nov. 12, 2009 1:08 p.m.

    "This also cuts to why the add showing the missionary rampage was a total lie. Missionaries do not in any way get involved in political issues. It was lay members not missionaries involved."

    It was a PARABLE, John. You remember what a parable is, don't you? It is when you tell a story (that didn't really happen) to prove a point.

    The missionaries symbolized the LDS church. The ripping apart of the marriage license represented how the gays felt about the church's involvement in Prop 8.


    Really, a lie?

  • Dear John
    Nov. 12, 2009 1:04 p.m.

    "You need to go watch the NPR piece where they interview a middle schol teacher in Massachusetts who explains because same-sex marriage is recognized in Massachusetts she feels able to explain lesbian sex in full detail."

    Was that her opinion or the school boards? She could get in trouble if she does that without the school boards approval.

    She, of course, can voice her opinion.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 12, 2009 1:00 p.m.


    John Pack Lambert | 12:16 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009
    To the 11:55 commentator,
    12 states is not "most other states". There are 48 states that lack a state-wide ENDA.
    Beyond this, many ENDAs lack the clear excemptions for religious groups that are so key to preserving religious freedom.


    12+48 = 60, John.

    How about 38 States?

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 12, 2009 12:55 p.m.

    John Pack Lambert | 11:25 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009
    To the 9:02 commentator,
    Just keep this action in reserve. The next time someone complains about the Church publicly supporting man/woman marriage and says it violates "the seperation of Church and State" ask why the Church's actions in SLC were not comdemned for the same reason.


    Go look at the SL Tribune. Plenty of condemnation for the church's actions there.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Nov. 12, 2009 12:52 p.m.

    To the 2:18 commentator,
    You need to go watch the NPR piece where they interview a middle schol teacher in Massachusetts who explains because same-sex marriage is recognized in Massachusetts she feels able to explain lesbian sex in full detail.
    That said, the "out-of-state" Mormons gripe is a lie. The Letter was read only in sacrament meetings in California. It was the anti-8 people who publicized it nation wide before it was even read.
    This also cuts to why the add showing the missionary rampage was a total lie. Missionaries do not in any way get involved in political issues. It was lay members not missionaries involved. There is a reason why on the Church website they showed a talk between Elder Bednar and some young-adults about these issues, Elder Bednar was BORN in California.
    The fireside, with such Californias as Elder Cook, was broadcast to California and also to locations where many Californians were temporarily attending school. You may disagree with people away at school still voting at home, but until California bans their vote they are not "out-of-state" interlopers.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Nov. 12, 2009 12:39 p.m.

    Erin Eldrige thankyou for your comments. Even more thanks for using your name.
    In some ways I am a bit surprised that we have not yet seen a right-wing anti-Mormon attack on this stance from either fundamentalist polygamist types or from Evangelical Christian types.
    I also hope no one is such a low life as to attack you personally. If they do, just remember that Jesus was also persecuted for speaking the truth, so you are in good company.
    Thankyou again for your comments. You are a truly courageous person, not only for having overcome your past challenges, but for openly sharing them in a situation where some delight in any attack they can throw at another.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Nov. 12, 2009 12:28 p.m.

    If I am right, the Church will actually be affected by this law. While non-profit and religious activities by the Church, from education to welfare to the employees who maintain Church buildings and temples, will be exempted, the for profit businesses the Church owns while probably fall under the non-discrimination rule. I am unsure, but it seems the Deseret News and Deseret Book will be affected by it possibly. positions like editors and reporters not really, but store clerks and printer operators possibly.
    If someone can say whether I am right or not that would be very helpful.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Nov. 12, 2009 12:21 p.m.

    To the 12:27 commentator,
    You probably should have read the whole post you were responding to. The person clearly delineated three groups of people who deal with same-gender attraction. He made it clear that those who feel same-gender attraction but marry those of the other gender can be full members of the Church.
    I wonder if "celibate" is the best word. While indulging in gay-pornography would not in general get someone excommunicated, it would be sinful. I guess my point is we have to remember that celibate might not convey the right meanings to some people. Not that any pornography is acceptable, just to say that actual sexual intercorse is not the only issue.

  • Phil
    Nov. 12, 2009 12:16 p.m.

    If the Church feels so strongly about this issue that they go out of their way to make a public statement (that really didn't impact the vote)--but puts the requirement upon the rest of us, they should follow it themselves in all of their employment practices. That would be leading by example.

    As I see it, they're saying we should all be required to do what they refuse to do, which seems disingenuous.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Nov. 12, 2009 12:16 p.m.

    To the 11:55 commentator,
    12 states is not "most other states". There are 48 states that lack a state-wide ENDA.
    Beyond this, many ENDAs lack the clear excemptions for religious groups that are so key to preserving religious freedom.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Nov. 12, 2009 12:12 p.m.

    To the 11:34 commentator,
    I am tempted to say to those who complain about this stance by the Church as too liberal "go to the FLDS Church where your views are at home". However, if the 4 unit rule is included in the bill, which I have no reason to doubt, then I think the first thing to say is "read the bill and see what the Church actually supported".
    My deeper answer is "If you believe that Thomas S. Monson is the prophet of God, ask first 'Why this position' and see if you can understand before you assume we have caved to political pressure."
    Considering that the Church said over a year ago it supported housing rights for same-gender couples, this is not in any way a flip-flop.
    The biggest thing this shows is that the Church speaks the truth, while many on both sides of the political isle are so used to just saying things to win friends now, that they suffer shock when people actually live up to thier words.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Nov. 12, 2009 12:03 p.m.

    To the 10:53 commentator,
    I guess this is somehow like when the Church announced that sealings should be done to your actual father instead of to a Church leader, since that was what was announced in 1896.
    The Church is backpedaling? Considering what was said in "The Sacred Institution of Marriage", considering talks and articles written in the 1980s and 1990s, the Church has consistently held the same position.
    Considering that one person has used the Church making an open public statement on this issue as reason to oppose electing a Mormon as president, any gripe the Church has not in the passed specifically supported any particular legislation on this matter ignores the fact that the Church speaking on any matter of public policy generates large amonts of hate and anger.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Nov. 12, 2009 11:56 a.m.

    Currently 12 states have non-discrimination in employment laws that include sexual orientation. A further 93 municipalities and cities have such ordiances. That meanst 38 states do not have such oridances, and with 90 counties in Ohio alone, the vast majority of counties and cities lack them, even if we assume none of those 93 lower unit governments are in the 12 states.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Nov. 12, 2009 11:51 a.m.

    To Mark at 10:20,
    Kalamazoo just passed its anti-discrimination ordinace this month. Anchorage has been in the midst of one recently.
    The issue of proper exemption for religious institutions has often been a sticking point for some of these. For the last few years Hamtramck, Michigan has been going through a big fight on such ordiances. Massachusetts is currently debating one that grants transsexuals employment rights. This is a present issue in many states.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Nov. 12, 2009 11:43 a.m.

    To the 9:34 commentator,
    Considering that I have entered temple square passing a protestor denouncing President Hinckley for "allowing" a gay pride parade to be led by Salt Lake City's mayor in Salt Lake City (how President Hinckley could have stopped Ross Anderson from doing such I don't know, but that is not quite relevant) I think your theories about the matter are based on false notions both about the Church's control of Salt Lake City and even more so about what occurs in that city.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Nov. 12, 2009 11:40 a.m.

    To the 9:14 commentator,
    However, it remains a very good question why polygamy is a criminal offense and sodomy can not be.
    Also, has anyone ever decided if polygamy is a "sexual orientation". I believe that is the phrase used, and if someone can successfully argue (which they have not really tried) that their natural sexual tendency is to have committed, long term sexual relations with multiple women, than could they not demonstrate that refusing to rent to them on the ground that they are a polygamist would violate the ordinance?
    I know there are several ifs in their. Actually the same is slightly more likely to be claimed on the part of child molestors. Well, a claim of sexual orientation is more likely to be successful. It does open a good question, can you refuse to rent to someone because they are on the sex offenders registry?

  • Pagan
    Nov. 12, 2009 11:38 a.m.

    'They (we) clearly don't accept the homosexual activity.'

    How does where a homosexual live and where they work count as 'homosexual activity?'

    Dosent everyone else do that?

  • Separation from Church and State
    Nov. 12, 2009 11:37 a.m.

    This is clear evidence that 'this' is not practiced in the State of Utah. The mere fact that a "representative" from the LDS church gave blessing to basic civil rights initiatives sends the message that they are the final authority on all things Government. This is not what the U.S. stands for, it's not a Theocracy, Utah does not belong to the LDS Church, regardless of the fact that early settlers were LDS. This evidence, to me, suggests that Utah should be removed from the U.S. and truly be distinguished as the separatist Country it secretely practices itself to be. It should be named "Theocratic LDS West", which is a more honest description. This has nothing to do with GLBT rights or issues. This is scary. This reeks of the Catholic stronghold in Italy.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Nov. 12, 2009 11:35 a.m.

    To the 9:11 commentator,
    How do you "deny blacks because you don't like their lifestyle". I can think of policies that might exclude many Afrian-Americans, but as long as you enforce them equally you can do them. I am not sure, but I think you could even get away with banning eating fried chicken in your contract. If you preclude someone because you think they will eat fried chicken, that is probably unacceptable, but merely kicking people out when they violate the fried chicken provision would probably be upheld, as long as you could prove you kicked out people for eating fried chicken whatever their race.
    Why you ban eating fried chicken might be hard to explain, but an argument that you want to improve the health of your tenants might actually allow you to win.
    I know not all African-Americans eat fried chicken, but there is nothing all African Americans do that distinguishes them from others, even fried chicken is not that distinguishing because lots of Euro-Americans eat it, but it seemed to work.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Nov. 12, 2009 11:27 a.m.

    Let me expound a little more. The Church is supporting this law because they believe that everyone is a son or daughter of God and deseves to be treated with dignity. People should not be thrown out on the street because of their innate feelings, or even because of actions that are not criminal.
    This is a view that stems from the Church's religious beliefs. Where are the people crying about our forcing our religion on them? Where are the people insisting we not base legislation on our religion?

  • John Pack Lambert
    Nov. 12, 2009 11:25 a.m.

    To the 9:02 commentator,
    Just keep this action in reserve. The next time someone complains about the Church publicly supporting man/woman marriage and says it violates "the seperation of Church and State" ask why the Church's actions in SLC were not comdemned for the same reason.

  • Casual Observer
    Nov. 12, 2009 11:23 a.m.

    To "Help Me Understand" (10:34 a.m.):

    It is one thing to protect beliefs but entirely another to fire someone for what they do in the privacy of their own home. Where would that type of prejudice end? And how would it really be legislated anyway? I can see not hiring someone who holds completely opposite views than the company's standards, such as a pro-life advocate working in an abortion clinic. But to fire someone who is qualified, competent and conscientious in their work ethic for a private activity that has NOTHING to do with their employment is just wrong. I do think that individuals who own private rental property (with the exception of large apartment complexes) should have the right to rent to those with whom they feel comfortable. Telling someone they HAVE to rent to someone in particular infringes on the property owner's rights.

    And, yes, I am active LDS, opposed to same-sex marriage but believe we should have civil unions across the board and let "marriage" be a separate, religious ceremony based upon each individual religion's guidelines.

  • Pagan
    Nov. 12, 2009 11:04 a.m.

    'But why should I tell my neighbor who to rent to? Continued erosion of freedom for all involved.'

    So, being able to deny someone housing is a right? Discrimination is a protected class?

    Loss of Freedom, I disagree with you.

    I'm not sure, but if someone chose not to rent to you because you are mormon is that not protected under regligious freedom?

    Would there not be consequence?

    But doing it to a homosexual is ok, right?

    Bottom line the 'someone else doing it is wrong' defense is invalid.

    As, if you would NOT have it done to you, you should not do it to others.

    If you disagree with someone's choices. Do not rent to them after you contract is up.

    You should not have the right to evict them 72hrs after they pay you a years rent because of who they date.

  • Re: Loss of Freedom
    Nov. 12, 2009 11:02 a.m.

    Ditto your comments. Just stick in "non-member" where who have mormon and "conservative" where you have liberal and you get a little piece of what it is like in Utah. You are so far from reality that you cannot even see what is in front of you.

  • Help me understand
    Nov. 12, 2009 10:34 a.m.

    Why is the LDS church sending a member to give this statement? They (we) clearly don't accept the homosexual activity. It's wrong! and sinful! Standing up to the homosexual attacks on our society, will always be justified. Supporting any legislation, only furthers their agenda. We have a right to reject this behavior, and a right to protect beliefs.

  • Thomas Ubouroff, Glendale
    Nov. 12, 2009 10:30 a.m.

    I hope that people in the church stand up and show there concern about this. People make up the church, and I for one will make my disgust for this decision known. Who is with me, brothers and sisters, who is with me??????????????

  • to -- Soldier | 5:02 a.m
    Nov. 12, 2009 10:24 a.m.

    ["I am still baking on it but do not see the need to have even had a spokesperson make a statement about it. I am not all seeing or knowing either but seek out enlightenment whenever I can. "]

    you don't understand why they did this? really? give it some thought, soldierboy. it is so they can say "look - see - we don't hate gays. we want good things for them - see how we look out for their well-being? we just don't want them to have the same things we have, such as marriage. They're just too... different". so now you understand why the church spoke out on this? they're looking for brownie-points.

    but you as a soldier should know the basic tenet of the military... one "aw shoot" wipes out 100 "attaboys". (cleaned it up a bit but you get my meaning....) so if they think this buys them much they are probably wrong.

  • Loss of Freedom
    Nov. 12, 2009 10:17 a.m.

    As a member of the LDS church, if a private citizen or business chooses not to associate with me because of my "Mormonism" then that is their right and, although I think they are jerks because of their bigotry, I will defend their right to choose how they live their lives and conduct their business.

    Living outside of Utah I ran into bigoted people who, upon discovery of my religious association, treated me and my children with contempt and discrimination. Our response? Deal with it. Life is full of people who are jerks including homosexual business owners and renters who will not hire Mormons, Republicans, Catholics, etc. They have the freedom to do so, just as I have the freedom to not spend my money at their business or rent from them.

    Utahns are way too apologetic for their conservative leanings. Live in a liberal state for a year and you will understand just how hypocritical the leftist special interest groups are when they are in the majority.

    I would have ZERO hesitation renting to a homosexual. But why should I tell my neighbor who to rent to? Continued erosion of freedom for all involved.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 12, 2009 10:16 a.m.

    to --- Now enter the government | 12:12 a.m

    ["and establishes a new protected class of citizen "the homosexual class". "]

    how is that? i don't get it. the new law covers sexual orientation. everyone has one. no one is protected any more than anyone else...

    did you even know you have a sexual orientation? or do you just take it for granted?

    ["the freedom to chose who you employ and who you rent to is taken away by a dictatorial town government with the support of its largest institution"]

    you haven't been free to chose who you employ or rent to since the 70s. or have you forgotten EEO and the other non-discriminatory laws?

    if you want to pick who to hire and rent to based on your bigotry, don't rent or hire anyone.

  • Different Light
    Nov. 12, 2009 9:40 a.m.

    This isn't really a change in stance for the Mormon Church. In 1995 President Hinckley said "Now we have gays in the church. Good people." Even President Kimball said gay people were "basically good people". When I read those as a faithful gay member of the church, I felt loved and included in the church.

    I think the way the media typically portrays Mormonism distorts the actual teachings of the church. Th Church has always taught to teach us LGBT people with love and respect. It is only extreme activists who think the only way to treat us with respect is to change your position on same-sex marriage, which the Church will never do.

    BTW, to all those who think the church will never ordain gay bishops, I hate to break it to you, but they have been doing that for years. They do require gay bishops to remain faithful to their wives, just like straight ones, but there are gay bishops who are able to accomplish that.

  • Pagan
    Nov. 12, 2009 9:36 a.m.

    'This is not the church nor the church leadership I grew up with!'

    Stand for Something! | 8:33 a.m -

    Times change. The LDS church supports non-discrimination in SLC.

    Granted, the LDS church actively worked to deny marriage to americans in California.

    This token support in SLC does not erase that. I will never forget that. But rather than focus on the bad, let's focus on the good.

    To imply that you did not 'grow up' with this leadership is to imply you did not grow up at all.

    Perhaps it is time you did.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 12, 2009 9:00 a.m.

    Now enter the government and establishes a new protected class of citizen "the homosexual class". And, on Veteran's Day, the freedom to chose who you employ and who you rent to is taken away by a dictatorial town government with the support of its largest institution. Shame on Salt Lake, and shame on the LDS Church, and pity the man who laid down his life to defend "freedom and liberty"

    -----------

    As a mother of a marine, I did not allow my son to defend your "right" to discriminate! He fought for ALL Americans, not just those that you judge to be righteous and like you.

    Who is the "least among us?" Would you do this to Christ? Why do it to any of God's Children?

  • Sheesh
    Nov. 12, 2009 8:47 a.m.

    The argument that gays will sue to get married in the temple is almost as stupid as the argumnebt that the church did this to protect its tax exempt status. Sometimes I can't tell which side is dumber.

  • OC
    Nov. 12, 2009 8:45 a.m.

    I'm confused. Why does the LDS Church feel the need to proclaim support(or vice versa) for a government position? I thought they did not believe in using their influence in political arenas?

    Why does the government need the opinion of the LDS Church in order to make a decision? I'm glad I don't live in SLC.

  • Stand for Something!
    Nov. 12, 2009 8:33 a.m.

    I am troubled by this decision. It indeed seems we are becoming 'in the world.' This is not the church nor the church leadership I grew up with!

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 12, 2009 7:41 a.m.

    Funny how the chruch cowers when the almighty tax exempt status is threatened.

  • Camel's head is in the tent
    Nov. 12, 2009 7:14 a.m.

    Wow. I never thought I'd see the church do the politically expedient thing.

  • Don
    Nov. 12, 2009 6:47 a.m.

    I look forward to seeing transvestites working at Deseret Book.

  • Soldier
    Nov. 12, 2009 5:02 a.m.

    I believe that the Obamalosi(tm) government healthcare bill is likely to be the foot in the door of solving the problems with "domestic partners" not receiving coverage from employers of either (or more) who share the same domicile completely bypassing the institution of marriage. It's not hard to add these things up and see where the "bubbleheads" passing such legislation are taking these things regardless of how political correctness is figuratively and literally killing us as seen by the affirmative action problems that hindered full investigation of our own people for fear of hurting someone's feelings.

    It's high time we stopped tiptoeing around everything and grew our backbones back (no pun intended). This is not about hate, but rather admitting that when you try so hard not to categorize people, that is exactly what you end up doing. As far as what the Church did here, I am still baking on it but do not see the need to have even had a spokesperson make a statement about it. I am not all seeing or knowing either but seek out enlightenment whenever I can.

    BTW, don't ask don't tell "goes both ways".

  • samw
    Nov. 12, 2009 1:22 a.m.

    This is good news, but the choice of the word "violence" by Otterson is disturbing. They want credit for opposing discrimination (and for the record this is new for the LDS leaders who have opposed anti-discrimination laws in areas of race and gender in the past). They did serious violence to marriage in California's Prop 8 campaign and now have the gall to declare this legal change as "non-violent" to marriage. This amazes me!

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 12, 2009 12:57 a.m.

    @mark

    I'm not surprised that you laugh whenever you the truth doesn't match your fantasy world.

  • LDS in Washington
    Nov. 12, 2009 12:38 a.m.

    I was disappointed in the church when it spent so much effort on Prop 8 and ignored an opportunity to oppose Physician Assisted Suicide in this state. Not that I was against Prop 8, but I thought standing against killing yourself was a greater moral imperative.

    That said, I was curious as to how it would respond to referendum 71, an effort by the Christian Right to reverse a domestic partners act that lends all civil rights to unmarried registered civil unions, the so called "Anything but Marriage Act."

    The Church made no official pronouncements, and I saw no unofficial organization in my Ward or Stake to support referendum 71. This seems very consistant with the Churches pronouncement about the SLC statute, and in that context, it shouldn't have surprised those aware of the world outside of Utah and California.

    I'm still disappointed that the Church let "Death with Dignity" slide right by without a peep, but I see no hypocrisy in their approach to gay rights and marriage.

  • Now enter the government
    Nov. 12, 2009 12:12 a.m.

    and establishes a new protected class of citizen "the homosexual class". And, on Veteran's Day, the freedom to chose who you employ and who you rent to is taken away by a dictatorial town government with the support of its largest institution. Shame on Salt Lake, and shame on the LDS Church, and pity the man who laid down his life to defend "freedom and liberty"

  • Pagan
    Nov. 11, 2009 11:23 p.m.

    This is evidence:

    Choosing to discriminate does not make you a protected class.

  • mark
    Nov. 11, 2009 9:44 p.m.

    @Re;Bryce T.

    thanks for the laugh

  • evolutionfish
    Nov. 11, 2009 9:37 p.m.

    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.

  • Re;Bryce T.
    Nov. 11, 2009 8:57 p.m.

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

  • To Christy
    Nov. 11, 2009 8:11 p.m.

    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.

  • Vince
    Nov. 11, 2009 7:53 p.m.

    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.

  • Been There Done That
    Nov. 11, 2009 7:27 p.m.

    "A former gay, current Mormon"

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

  • Pagan
    Nov. 11, 2009 7:14 p.m.

    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.

  • Christy
    Nov. 11, 2009 6:39 p.m.

    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.

  • Re: Corey
    Nov. 11, 2009 6:21 p.m.

    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.

  • Thank you Des News
    Nov. 11, 2009 6:19 p.m.

    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.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 11, 2009 6:10 p.m.

    Temple Marriage is sued by gay couples



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

  • Brett
    Nov. 11, 2009 6:00 p.m.

    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.

  • A former gay, current Mormon
    Nov. 11, 2009 5:48 p.m.

    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.

  • kenny
    Nov. 11, 2009 5:30 p.m.

    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.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 11, 2009 5:25 p.m.

    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.

  • Bryce T.
    Nov. 11, 2009 5:24 p.m.

    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.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 11, 2009 5:22 p.m.

    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?

    wow!

  • Heather
    Nov. 11, 2009 5:18 p.m.

    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.

  • Hossman
    Nov. 11, 2009 5:12 p.m.

    Mark

    "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.

  • Usuallyalurker
    Nov. 11, 2009 5:12 p.m.

    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.

  • Happy Mormon
    Nov. 11, 2009 5:08 p.m.

    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.

  • To Mark
    Nov. 11, 2009 5:02 p.m.

    Since when does a guy use sweetie?

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 11, 2009 4:52 p.m.

    Anonymous | 4:07 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009
    I'll still never rent to them.

    ---------

    What if you find out after you have rented to them that they are gay and not just roommates?

    Evict them?

    Raise the rent so high they have to move?


    I wouldn't want to rent from you and I am not even gay. What a piece.

  • mark
    Nov. 11, 2009 4:52 p.m.

    Hossman...reading isn't your strong suit is it?

    CHURCHES are e-x-e-m-p-t

    exempt means does NOT apply to them.

    now do you UNDERSTAND.... huh sweetie?

    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

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 11, 2009 4:50 p.m.

    ["the right to the control of one's own property. That should mean that one can choose whom to hire and to whom to rent. Based on whatever personal feelings one has. When one loses the right to make choices about what is his, one has lost the most basic of human rights."]

    yes. true. but when you open your doors to the public, you must do so to ALL public. so decide. either be entirely private, or don't discriminate.

    too complicated for you. need it written in bigotese?

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 11, 2009 4:46 p.m.

    @4:07

    from THEM

    Thank God, you probably own no apartments, and that we'd never rent from a BIGOT.

  • Amy
    Nov. 11, 2009 4:37 p.m.

    Why are all you having fits about renting. I just read one comment that said "i wont rent to them," and another that said "the govt cant tell me who to rent to," and yet another that said that they wont rent to gays because "they will bring other things around like DRUGS." I didnt know that to be gay you also had to be a drug addict. NEWS TO US GAYS

  • to --- tigerlily | 3:37 p.m
    Nov. 11, 2009 4:37 p.m.

    ["Max:: You won't be hired because the church only hires those who have temple recommends"]

    sonds biased to me - but that's not new.

  • Hossman
    Nov. 11, 2009 4:37 p.m.

    Lol, to work for the church you need to have a temple recommend usually so how are they going to answer if a gay person wants a church job? Also if it's illegal to discriminate against gay people at businesses, employment, housing etc how are they going to keep gay people out of those church owned apartment buildings that house temple workers, missionaries etc. I think this is going to come back and bite the mormon church right in the bum.

  • TO --- Ok | 3:17 p.m
    Nov. 11, 2009 4:34 p.m.

    ["I have however, seen people discriminated against in housing for skin color, sex, or marital status (or lack thereof). Same thing with jobs"]

    you've seen that, and yet you can't believe gays would be discriminated against? have you not read what some people say about gays on here?

    more people hate gays than hate blacks... but you can't believe they are discriminated against? have you been drinking?

  • @anon 4:07
    Nov. 11, 2009 4:28 p.m.

    And i will never do business with a Mormon, but gays have more money than you since they don't have kids to support. And there are more gays than Mormons in America. Keep renting your slumpads to transients, the gays will rent the luxe condos the Church is building.

  • Cal Diver
    Nov. 11, 2009 4:18 p.m.

    I've not lived in Utah for years but I was very, very, happy with the passage of the ordinance last night in SLC and also very happy that the LDS church supported the measure. Yesterday was a very good day for Utah and I can only hope that other Utah cities, counties, and the state itself will follow suit.

    I don't care about the extremist comments on either side of the issue or what the motivation may or may not have been for church support. What I do care about is civil rights for all, regardless of sexual orientation . . . or pizza cravings.

  • Bones
    Nov. 11, 2009 4:09 p.m.

    What a crock, don't force other people to not discriminate when you discriminate yourself. What a joke.

  • A basic human right
    Nov. 11, 2009 4:07 p.m.

    is the right to the control of one's own property. That should mean that one can choose whom to hire and to whom to rent. Based on whatever personal feelings one has. When one loses the right to make choices about what is his, one has lost the most basic of human rights.
    And that is a "human rights" issue that has been lost in this debate.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 11, 2009 4:07 p.m.

    I'll still never rent to them.

  • UNLV
    Nov. 11, 2009 4:06 p.m.

    Is this article about right and wrong, or about people's political positions? If it is about religion, then the LDS church allows people to worship according to their own dictates. Use their free agency to choose between right and wrong. God's laws do not change. So whether you are gay, straight, black or white matters not. Everyone can worship how they choose. That means that neither the gay or the straight should criticize the other's beliefs. There is nothing wrong with not agreeing or helping others make laws you do not agree with. Love they neighbor as they selve does not mean love only those who are like you.

  • to - aj parquart | 3:00 p.m
    Nov. 11, 2009 4:00 p.m.

    ["in Mass. Catholic Services can no longer participate in adoption services"]

    why do you lie, dude? what you said is an entire untruth. is that what your church teaches? I know your religion is based on some wild tales, but are you really supposed to be making up new ones? thought only your "prophet" was allowed to do that?

    fact is, catholic churches take state money for adoption services, and some of the state money comes from a segment of the population that the church won't adopt to. so why should the taxes from gays go to a church that won't allow them to adopt?

    why should gays taxes be used for something they are not allowed to participate in?

  • I know, how 'bout you
    Nov. 11, 2009 3:58 p.m.

    Waiting for the other shoe to drop. This was done for a specific reason and I am sure it was not for he charity of the gay community. I am sure we will find the answer out soon, very soon.

  • @aj parquart
    Nov. 11, 2009 3:52 p.m.

    I live in Europe. In fact, I am Eurpean. What you write regarding the state controlling all faiths here in Europe, is simply NOT TRUE. Neither in my country, nor in any of our neighbouring countries. It's a myth, something your bishop wants you to believe.

    Also--Comparing humans to animals?? Really?? I hope you know there is a difference. Why do you spread fear, as if every human on earth is about to turn gay? Do you feel inclined to homosexuality? No? Well, same goes for the overwhelming majority of humans, it's in our genes- our race won't die out.

    I would suggest turn brain on, turn propaganda off.

  • Casual Observer
    Nov. 11, 2009 3:51 p.m.

    I am an active member of the LDS Church, and I really think the solution to this would be to enact legislation allowing "civil unions" for both heterosexuals and homosexuals. Then, if people want to use the word "marriage", that would be a religious ceremony that could be done within the individual churches. Churches could/should not be fined or sanctioned for not performing "marriages" if the church's guidelines (whatever they may be) were not met as the individuals involved would already have a LEGAL document binding them. I cannot argue that there are many tax breaks and other benefits married heterosexuals enjoy that are currently denied to those in committed homosexual relationships or that if they desire to have cost much, much more than the cost of a marriage license.

    While I am not in favor of the homosexual lifestyle, I acknowledge that there are those who are not going to change (whether by choice or birth, I do not know), and these individuals are contributing, tax-paying members of society and should be afforded the same rights and benefits that other Americans enjoy.

  • mark
    Nov. 11, 2009 3:48 p.m.

    @Re...mark
    Utah legislature is 85% LDS...no law is created or approved NOT LDS controlled.
    LDS is a tiny minority in ANY city outside Utah, what your members do or don't do is politically negligable.
    You want LGBT gratitude...keep your bags of Mormon money and unnamed donors OUT of other state's Civil Rights laws.
    You will never have me in Utah = Hate State,
    let alone on YOUR porch. I also am trained in self defense by a lesbian with a black belt, your first punch better be REALLY well aimed, cuz it's the LAST strike you'd get at me before your nose bone is shoved into your grey matter with the palm of my hand.

  • tigerlily
    Nov. 11, 2009 3:45 p.m.

    You know that this article and what took place has nothing to do with the gay marriage thing. Lds Bishops will never marry a gay couple.

  • to -- Jack | 2:48 p.m.
    Nov. 11, 2009 3:42 p.m.

    hey jack. i post under anonymous and I have no idea what you are talking about... perhaps if you specify what time the post was made, we can follow along... but if you just say "anonymous" then you may as well be talking to yourself...

  • Exhausted
    Nov. 11, 2009 3:39 p.m.

    I'm exhausted with all of these comments. Holy cow. The church wasn't changing their stance, or trying to reach out, they were standing up for what they believe. They believe that everybody has basic rights, and shouldn't be discriminated against. I don't really understand why this is becoming such a big story, They are just asking for the same rights for others that they wish for themselves.

  • tigerlily
    Nov. 11, 2009 3:37 p.m.

    Max:: You won't be hired because the church only hires those who have temple recommends

  • Half truths, aj parquart
    Nov. 11, 2009 3:36 p.m.

    aj parquart | 3:00 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009
    1-If homsosexuality were "widespread" in the Animal Kingdom, "THERE WOULD BE NO ANIMAL KINGDOM! einstein

    Homosexuality in the animal kingdom is about the same percentage as humans - 5%. No problem with the other 95% procreating.

    2-Once Religions are no longer exempt from the Gay Agenda, either through legislation or Marriage, the State will indeed have control of all Faith's.
    (It's already happening in Europe and in Mass. Catholic Services can no longer participate in adoption services).

    Please, not that MA Catholic Services again. They CHOSE to close their doors rather than not accept tax money. You cannot discriminate when you use government money because gays helped raise it!

    3-Thankfully the LDS Church understands the craftiness of the LGBT movement. It's all about control, the ultimate goal of them is to control Religion and their beliefs.

    We live in America. We have the strongest freedom of religion laws in the world. You will still get to believe that homosexuality is wrong even if gay marriage is the law of the land.

    Quit fear-mongering. It is getting old.

  • Nick
    Nov. 11, 2009 3:20 p.m.

    I am glad that the Church made this decision in support of basic human decency. Of course, much of the commentary here already confirms that for many Mormons, opposition to homosexuality has nothing to do with religion. Rather, it is a matter of personal hatred/bigotry with cosmetic theology pasted over the top so as to look more acceptable. In any case, bravo to the Church! I hope some of my fellow members will take this as a cue for continued improvement. "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one the least of these..."

  • Robert Johnson
    Nov. 11, 2009 3:19 p.m.

    To all the "Blutos" of the world:

    Why do you somehow feel entitled to certain rights and privileges and yet feel "justified" in denying those same rights and privileges to another.

    You people need to grow up. If an apartment ownder put up a sign that said "Mormons need not apply" or "Blacks not welcome"...I imagine most of you would feel very differently.
    Thats called "Cafeteria values".

  • Ok
    Nov. 11, 2009 3:17 p.m.

    When has anyone actually been discriminated against in years due to their sexual orientation as far as a job or place to live is concerned? My guess is anyone that says they have is not being truthful. All stories I've seen the the past few years appear on their face to be apocryphal.

    There are too many Federal Laws in place and too many sue happy people to allow that type of discrimination. Salt Lake didn't need to codify it.

    I have however, seen people discriminated against in housing for skin color, sex, or marital status (or lack thereof). Same thing with jobs.

  • PHILO
    Nov. 11, 2009 3:10 p.m.

    All I want to know is when is the Gay Parade going down mainstreet? Can't wait. Balloons. Cotton candy, rainbows! The days of 47 will never be the same! Yeeehaaaw. Awesome!!!!

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 11, 2009 3:07 p.m.

    RE -- To Anonymous the first | 2:30 p.m

    I have no clue who you're talking to, but I can answer the question...

    ["Now the the Church has done something positive towards mutual understanding in most peoples eyes, you want to question the motivation"]

    if your church wants to do something positive, they will simply drop the whole gay thing and never bring it up again. some gays want to marry in their temple, they can say "no". but for ANYTHING outside of your specific church, they should just remain silent... entirely... no calling for money to stop gay marriage, no preaching about its evils or supposed detriment to society... just butt out of it all.

    then you can say your chuirch has "done something positive towards mutual understanding".

    we know your stance - we know your beliefs. keep it to yourselves and no one will care. that's what you say to gays, right? keep it to yourself and no one will care?

  • jenita
    Nov. 11, 2009 3:05 p.m.

    One thing I should have the right to worry about is if I want to rent to someone. Where property is not sacred liberty cannot exist.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 11, 2009 3:03 p.m.

    Joke? | 2:21 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009
    Utah gives a group of people the right to have the most basic of rights a job and a place to live????...... How magnanimous!!!!

    --------

    Not Utah. Only Salt Lake City. Utah still allows anyone who wants to to discriminate against gays.

    It is perfectly legal.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 11, 2009 3:00 p.m.

    What will Gayle Ruzicka do if the Church back this legislation for the whole state?

    And ppor Chris Buttars!

  • aj parquart
    Nov. 11, 2009 3:00 p.m.

    1-If homsosexuality were "widespread" in the Animal Kingdom, "THERE WOULD BE NO ANIMAL KINGDOM! einstein

    2-Once Religions are no longer exempt from the Gay Agenda, either through legislation or Marriage, the State will indeed have control of all Faith's.
    (It's already happening in Europe and in Mass. Catholic Services can no longer participate in adoption services).

    3-Thankfully the LDS Church understands the craftiness of the LGBT movement. It's all about control, the ultimate goal of them is to control Religion and their beliefs.

    4-The Church is being fairminded. However, you can see now, that even when they are fair and balanced it only fires up the Gay Nation for more and more and more.

    The Gay community is without historical acceptance or traditon. They are not original in any way. Even their very behavior is tired and dated.

    Therefore, they must co-op established entities as their own.

    eg; The word Gay, Rainbow's, Boy Scouts, Marriage, Church's, Military, Schools k-12, Commerce etc..

    They go where they are not invited, into esteemed institutions where they hope the stench of their behavior will be masked.

    Leave society alone!

  • Re:@Mark
    Nov. 11, 2009 2:58 p.m.


    Your ignorance is so annoying.

    Firstly, the LDS church does not makes the laws and is not obligated to announce support for them. They obviously chose to announce support for this law in hopes of appeasing hateful bigots (like you) and setting records straight.

    Secondly, The LDS Church exists in almost every city throughout the country, so your venomous complaint that “other cities made these non discrimination laws DECADES ago” is completely irrelevant. The church did not oppose the laws in those cities, so your short-sighted “complete flip flop” comment makes no sense whatsoever.

    Thirdly, No one asked for gold stars and the church couldn’t care less if you are thankful for their decision. However, your lack of gratitude clearly proves to the rest of us that the LDS church can never appease your cold, hard, closed mind.

    Fourthly, the church has no problem “owning” their reaction to disrespectful smoochers on their property. Your one-sided concept of gay rights DOES NOT have precedence over the LDS Church’s religious rights or their property rights. If you and your boyfriend showed up smoothing on my front porch, I’d also have a hard time not punching you out.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 11, 2009 2:52 p.m.

    It is Adam and Eve and NOT Adam and Steve. All you activists need to get over ourself and leave the Church alone.

  • Jack
    Nov. 11, 2009 2:48 p.m.

    Anonymous you are a peice of work. You hate Mormons. Yet, now that they have put a foot forward towards understanding, you want to know their position on the military. Note; It isn't the LDS Churches responsibility to make everything right for the Gay and Lesbian Community. On one hand you castigate the church over everything and on the other you expect them to help the gay and lesbian community in any and all areas. What are you doing to help the non gay and lesbian community?

  • Worst. Analogy. Ever.
    Nov. 11, 2009 2:44 p.m.

    "For some reason the gays insist on that defining them. It's like me saying "The fact that I like pizza" is going to define my entire life and if there's one fact I want people to know about me(and they'd better accept it and support me) is that I like pizza! Everyone better support this fact or I'll throw a tantrum. Great, you're gay. Get over it. We don't care."

    Obviously.

    You can eat your pizza all you want. You can even eat your pizza in front of other people - at work, in a park in front of children, even on Temple Square! It's all legal Pizza Man, so have at it.

  • To: Anonymous | 12:51 a.m.
    Nov. 11, 2009 2:38 p.m.

    That will never happen, GUARANTEED!

  • I applaud
    Nov. 11, 2009 2:36 p.m.

    I applaud the LDS Church for its efforts to give all citizens the same rights with respect to employment, benefit etc. I also applaud the church for sticking to its long held views on marriage. I think there is room for both positions in our scoiety. The bitter gays will question the motivation, cry that it isn't enough progress, continue to denigrate the church for its stand on marriage and generally be unawares of progress that is being made. Note to same: you are the worst enemies to your cause, not the Mormon Church.

  • To: Franklins
    Nov. 11, 2009 2:36 p.m.

    "I FOLLOW GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

    God would like you to stop shouting. You're giving him a headache.

  • To: Thomas
    Nov. 11, 2009 2:33 p.m.

    Please put down your broad brush. You obviously do not personally know any gay people or you wouldn't be so worried about your family coming into contact with them.

  • To Anonymous the first
    Nov. 11, 2009 2:30 p.m.

    Anonymous,
    You continue to out do youself in my opinion. You don't live in Utah, have no use for the state, hate Mormons etc. Now the the Church has done something positive towards mutual understanding in most peoples eyes, you want to question the motivation. Are you just bitter and blinded or is there some other reason for your rancor? I would think that California has enough problems to occupy you full time.

  • To: NOT RIGHT
    Nov. 11, 2009 2:27 p.m.

    Maybe you should just move to the moon.

  • to - Anonymous | 2:02 p.m
    Nov. 11, 2009 2:26 p.m.

    ["Are we not Christians?"]

    nope. (and you didn't need to ask - the rest of your post pretty much answered it...)

  • @Byron 1:46pm
    Nov. 11, 2009 2:26 p.m.

    "Short sighted by the LDS Church. I don't know if anyone in the church that supports the flamers. I think it is a wrong and poor decision. I cannot believe a Prophet of God would take this stance. "


    So are you leaving the Church, then? Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Bigot.

  • RE --- to 12:59 | 1:57 p.m
    Nov. 11, 2009 2:25 p.m.

    ["Great, you're gay. Get over it. We don't care"]

    if you don't care, why can't they get married? and why do you treat them differently than other people?

    ["It's like me saying "The fact that I like pizza" is going to define my entire life "]

    yes - that's it - liking pizza is just the same as being gay... we're just waiting for the pizza delivery man to get beaten to death because he likes pizza...

    people kiss in the mormon square, but when two guys did it it was a big deal. that would be like allowing a white couple to kiss but a black couple or interracial couple would get in trouble for it.

    until you all just see people as people, and none of the other bigotries matter, then there will always be a problem. me? i don't even notice race anymore. so get over it. i don't care - why do you?

  • Salt Lake
    Nov. 11, 2009 2:21 p.m.

    should be protected from the homos!

  • Joke?
    Nov. 11, 2009 2:21 p.m.

    Utah gives a group of people the right to have the most basic of rights a job and a place to live????...... How magnanimous!!!!

  • Joseph Smith
    Nov. 11, 2009 2:20 p.m.

    "We claim the privilege of worshiping the almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience and allow ALL men the same privilege, let them worship HOW, WHERE, or WHAT they may."



  • to -- S!X | 1:48 p.m
    Nov. 11, 2009 2:18 p.m.

    ["I find it amazing how many cultures blame other religions for their problems."]

    i guess you missed the whole prop 8 thing with all the out-of-state mormons following their leader's orders sending money for deceitful ads...

    ["I'm not intolerant of gays, but I would really like to stop hear all the WHINING from everything concerning them"]

    I'm pretty sure once they are treated just like everyone else, you'll stop hearing from them... once no one even notices race, sexual orientation, etc then no one will have anything to complain about. it will just be those that can't just see people as people that will be complaining... so don't expect the mormons to stop.

  • Think the Church is right, but
    Nov. 11, 2009 2:17 p.m.

    I think the Church made the right decision here, but I am sorry that they had to do this. There is no change of position on the Church's part. The Church does not get involved with the Pro-Gay rights movement because it only gets involved in matters it thinks are very important to foundational principles of society. That is why it speaks out in regards to gay marriage and alcohol abuse.

    I firmly believe that the Church has never opposed this kind of action. The fact that it had to publicly state its position and break its implied policy of not getting involved in non-essential policy matters (esp. local political matters) shows how messed up both sides of this debate are. Mormon policy makers in SLC and Utah in general need to think for themselves and not look to the Church for permission to support what could be seen as controversial policies. Further, they need to understand that this policy should not be controversial from the Churches standpoint.

    Anti-Mormon/pro-gay policy makers need to stop lying about the Church's position. The Church has never and will never hate gay people.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 11, 2009 2:16 p.m.

    SCHOOL BOARDS decide on school curiculum...in each school district. That hiding behind children to spew HATE...is really the lowest you folks ever stooped. Truely CRINGE WORTHY, the only thing worse was the Kalamazoo restroom ad which BACKFIRED, and should have been charged as HATE SPEECH!

  • To 12:59
    Nov. 11, 2009 2:15 p.m.

    We would get over it when you stop trying to control everything around us. p.s. happy you like pizza. good for you for coming out

  • mark
    Nov. 11, 2009 2:13 p.m.

    I wonder if Romney may have an invisible hand nudging this bone thrown to gays in SLC?

    Prior to another presidential run, he is ALL about "looking" gay friendly. He said he was gay friendlier than Ted Kennedy, he PRINTED his OWN well wishes statement on Gay Pride, (I never saw another politician do that in 35 years of Pride marches/festivals.) he also used a foul 1913 law against same sex couples outside MA, which the courts ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
    Romney will NEVER get even ONE LGBT vote.

  • TO -- j.d. | 1:47 p.m
    Nov. 11, 2009 2:13 p.m.

    ["We have always supported agency and fought against anyone who tries to take it away from others"]

    and yet you won't allow gays the same benefits you enjoy - marriage...

    ["It is also necessary to stand for what's right and good"]

    you mean what YOU think is "right and good".. correct?

    ["It's God's will that every man choose. It is not His will that any one man or government take that choice away."]

    and yet you vigorously support votes to keep an entire segment of the population from having the same benefits you enjoy...

    just so you know, for future reference.. hypocrisy is spelled with an H....

  • G
    Nov. 11, 2009 2:12 p.m.

    8:23
    Actually, you need to get your facts straight. Church doctrine has never changed. You just do not have a grasp on what basic church doctrine is. The basic church doctrine is the concept of revelation. It is the stone upon which the church is built. You see changes in church practices because whenever something is on everyone’s mind, the leaders of the church ask the lord what we should do. Depend on the answer they believe they received from the Lord, sometimes they stay the course regardless of what the world would have them do. Sometimes they change course. The most influence anyone can have on church doctrine is to give the leadership a reason to ask the Lord and then hope the Lord gives the answer that you wanted.

  • Amy
    Nov. 11, 2009 2:08 p.m.

    RE: Bluto
    It sounds like you are about as advanced in your way of thinking as the Animal world. Except Gay RIGHTS because i am just as american as you are. Thanfully not everyone thinks like you or we would all still be throwing rocks at each other.

    FACT:
    gays are not going away just because you want us to, so stop crossing your arms and blinking your eyes, we will be here when you open them :)~

  • To: Molli
    Nov. 11, 2009 2:05 p.m.

    "I have never understood this. The LDS church does not want to support anything that interferes with the sacred institution of marriage, which I understand and support. Yet it is willing to support legislation which allows gays to co-habitate. Marriage is MORE than a certificate. It is a way of life between a husband and a wife. To support any legislation which supports gays in having the same way of life as people in a marriage would have doesn't make any sense to me if you support the church's point of view about marriage and the role of marriage on our society."

    Molli - it is not illegal to rent to heterosexual un-married couples. So, why should someone not rent to an un-married gay couple?

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 11, 2009 2:02 p.m.

    Gosh,

    I think too many of us Mormons have gone off the deep end regarding this subject.

    Where is our love? Where is our non-judgmental acceptance of all of our brothers and sisters?

    We have been told that we need to love everyone. This is something we need to work on.

    I am not feeling the love flowing towards those that have different values and beliefs.


    Are we not Christians?

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 11, 2009 2:00 p.m.

    This is an embarrassment to the church. I wonder what preempted this. i am waiting for the shoe to drop.

  • to 12:59
    Nov. 11, 2009 1:57 p.m.

    I agree completely. I dont go around ensuring people know everything about my life. For some reason the gays insist on that defining them. It's like me saying "The fact that I like pizza" is going to define my entire life and if there's one fact I want people to know about me(and they'd better accept it and support me) is that I like pizza! Everyone better support this fact or I'll throw a tantrum. Great, you're gay. Get over it. We don't care.

  • To: Christa Jeanne
    Nov. 11, 2009 1:56 p.m.

    "(where some states will teach about homosexuality to kids in kindergarten!). It's not about hating gays, nor has it EVER been."

    That is a oft-repeated ridiculous LIE. And as long as you keep telling it, you are spreading the HATE against gays.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 11, 2009 1:50 p.m.

    "Until we can see widespread homosexuality in the Animal World"

    Already there. Goggle National Geographic Homosexual Animals.

    It might surprise you!

  • S!X
    Nov. 11, 2009 1:48 p.m.

    I find it amazing how many cultures blame other religions for their problems. Not everybody's "God" is right, but religion is really a way to control people from making wrong decision out of the fear or going to "Hell." If there is a God do you think he would really reign with fear? A vengeful god is nonexistent and is just a boogey man story to keep the ancient people in line. The real god is humanity as a whole we create our own "heaven" or "hell" and not "god." The ultimate sin is ignorance because it leads to all the other even more heinous crimes. I'm not intolerant of gays, but I would really like to stop hear all the WHINING from everything concerning them.

  • j.d.
    Nov. 11, 2009 1:47 p.m.

    Agency has been part of Church doctrine since the beginning and has never changed. We have always supported agency and fought against anyone who tries to take it away from others. It is also necessary to stand for what's right and good. Belief and sharing that belief is part of agency. We believe what we believe. We teach to allow all others the same privelege. This is a legislature over agency, not moral conduct. When talking about morality the church has made it abundantly clear where we stand. Make logical diferentiations before blindly commenting on whether or not this is good, although, the fact that you can even anonymously comment on an issue such as this is the reason we support agency in the first place. It's the reason we came to America and fought for freedom. It's the same reason we still fight for the ability for other countries to have the same freedoms we enjoy. It's God's will that every man choose. It is not His will that any one man or government take that choice away. If people could learn to compromise on their own, legislation would not be necessary.

  • Bryon
    Nov. 11, 2009 1:46 p.m.

    Short sighted by the LDS Church. I don't know if anyone in the church that supports the flamers. I think it is a wrong and poor decision. I cannot believe a Prophet of God would take this stance.

  • Erin Eldridge
    Nov. 11, 2009 1:43 p.m.

    As a former lesbian and current Mormon who's been in a committed temple marriage for 16 years, I support individual gay rights as well as traditional marriage. The LDS Church has made this same claim since its release of "The Divine Institution of Marriage" last year.

    I am amazed at some of the bigoted statements, both from a few who profess to be Latter-day Saints and a few who support gay marriage.

    No, most people attracted to the same sex do not choose to be. Yes, they can choose how to act or identify based on those attractions. Those who believe "gay" is an identity should be respected for their freedom to believe such-just as Mormons want to be respected for what we believe. LDS Church leaders have just acknowledged that freedom based on INDIVIDUAL rights, not rights based on a same-sex union. A person may identify as gay without ever being involved in a gay relationship.

    BTW, if you don't want to rent to such a person, I hope that means you won't rent to a "straight" single person who may become sexually involved in your basement, either.

  • Re: Franklins
    Nov. 11, 2009 1:42 p.m.

    Is that the moron variety of God or the Christian God of the Bible.

  • Mark
    Nov. 11, 2009 1:42 p.m.

    To Bill @ 1:06 p.m.
    What you said brother. Right on.

  • bluto
    Nov. 11, 2009 1:34 p.m.

    Robert Johnson

    Stop insulting the Black Civil Rights fight with your
    own plight.

    Nobody is fire-hosing gays, whitepowdering them out of their homes, pushing to the back of the bus, not allowing them to vote etc. etc.

    Get off the idea of attaching yourself to a civil rights fight. Your biggest problem in California was not the Mormons but the Black and Catholic community. They are insulted by the Gays riding their coat-tails.

    You Gays will not stop until you have infiltrated every aspect of American Society.

    You invade the Boy Scouts, Church's, and all "private organizations" in order to create a "false sense of acceptability".

    It's dilusional. Just because you force your way, uninvited, into private entities, you think you will become credible.

    Homosexual behavor has never been acceptable throughout the history of Man, it is against nature itself.

    Until we can see widespread homosexuality in the Animal World or at the very least, partnered up on on Dancing with the Stars, then your partycrashing will go unanswered.

    bluto
    FAct is it's not just about fairness, you want to force society by legislation to axccept deviant behavor.

    The World aint't buying.

  • @pattern?
    Nov. 11, 2009 1:32 p.m.

    I think it is time to ignore the childish comments like yours. who gets to decide what is legitimate you? I think not.

  • FRANKLINS
    Nov. 11, 2009 1:26 p.m.

    THERE ARE TWO AVENUES, DO WE FOLLOW THE LEADERSHIP OF 'GOD' IF YOU THINK THERE IS ONE, OR DO WE FOLLOW THE LEADERSHIP OF THOSE WHO MAKE THEIR OWN RULES OF LEADERSHIP. 'IF' THERE IS A GOD WHO CREATED THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE, IF YOU CAN BELIEVE THERE IS AN ENDLESS SPACE OUT THERE THAT YOU EITHER LIVE IN OR YOU DO NOT. IF YOU DECIDE TO FOLLOW THE OPINIONS OF THOUSANDS WHO THINK THEY KNOW IT ALL, YOU ARE STUMBLING THROUGH THE SHORT LIFE YOU HAVE. I FOLLOW GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Thomas
    Nov. 11, 2009 1:20 p.m.

    Seems that the Church failed to consider the ramifications of this support. Gay couples in an apartment building, for example, attract a lot of other gays to the apartment, all of whom present and represent a way of life that moral people wish to avoid--especially for their young children. A law like this is discrimination against straight, moral families who wish to live in clean, positive environments. The same for workplaces. When my family was young, one of the things we always wanted to make sure of before renting a place was what kind of people the landlord would allow to rent. And we sought family friendly places where tenants lived morally and clean. We did not want to live near partiers or others who disrupted what we feel is correct and tried to teach our family.

    An ordinance like this destroys that, and now, Church members in Salt Lake City cannot seek such a haven to live.

    I am not a gay hater, and I believe crimes against gays because they are gay should be punished as hate crimes. Nobody should be able to hurt them, but we should be able protect what is ours!

  • Pattern?
    Nov. 11, 2009 1:13 p.m.

    Anyone notice a pattern here? The LDS church is in the news. No matter what the topic there are people who have criticism and others who applaud it. Criticizers are most likely people who got chastized by their bishop once for masturbating and have never gotten over it. Its time to ignore the naysayers and start addressing people with legitimate concerns who are willing to listen.

  • Bill
    Nov. 11, 2009 1:06 p.m.

    The Church stated that it was for this legislation as long as it did not infringe upon the doctrine of marriage between man and woman. Further, it stated that religious organizations would be exempt from this legislation. Those of you arguing against the Church as members should remember that when polgamy was stopped, some members left then, the same when the priesthood was given to all worthy male members, many left. Some will leave now because they feel the Church is changing its doctrine when in fact it is not. The Church did the same thing here as Christ did to the women taken in adultry. They didn't forgive the individual nor judge that individual as being wrong, that will be done at a later date. What they did is say that individuals should not discriminate against individuals at all. I agree with that but the Church continues to be able to hold to its core doctrine that marriage is between man and woman. That didn't change. It is not a civil right for a black to hold the priesthood. It is not a civil right for women to hold the priesthood.

  • TO ALL GAYS
    Nov. 11, 2009 12:59 p.m.

    you say let us live our lives, and stay out of our lives. i say, i would be more then happy to stay out of your bedroom. all i ask is that you stay there! stop making your sexual conduct public!

  • re: interesting
    Nov. 11, 2009 12:54 p.m.

    This ordinance should have been passed years ago - the only reason it didn't is because "the church" used it's influence to defeat any type of ordinance.

    I view this a patronizing more than anything else. Gay people still aren't allowed on Federal Property down town. I think "the church" is merely interested in protecting itself against more bad publicity of which I say you reap what you sew.

  • To: Awesome!!
    Nov. 11, 2009 12:47 p.m.

    glad to see that you consider this garbage ordinance to be of more importance than all the efforts the church makes to assist the starving and the sick and come to the rescue whenever there is a disaster. yeah, shows what you consider to be moral. just as long as gays can go around having wierd sex then everything is fine. nothing else matters in your eyes huh?

    and to: imteresting
    i completley agree with you on that one. the answer is simply that they are hypocits and this ordinance was probably some kind of blackmail. the gays are completly intolerant of all those who do not share thier views and have no problem with singling out those that beleive that you can be what you want to be, just don't make me accept it. how would they like it if we passed a law making it illegal to not let a missionary in to teach them and demonstarte thier religion? that is basiclally what they want, and it is what they demostrated they wanted in that perversion they call a kiss-in

  • JohhnyLingo62
    Nov. 11, 2009 12:46 p.m.

    TO Pagan:
    If you own rental property, the two things you should be thinking about are "Property Value" and "Property Damage". If people don't pay, you evict them; If renters cause a continual disturbance to other paying renters, you evict them; if they damage your property, you evict them; if they deal drugs or use the property for other illegal activities, you evict them; etc.
    Money is only one small part of renting to anybody as a landlord. References and credit history are also factors that are considered. Same for everybody.

  • re awesome!!!
    Nov. 11, 2009 12:45 p.m.

    even better than all the food and clothing they give to those that would die without it? Good call, selfish thinking on your part.

  • @anonymous 12:11
    Nov. 11, 2009 12:43 p.m.

    Repeating a lie does make it true, no matter how often you repeat the lie. The Constitution guarantees that the LDS will never have to officiate gay marriage if it doesn't want to. In Canada where gay marriage has been legal for years nobody has every sued the LDS. Maybe you don't like gay people, perhaps for your own psychological complications, but that's no excuse for lying on a Church-owned website.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 11, 2009 12:40 p.m.

    "And, again, where does this put the Church on the military's hiring policy?"

    Why would the church have an opinion about who the military hires?


    "If the military is allowed to decide that open homosexuality is detrimental to its mission and therefore should be a disqualifier for hiring, why shouldn't SLC businesses be given the same privilege?"


    There is no open sexuality of any kind allowed in the military.

    Gays are still under the DADT policy and cannot admit to their orientation without discharge. But that will change. Too many people in the military (excepting the top brass) know gay service members who are outstanding soldiers and team members.

    They used to segregate the blacks from the whites in the military because it would hurt morale. They learned that it was not a problem.

    Britian and Australia have openly gay service members and have no problem with it. I think that America needs to rise to the challenge.


  • Singerman
    Nov. 11, 2009 12:40 p.m.

    I have to totally disagree with the church on this. It makes no sense to me. The only thing I can think is that they caved under the enormous pressure or something else we don't even know about is coming down the road.

  • @Nat Whilk
    Nov. 11, 2009 12:39 p.m.

    If you're TBM, you have no business trying to get into "fancy discotheques," even as your use of the term 'discotheque' suggests you must be pretty old and old-fashioned (my college-aged kids have gay friends and all are welcome in our home, including openly gay Mormons who had to run away from home, right here in SLC!).

    Being gay is like being left-handed, it is a natural difference that has existed throughout human history. Nobody chooses to go through life mocked, teased, and often beaten the way my brother was at BYU in the 80s. Gay Mormons struggle mightily with the rejection by the family and Church.

    I applaud the LDS for coming to its senses and abandoning hate in favor of love.

  • NOT RIGHT!!!
    Nov. 11, 2009 12:33 p.m.

    This is not fair to Landlords or employers. If I own an apartment complex I should not be forced to accept homosexuals any more than I should be forced to accept Skin Head Nazi's. Homosexuals usually bring with them all sorts of baggage such as drug abuse and sexual debauchery. I guess I could say "LDS Members ONLY" but that would probably bring a law suit as well. Employers also are getting jacked around here being forced to consider gays for employment. I have worked with gays and other sex-change type folks and they create a very hostile and unwelcome work environment for sure. I guess Employers will have to ask other probing questions regarding the persons family to determine if they are gay or not. Very touchy subject to dance around without getting sued.

  • To: MikeD
    Nov. 11, 2009 12:33 p.m.

    So, it's ok to you if churches choose who they associate with? I'm so glad I don't go to your church.

    And employers and landlords are not restricted in who they associate with.

    Pull. Your. Head. Out.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 11, 2009 12:29 p.m.

    "How can you regulate this ordinance? If I fired a gay person because he is a bad employee how can I prove I didn't fire him because he is gay? "


    If you are an employer, you had better document all reviews, warnings and citations. As an employer myself, my philosophy is: An employee should NEVER be shocked that they have been fired.

    If they are not gay, they surely have a gender, religion, age, or race. All could be used against you IF you do not document!

  • re: @Corey
    Nov. 11, 2009 12:27 p.m.

    "Gays of the first type may hold the priesthood as long as they are celebate."

    People with homosexual tendencies don't have to be celibate to participate in the church or live a sexually fulfilling life. They CAN be married to people of the opposite sex and fully enjoy sexuality and church membership. It's up to them.

  • As an LGBT rights activist
    Nov. 11, 2009 12:16 p.m.

    I am thrilled to be standing shoulder to shoulder with the LDS church on this issue. There are so many areas such as this where we agree! Let's work on those and leave the others to rest for a while, Let's make sure all God's children are respected and protected from discrimination and have the rights they need to manage their affairs. Sure We'll disagree on the boarderlands of our ideologies, but in the center, there is much we can cooperate on. Thanks to the LDS Church for speaking up for what is right, even when (as is obvious from comments here) it may not be popular or advisable or may be misconstrued as being solely for PR. This allows the LGBT community their first glimpse of the compassion of the LDS church as opposed to their view of it as a frightening institution that wants to strip their rights.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 11, 2009 12:11 p.m.

    I'm glad that the church is openly supporting non-discrimination in housing and employment. When society is unwilling to treat people fairly because of a difference of opinion, those people should be protected by law. I am also glad for Elder Oaks talk several weeks ago about religious freedoms being threatened. I felt like that helped clarified why the LDS church supports only marriage between a man and a woman. The problem is not about decaying values or morality: it is when the law forces religious institutions to recognize those values or morality as acceptable. Right now, catholic church priests can choose whether or not to marry a couple based on if they live up to certain standards, just the same way the LDS church can. Legally sanctioning gay marriage, in combination with discrimination legislation forcing everyone to bow to the same standard with regard to beliefs, it is only a matter of time before a civil suit against an LDS bishop, a catholic priest or a a pastor forces them to legally marry and recognize a couple who does not live by the standards they believe. We have to protect human rights and religious beliefs together.

  • Awesome!!
    Nov. 11, 2009 12:10 p.m.

    The best thing the LDS Church has done in my lifetime. Single best. Thank you

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 11, 2009 12:10 p.m.

    Every human being has the right to choose to obey the laws of God or not obey them. Also you must understand that God cannot break the laws of justice and mercy. Repentance would be meaningless unless there were an eternal punishment in place for the unrepentant. If there were no law, then men would be free to sin without consequences. God's can not forgive unless one repents. It would go against His eternal laws to do so. With every law given a punishment is affixed and repentance granted. The law of mercy can claim the sinner (we all sin)who repents because Christ paid the penalty for sin required by the law of justice. Otherwise justice would claim the sinner and execute the law of punishment. Without punishment for breaking God's laws, God would cease to be God. God is only forgiving if one repent or God would be breaking His own laws.

  • Defender of Words
    Nov. 11, 2009 12:00 p.m.

    To "True@10:41 a.m. You ask who cares if Gay couples get married. I care. It is not an issue of rights, it is an issue of definitions. Give gay couples all the rights of "Married" couples, but dont call it marriage. Make up a new word, like "Egairrm" and give all rights and prilages as hetrosexual "married" couples get. If we change definitions, what is to stop us from calling a Liberal a Conservative just because we don't like the liberal or conservative label. Better yet, I like "dogs" better than "cats" so I think I will start calling cats dogs then maybe I will like them better. Also, the word "Gay" has already been destroyed from its original definition.

  • To The Facts
    Nov. 11, 2009 11:56 a.m.

    Why did the law of Moses end if there weren't supposed to be any changes? In fact, some people still live as if there was no change from the Law of Moses. Doesn't every prophet back to Adam receive what the Lord wants the poeople at the time to do? Read those revelations and you will know that they did not change until instructed by the Lord. Look at those that did not change from polygamy or even King David who went beyond what he was instructed and how have they turned out. If you don't believe in modern day prophets, then it wouldn't matter to you anyways. The main problem in society today is promiscuousness. If people cannot keep themselves chaste-especially those that are not gay, then why wouldn't others w/o an understanding or belief in chastity think otherwise?

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 11, 2009 11:55 a.m.

    When Utah has statewide non discrimination policy in employment and housing, then you will have joined most other states...in THIS century. Midwest and Eastern states passed statewide ENDAs in the eighties.

    So while this is a baby step, don't pat yourselves on the back too hard, as if you just ran the MARATHON.

  • interesting
    Nov. 11, 2009 11:53 a.m.

    How come the gay and lesbian community welcomes the church getting involved in politics when it benefits them, but vandalized their churches and screams it's wrong for the church to get involved in issues that oppose them? You can't have it both ways.

  • Max
    Nov. 11, 2009 11:50 a.m.

    Oh good! I am a gay male and I am going right downtown to apply at temple square!

  • Bemused
    Nov. 11, 2009 11:48 a.m.

    So, the toddler has taken a first step. Perhaps someday he will be able to run, or even ride a bike.

  • Nat Whilk
    Nov. 11, 2009 11:46 a.m.

    Midwest Member wrote: "When you open a business that serves the public, the public is who you must serve."

    Tell that to the screeners at fancy discotheques. You're permitted to discriminate against customers and job candidates for all sorts of reasons including (Justice Scalia's favorite example) if you don't like the way they comb their hair. The exceptions are the specially-protected classes the government chooses to designate.

  • small step, giant leap
    Nov. 11, 2009 11:45 a.m.

    OVer 20 years ago my husband and I left the Church because of the way my gay brother was treated at BYU: my brother was beaten and left to bleed on the street and BYU said it was his own fault and kicked him out. I understood then that LDS "Family values" are not what they claim to be, and have raised my children in the Unitarian Church, where all are welcome and loved.

    Too bad my brother had to wait 20 years for the Church to slowly and timidly come to it's senses.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 11, 2009 11:40 a.m.

    A sad day in Utah. The Church should have stuck to thier guns. It certainly shows a weakness that we are becoming 'in the world.'

  • Food for Thought
    Nov. 11, 2009 11:35 a.m.

    I wonder if the LDS Church Public Relations Department will, in hindsight, wished they would have remained silent in supporting this city ordinance when they find that their church built-condos in their own backyard across from Temple Square later become a predominantly gay enclave?

  • Re Greg 10:07
    Nov. 11, 2009 11:34 a.m.

    "A big step back for the church. I can not sit back and have this spoon fed to me as revelation. We should have stuck to our guns. These people need help not compassion! "


    Good bye then, be seeing ya. Most Church members will accept this.

    (Most of us who live outside Utah always suspected that the hard-core right-wing members of the Church would eventually find their way out of the Church when they became too conservative for the Church.)

  • To Dear "Stunned"
    Nov. 11, 2009 11:31 a.m.

    I specifically referred to the paid employees of the Boy Scouts, so your comments about it being a volunteer organization are irrelevant. Why should it get to discriminate against homosexuals in the hiring of its paid employees if SLC businesses can't?

    And, again, where does this put the Church on the military's hiring policy? If the military is allowed to decide that open homosexuality is detrimental to its mission and therefore should be a disqualifier for hiring, why shouldn't SLC businesses be given the same privilege?

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 11, 2009 11:31 a.m.

    This just stinks of self protection. The Church is obviously bracing for the finding that will be published with the Prop. 8 proposition. I can believe members would think anything otherwise. Nieve to say the least.

  • Kirk R.
    Nov. 11, 2009 11:27 a.m.

    This is great news! To all of the nay sayers. Accept this at face value. The LDS church is supporting fairness and kindness.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 11, 2009 11:21 a.m.

    I never thought the church would cower to political pressure. Another decline of the church in these latter days.

  • Maine64
    Nov. 11, 2009 11:18 a.m.

    There are 7 Countries in the World that Same-Sex Marriage is Legal, there a dozens that Civil Union or Domestic Partnership is Legal, there are a lot of Cities and Communities that have protection for Gays, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender People..... and you know what, those numbers are Growing and Growing and Growing.....EQUALITY IS HERE TO STAY!

  • To Lawyer
    Nov. 11, 2009 11:17 a.m.

    I don't care if your a lawyer or not. The government does not have the right to tell me who I can hire and fire but the forcefully do so anyway. How can you regulate this ordinance? If I fired a gay person because he is a bad employee how can I prove I didn't fire him because he is gay? If a gay person owned a business I would totally support him if he didn't hire straight people because he doesn't like them. It would be his right since is his company. All this does is make it next to impossible to fire a bad employee.

  • The Deuce
    Nov. 11, 2009 11:12 a.m.

    Again, instead of resolving the issue we continue to fight about the meaning of a word. When will we get on with fixing the real issue and quit fighting about nothing. In this world we have so many more important issues than this. This is easy to fix. Yes, gays/lesbian couples need Federal rights for civil unions/domestic partnerships that provide them the same legal rights to protect them as everyone else. Fix this and quit fighting about the word marriage. All of these words define the type of individuals that make up the union. No one is better or worse than the other. It simply defines who we are talking about. Can someone explain to me why we cannot or will not resolve this issue. My proposal is simple, straight forward and addresses all of the issues. If the agenda of the gay/lesbian group is something other than this then clarify this so that we can address it. I am sick of this issue. Either fix it or get out of town.

  • mark
    Nov. 11, 2009 11:11 a.m.

    For all those who wanted to deny Utah was a theocracy. Notice when the LDS church backed the ordinance, it could change in a nano second.

    Utah is totally controlled by Mormons.

  • @Gregg 10:07
    Nov. 11, 2009 11:07 a.m.

    "help not compassion"? You must be the new Shakespeare of English language!

  • @Corey
    Nov. 11, 2009 11:07 a.m.

    to explain my * on gay.

    The word gay is ambiguous.

    It can mean.

    1. A person with homosexual tendencies may or may not act on those tendencies.

    2. A person who is sexually active with another member of the same gender.

    3. A person who is sexually attracted to the same gender but is in a heterosexual relationship.

    Gays of the first type may hold the priesthood as long as they are celebate.

    Gays of the third type may hold the priesthood and even be bishop.

    Gays of the second type are the type that will never hold the priesthood because those Gays (if unrepentant) will be excommunicated from the church and thus group them with non-members.

  • To Christa Jeanne
    Nov. 11, 2009 11:06 a.m.

    What if, just WHAT IF, my daughter who is gay, WAS born that way?? And what of all our young LDS gay members who take their own lives?? Watching the agony my daughter experienced, seeing gay members end their lives, watching gays marry heterosexually, then divorce time after time?? Does that sound like a CHOICE??

    Just WHAT IF that IS who they are, not just what they DO??

  • @Corey
    Nov. 11, 2009 11:01 a.m.

    "That is interesting, it seems that it has changed before, the matter of Black Men holding the priesthood."

    There is a difference here in our doctrine. God can restrict who has the priesthood, but he has eternally set the outer bounds of who can hold it. There was a time when no one out of the tribe of Levi could hold the priesthood. That was lifted. Certain groups will never be allowed (Women, Gays*, Non-members). The issue with the blacks was very political, but mostly doctrinal. If the church were to allow blacks to hold the priesthood too early, then there would have been bigger problems in the Civil Rights era. It was an effective way for the church to stay somewhat neutral in the whole argument.

    how may I ask have it's doctrines been assailed?

    The church is based on the current foundation of marriage. If the definition changes, it effects all the other doctrines built on it. Why can't they just support traditional marriage and end it there? There is already enough confusion about LDS doctrine among non-members. It would hurt the church mission to add more confusion.

  • mark
    Nov. 11, 2009 11:00 a.m.

    @10:07
    First off it wasn't a representative of the Republican Party who stood up and made the endorsement, it was an LDS representative.

    If this hadn't been such an immediate "out of the blue" COMPLETE flip flop by Mormons to gays/lesbians it wouldn't be newsworthy. Other cities made these non discrimination laws DECADES ago.
    A year ago we couldn't get hospital visitations for our partners, and your LDS mall goons were knocking a same sex couple to the ground and handcuffing them for being arm in arm.
    So we are suspicious, and that suspicion you brought on yourselves...OWN THAT.

  • @will anyone reciprocate?
    Nov. 11, 2009 10:59 a.m.

    your church should be free teach whatever they choose and I should be allowed to teach why i think they are wrong further when our paths cross on public debate and you choose to make your religion central to your argument I have right to question the religious tenants you base your arguments on.

  • terra forma
    Nov. 11, 2009 10:59 a.m.

    So Michael, if the corner drug store won't sell candy to your kids because they're Mormon, but they'll sell candy to the Catholic kids in the same moment, you're okay with that?

  • wet
    Nov. 11, 2009 10:58 a.m.

    All this is going to do is reinforce contention. It's like feeding the stray dog. He'll quit threatening you for while until he gets hungry again.

    It won't be very long before the homosexual lifestyle supporters will be whining and complaining about something else.

  • BobP
    Nov. 11, 2009 10:53 a.m.

    Lawyer:

    You are techincally correct, but any government municipal, state or federal had better be very careful about uspetting the majority.

  • smells like 1978 and 1896
    Nov. 11, 2009 10:53 a.m.

    The Church is backpedalling, as predicted, and will continue to do so until it catches up with reality. Meanwhile the damage to LDS outside of Utah has been done: Heck of a Job there!

    Post-Mormon Joe, Boston

  • Midwest Member
    Nov. 11, 2009 10:49 a.m.

    To Anonymous @7:15 a.m., If you want to be free to rent your property only to those who you like, then you must be a supporter of government sponsored housing, or else you expect unpopular minorities to be homeless. When you open a business that serves the public, the public is who you must serve. My husband is old enough to remember having to bring a meal to the car for their black family friend when they were on vacation in Utah. I applaud the Church for their action and am not surprised that the anti voices can find nothing to be positive about.

  • Haters still alive
    Nov. 11, 2009 10:47 a.m.

    Even after this magnanimous gesture, the anti-Mormon bigots have nothing nice to say. They are so full of hate and venom that they can't see past their ignorance. Oh well, I can't say that I'm surprised. The LDS people have always had to put up with bigots and persecution. Christ likewise had to put up with these sorts of people. We are in good company.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 11, 2009 10:44 a.m.

    If we never had a Mormon president he would need to hear from leaders of his church? That's scary.

  • True
    Nov. 11, 2009 10:41 a.m.

    I agree with The Facts, Heather. The Mormon Church has often changed its direction due to issues playing out on the national stage.

    And Dallas, it's called civil rights. Nobody should have to be discriminated against for their belief in wacky religions, or for their sexual preference. Doesn't everybody deserve that?

    And furthermore, who cares if gay couples can get married anyway???

  • Will
    Nov. 11, 2009 10:36 a.m.

    "If you live in America and partake in its blessings, the government will, can, and should set some rules."

    The rules governing the government do NOT authorize it to nullify property rights in order to placate noisy, intermittently violent pressure groups. The chief blessing of living in this country is supposed to be a government that lives within its own rules, rather than suffering beneath the sort of hyper-paternalistic regime we now endure.

  • Kristi
    Nov. 11, 2009 10:34 a.m.

    What confuses me are the people who take offense because of the LDS Church's stance on Marriage. Why are you discriminating against the LDS Church when you plead for gay rights and expect others not to discriminate? Hypocrisy on BOTH ends never solves anything.

    One of the things that the LDS Church teaches is to not take offense and if you do, to forgive and apologize. Even if you do not believe in religion, you can't deny that it is an amazing moral message to the world. Live your lives morally correct. Be kind and understanding to others. Love everything, no matter what they have done. How else will we feel that we have accomplished something in life?

  • @ Rita
    Nov. 11, 2009 10:30 a.m.

    "(BTW, The Church has always been in a 10-year time warp.) "

    More like twenty. With heavenly inspiration, they should be 10 years AHEAD of everyone, instead of 10 years behind.

  • Dear "Stunned"
    Nov. 11, 2009 10:29 a.m.

    If you don't understand the difference between the Boy Scouts and a business's hiring of employees, then you have serious issues.

    Everyone deserves the right to make a living. That doesn't mean everyone deserves the right to join a volunteer organization whose purpose includes teaching moral standards to adolescent boys.

  • bold and independent
    Nov. 11, 2009 10:22 a.m.

    treating people with kindness and respect dispite any difference is not a new teaching of jesus christ. and so it is not new to the church.

    what the church said here is not surprising, it was expected. and once again the church simply disregards its 'haters', acts as is proper, and continues on; bold and independent.

  • to reciprocate at 9:02
    Nov. 11, 2009 10:21 a.m.

    Ya, dont hold your breath. I've yet to meet a liberal who doesn't throw a fit anytime the church exercises its own rights.

  • mark
    Nov. 11, 2009 10:20 a.m.

    As for gays not being grateful, you are finally doing what is RIGHT, what other cities did DECADES ago, and you want a gold star stuck on your foreheads.

    not going to happen.

  • Lawyer
    Nov. 11, 2009 10:11 a.m.

    One of the strange misconceptions people have on this site is the idea that private property rights are absolute. They are not and never have been. Your right and title to your property is derived from the state and ultimately redounds to the state. Your property rights are constrained by zoning laws, restrictive covenants, tax law, and ordinances of all kinds. Salt Lake City has every right to pass this ordinance, and I congratulate the city and the church for making it happen.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 11, 2009 10:07 a.m.

    If the liberals ever supported a good piece of legislation that the republicans fought for, we would all say "thanks liberals" and that would be the end of it. What do the liberals do when the republicans give support for something the liberals want? The liberals keep complaining, manifested by postings herer.

  • Gregg
    Nov. 11, 2009 10:07 a.m.

    A big step back for the church. I can not sit back and have this spoon fed to me as revelation. We should have stuck to our guns. These people need help not compassion!

  • Mike F.
    Nov. 11, 2009 10:01 a.m.

    Gays are one step closer to be treated as equal citizens under the law. The LDS Church? I guess it's nice of them to support something that in no way applies to them. It's better than them secretly donating money to oppose the ordinances. There are enough exemptions in the housing ordinance that someone who rents out rooms or a basement appartment, or less than four units is enirely unaffected by these ordinances. And of course all religious organizations and organizations like the Boy Scouts (and indeed the State of Utah) can discriminate based on sexual orientation against their employees to their heart's content. Good PR all around through and some actual help and a good step forward.

  • Cause for Celebration
    Nov. 11, 2009 9:58 a.m.

    I'm not LDS, but I applaud the LDS Church for taking this stand on civil rights for gays. It's consistent with their doctrine and shows more empathy and kindness than I expected, frankly. It's a wonderful step in the right direction.

  • Anonymous at 8:36
    Nov. 11, 2009 9:57 a.m.

    agreed!

  • Cal Reader
    Nov. 11, 2009 9:54 a.m.

    The church had a history of discriminating against blacks because they thought they were cursed with a black skin. When that notion finally became so ridiculous in our society, they finally changed their doctrine. The church continues to see homosexuals as immoral people because they happen to be hardwired a little different and are attracted to people of the same sex. When the church finally realizes how ridiculous it is to view homosexuality as something that is immoral, they will change their doctrine and drop their opposition to same sex marriage. This will happen but never will you hear from any church authority that they were wrong and offer an apology.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 11, 2009 9:52 a.m.

    The framers of the US Constitution are rolling in their graves over this! There should be "a wall of separation of church and state" (Thomas Jefferson) and "total separation of church and state" (James Madison). The fact that we are having any discussion about what "legislative action the LDS church supports" shows we are clearly drifting from the intentions of our Founding Fathers.

    Actions speak for themselves. For two gay men to be arrested in front of the LDS church for kissing is a clear display of the churches stance on discrimination. Any publicly announced "support" for gay rights is a publicity stunt for the church to try to save face for their previous actions.

  • to customartist
    Nov. 11, 2009 9:49 a.m.

    Silly person! How is it religious discrimination if atheists can get married and have the same benefits as religious people who are married?

  • Chris B.
    Nov. 11, 2009 9:44 a.m.

    I am just going to stop renting my open property next door all together. I refuse to have my kids growing up close to a homosexual couple. I will not encourage or facilitate the moral decay of society. I am not mormon, but support the mormon church in their defense of good values. I wish they had not supported this ordinance.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 11, 2009 9:37 a.m.

    "when you own your own business, it should belong to you. If you choose to discriminate, that should be your choice."

    So you think you should be able to discriminate against people because of their race? Age? Sex? Religion?

    All acceptable to you since you own your own company?

    This is America. If we had not put anti-discrimination laws in place, there probably wouldn't be too many blacks working in the south. Mormons would only hire Mormons and to heck with the rest of the country. What a sick society that would be. I am grateful for the foresight of those laws.


    This is how the church "loves the sinner." They are not against them having a place to work or a place to live. They are children of our Father and deserve that much.

    I applaud this step.

  • @Molli9:03
    Nov. 11, 2009 9:35 a.m.

    The church isn't supporting any behavior whatsoever. It is simply showing disfavor with people who mistreat other people. I don't care how perverse a person's personal life may be, I will still treat that person respectfully (unless they are abusing some, of course).

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 11, 2009 9:34 a.m.

    If LDS knew how much money a good LGBT Pride parade can bring in for a city's coffers, they'd give up their uptight ways in a hot second. Several million ANNUALLY.

  • facts
    Nov. 11, 2009 9:29 a.m.

    The church is showing public support of this issue so that misinformed people will finally (hopefully) understand that the church is not, and has not ever been, against gay people and their rights. I'm sure there are a lot of bigoted Mormon-haters out there squirming in their boots now that their lies have been publicly disproven.

    That doesn't mean the church is now ready to be trampled on by people who obviously could care less about religious rights - such as a religion’s right to support their own beliefs about marriage or their right to determine what public behavior is allowed on their own property.

    The only hypocrites exposed in this scenario are the gay marriage supporters. For them, it is okay to behave contrary to a church's wishes on that church's property — but unacceptable for a church to behave contrary to their wishes. For them, it’s acceptable to attack a religion for supporting their views on what marriage, but it’s persecution to defy the gay community’s point of view.

    Let’s get one thing straight. It is the gay-marriage supporter community that is not interested in other people's rights.

  • Rita
    Nov. 11, 2009 9:29 a.m.

    To Tab Uno,

    I distinctly remember one incident where The Church DID try to influence Board of Education issues: President Hinckeley asked that Monday nights not have school obligations so "we" could have Family Home Evening.

    I'm floored by this support from The Church. I hope the neo-cons in the church all have heart attacks from the fact that The Church is telling them what to do with their personal property and what do at their places of employment. Then it would leave Christ's church to those of us who actually believe Christ and follow Him. He was (and still is) the greatest liberal ever to walk the earth.

    Oh, but wait, what if all those neo-cons DO have heart attacks?? Do they have health insurance for medical treatment or did they oppose that too? But I digress...

    Thank you to The Church for this. But, I'm sure it has more to do with complying with some sort of Federal law or with Public Relations than anything else.

    (BTW, The Church has always been in a 10-year time warp.)

  • "The government has no right to
    Nov. 11, 2009 9:23 a.m.

    Re: "The government has no right to tell anyone who they can hire or rent to. "

    Yes, they can. If you live in America and partake in its blessings, the government will, can, and should set some rules.

  • Misunderstanding
    Nov. 11, 2009 9:21 a.m.

    I think many of you who are using "The government has no right to tell anyone who they can hire or rent to" argument are taking this to the extreme. If a gay person walks into an apartment complex, they should be able to get housing just like anyone else, so long as they can meet their obligations. In situations where people are renting out basements or private rooms, or situations where there are roomates involved, I don't think the government is going to step in and force people to rent to gay people.

  • Invisible Hand
    Nov. 11, 2009 9:18 a.m.

    Let's hire some thought police so we can enforce this one. We'll have mind readers testify in court what the real reason was that person x was hired over person y.

  • Gert
    Nov. 11, 2009 9:16 a.m.

    This is a great day. As an active member of the LDS church with a strong testimony of the Savior and the church I'm thrilled. People deserve to be treated fairly. This was not done to appease any group, but because it is the right thing to do.

    Thank you.

  • To Zell
    Nov. 11, 2009 9:14 a.m.

    [What's next, we'll have to employ child molesters and polygamists, after all it's in born in them and they can't do anything about it either.]

    Zell, those things are against the law. Homosexuality is not. Not even here in Utah!

    A better analogy would be to rent to an unmarried couple living together. Again, not against the law.

    Please try and separate those who commit crimes and those who you believe are sinners. Big difference.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 11, 2009 9:11 a.m.

    JJ | 8:20 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
    If I own an apartment building, it is my private property. No one should be able to tell me who I can and can't rent to.

    ------------

    Tell that to the civil rights commission when you deny blacks because you don't like their lifestyle.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 11, 2009 9:09 a.m.

    BigRedHammer | 7:58 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
    Linguist: The ability to adopt. That ability is part of allowing gay marriages or unions

    -------------

    Wrong, Bigred. Gays can and do adopt right now, even right here in Utah. It is not illegal. In Utah, if you are gay, you must NOT be in a relationship. Our legislature would rather the gay individual raise their adopted child as a single parent!


    In California, gays, by law, cannot be discriminated against by any public adoptiion agency.

    Gay marriage has NOTHING to do with gays adopting.

  • customartist
    Nov. 11, 2009 9:03 a.m.

    Does the LDS Church support "Everything-But-Marriage" as in Washington??

    Marriage aside, many overlook all of the Benefits, Financial and otherwise, that "Marriage" provides to straights. Not having The BENEFITS (not meaning Marriage) makes a difference of Hundreds of Thousands of Dollars to me and my partner from now (in our mid 40's) until the end of our earning days, this is a fact, and yes we have run the specific numbers.

    We pay After-Tax Premiums, subsequently we pay More Taxes, and this is but one aspect. I am unconcerned with what the LDS, Or Government call our union, But That Under Our Government we CAN form A Union granting Equal Benefits. Call it what you wish. I am definitely concerned with a/the Religious Institution, (Marriage, which IS their rationale here) being given Preferential Tax Status on religious grounds. This IS “Financial and Religious Discrimination” plainly and clearly.

    When The LDS Church does support "Financial Equality", and I mean in every venue where their, and their “adherents” money has fought against "Gay Marriage", then, and only then, will I commend and again support the LDS Church, it's Sanctity, and it's body of Members.

  • Molli
    Nov. 11, 2009 9:03 a.m.

    I have never understood this. The LDS church does not want to support anything that interferes with the sacred institution of marriage, which I understand and support. Yet it is willing to support legislation which allows gays to co-habitate. Wierd ...

    Marriage is MORE than a certificate. It is a way of life between a husband and a wife. To support any legislation which supports gays in having the same way of life as people in a marriage would have doesn't make any sense to me if you support the church's point of view about marriage and the role of marriage on our society.

  • Perfect...
    Nov. 11, 2009 9:02 a.m.

    now how about the rights for "beastialitist", "transvestites", "polygamists" etc. The only difference between a gay and a straight is the partner...it is all about sex. And SLC just make a blunder that will cause significant consequences that no one will be able to fix.

  • will anyone reciprocate?
    Nov. 11, 2009 9:02 a.m.

    The church recognizes these things as an obvious right of all people, will anyone reciprocate and recognize the obvious right of the church to teach and support marriage between a man and a woman? I'm not holding my breath even though that it is the right thing to do, too.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 11, 2009 9:00 a.m.

    First of all, what a terrible, terrible mistake. The Church needs to understand that the language now included by law, and with their approval, slowly erodes the definition of marriage by supporting courts' interpretation that homosexuality is not a choice, but rather, an inherent part of individuality and a right. Also, what about the freedoms of religion? Yes, the Church said in their statement that religious organizations should be exempted, but what about religious INDIVIDUALS? Example: an LDS man rents out an apartment near a college campus and doesn't want to rent it to a lesbian couple who will be using HIS property to sin? He is no longer protected by law, nor by the Church, apparently, though a prophet of God said a few weeks ago that the homosexual agenda is eroding religious rights right under our noses.

    Second of all, the Deseret News of all people should know that the Church specifically asks to not be referred to as the "Mormon Church" in the news. I'm getting sick of seeing it elsewhere, and I've emailed other journalists who are simply unaware of our real name - can we PLEASE get it right HERE?

  • Michael
    Nov. 11, 2009 8:56 a.m.

    Another road paved with good intentions. This law is another slap at liberty. As an LDS person myself, I am disappointed in the church for taking this stand. What has just happened is that SLC has created a special privelage to a group not granted to others, and stripped a right from business owners. Most people do not understand this since they are employed by someone else, but when you own your own business, it should belong to you. If you choose to discriminate, that should be your choice. If people do not like your policies, they have the freedom to shop elsewhere. I have employed homosexuals in my business in the past. Just like anyone else I would hire, it was for the talents they posessed, but it was my choice. I also make it clear about my position and it is their choice to work for the company. This is a slap in the face of individual freedoms in every way. From the business, to the customer and to the discriminated employee or renter, any law of this kind removes the ability for personal choice and legislates that important faculty out of existence.

  • McLarry
    Nov. 11, 2009 8:47 a.m.

    Funny how every piece with a hint of pro gay/lesbian news in the past always generated a litany of fairly hateful responses from the ultra conservative minded who comment on this website frequently.
    Yet with this news as it includes comment from the Mormon church....nothing. Either these people haven't woken up yet and logged on to their computers or they're simply hypocrits when it comes to their selective views and opinions.
    Regardless of who or what is the basis of the story, it's still a pro-gay rights measure.
    Next time those people get on this site to comment about gay this or gay that or about the hypocritical liberals, just point them to this article and ask them where they posted their opposition to this measure and the Mormon church.

    All of this shows who the real hypocrits in this state are.

  • Robert Johnson
    Nov. 11, 2009 8:45 a.m.

    To Bluto:

    Your comment reminds me of the final paragraph of a book I read in high school about the struggles of a young black girl...it read "Mamma you taught be to take my thimble down to the well when the white men were taking their buckets".

    Forgive me Bluto if we aren't jumping with job over a few scraps that you are throwing from your table.

    Until everyone in this society is allow to sit at the table and there truly is "Justice for all" in this country....I for one am not going to be satisfied.

  • Ironic
    Nov. 11, 2009 8:43 a.m.

    It is truly amazing to me to see how much hate there is coming from those who profess to be vigilants against.......hate.

  • uncannygunman
    Nov. 11, 2009 8:43 a.m.

    Congrats to the LDS Church for making the right call on this.

  • re: Corey
    Nov. 11, 2009 8:42 a.m.

    In response to your question about how allowing homosexual marriage would change church doctrine, it wouldn't. That isn't the issue.
    The problem that arises by recognizing homosexual marriage as legal as it concerns the church is this: the church may then at some point be required via litigation and/or legislation to recognize and allow homosexual marriage within the church. And that is in opposition to LDS doctrine.
    Though the doctrine wouldn't change, the ability to legally practice the doctrine would come under fire and be in jeopardy of being ruled as discriminatory.

  • Pagan
    Nov. 11, 2009 8:40 a.m.

    'You should be able to uphold your values in your own home.'

    @ 6:36 a.m. -

    Discrimination has no value.

  • Christa Jeanne
    Nov. 11, 2009 8:40 a.m.

    I just moved to Utah from California, where much of my life from October of last year through March was devoted to fighting in favor of Prop. 8. After a lot of studying and pondering on the issue of the Church and gay rights, let me clarify for those who say this is akin to blacks and the priesthood: no, it's not.

    Your race is defined by what you ARE - how you're born. There's nothing you can do to change that. There is no agency involved, nor is there a law that is transgressed by being a certain race. However, sexual orientation is defined by what you DO. There are cut-and-dry commandments about chastity that apply to everyone, gay or straight, who chooses to live the gospel. That won't change.

    As for the marriage issue, the Church's opposition seems embedded more in protecting the freedoms of churches as well as of parents who want to tackle these moral issues in the home, not in the schools (where some states will teach about homosexuality to kids in kindergarten!). It's not about hating gays, nor has it EVER been.

  • Linguist
    Nov. 11, 2009 8:36 a.m.

    To BigRedHammer:

    I believe that gay people can currently adopt, including in Utah. They cannot adopt as a couple, which means that one parent is unprotected, and the child is effectively unprotected as well should the "legal" parent die.

    So is the position of the LDS Church that the law should be changed to prohibit individuals who are gay from adopting?

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 11, 2009 8:36 a.m.

    Do the gays ever know when to say "thanks" and put a temporary stop to their temper tantrums? Based on the postings here..... No.

  • Getrealpleeze
    Nov. 11, 2009 8:35 a.m.

    You are danged if you do and danged if you don't. Let us all get a life.

  • dallas wyeth
    Nov. 11, 2009 8:34 a.m.

    When it comes to this i have to disagree with this law because it is asking for trouble. once the gay community have these rights next they will be arguing for gay marriarge like they are doing right now. later down road we say why not let them marry and that's a slipery slop that we shouldn't go down to.

  • The Facts
    Nov. 11, 2009 8:23 a.m.

    To Heather,

    Really? Ever heard of Polygamy? Ever heard of blacks and the priesthood? Ever heard of Equal Rights Amendment? I could go on all day. Please read your Church History.

  • Pagan
    Nov. 11, 2009 8:21 a.m.

    When renting any property there are only two things you should worry about.

    If the person can pay you the rent.

    If the person cannot.

    Anything else is a personal choice. And if you choose to discriminate there will be consequence.

    Becuase America is a great country, and we do not tolorate blind hatred and bigotry.

    This is only one small step of many to come.

  • JJ
    Nov. 11, 2009 8:20 a.m.

    If I own an apartment building, it is my private property. No one should be able to tell me who I can and can't rent to. Same thing if I own a business. No one should be able to tell a private business owner who he can hire and fire. This doesn't seem right to me. That being said, I would hire a gay person if they where the best qualified for the job. I would also fire a gay employee if they where not doing their job. It seems wrong to infringe upon this basic right.

  • Cali Marty
    Nov. 11, 2009 8:16 a.m.

    Great JOB!

  • wow
    Nov. 11, 2009 8:07 a.m.

    The Mormon Church supports freedom for all humans. And this is news? Should not that have been ingrained decades ago???

    Thanks for standing up for the constitution guys!!

  • Ben E.
    Nov. 11, 2009 8:06 a.m.

    This is neat to see. I applaud the Mormon church.

  • John
    Nov. 11, 2009 8:05 a.m.

    While I applaud the LDS church supporting this initiative, the elephant in the room is "Why does the LDS church have to bless such things before the legislature can ratify?"

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 11, 2009 8:01 a.m.

    "No matter what the church says or do it will never be good enough for the LGBT's..."

    Yup... kinda like how nothin' the GLBT community does is ever good enough for LDS members.

  • Concerned
    Nov. 11, 2009 8:01 a.m.

    This is a wonderful day! The same Church, my Church, that says it stays out of political issues, (such as illegal immigration) yet constantly involves itself in "moral" debates in public the sector, has scored another blow by taking a side in yet another . . . .wait for it . . . .political debate!

  • WOW!!!
    Nov. 11, 2009 7:59 a.m.

    The church is making steps to show it supports outreach programs to assist the gay/lesbian community and what does everyone do?? Cry and moan that it is just a farce and an act and that they hate gay's and lesbians!

    STOP CRYING PEOPLE!! THE CHURCH DOESN'T SUPPORT THEM GETTING MARRIED LEGALLY AND GUESS WHAT?? AMERICA AGREES!!! We live under the reign of democracy and the people (very few of whom are Mormon) have spoken.

    Let the church do what it can to suppport these individuals in any way it chooses, such is Freedom of Choice. They definately could have gone against you if they hated you... but they don't. TAKE OFF THE HATE GLASSES AND STOP CRYING.

  • BigRedHammer
    Nov. 11, 2009 7:58 a.m.

    Linguist: The ability to adopt. That ability is part of allowing gay marriages or unions.

  • Bluto
    Nov. 11, 2009 7:57 a.m.

    Amazing

    The Gays plead, beg, steal, trashspit, dismantle and burn for a seat at the table and when they get a concession?

    They immediately push for more and more and then set out to mis-charachterize the LDS Church's positon.

    The LDS Chuch pronounced long before Prop 8 that they supported fair housing, insurance, etc. so this policy is not "bowing" to the "gays tirades" following prop 8. The Church position has been consistent.

    Headlines are now proclaiming the Chruch bowed to the pressure, in other words, "keep it up radical gays! YOur petulant boobery has won the day!

    Go ahead and continue with your harrasment of all things Mormon. White powder, destruction of property, calling Mormons un-American, interrupting services, violating private property, and mocking all things Holy to all religions etc..

    Go ahead and over play your hand.

    And see how fast this Utah legislature rescinds your little victory. Keep insulting the Church and spinning it your way, and just watch. A little humilty will go a long way, even in the Gay activist community.

    Bluto

  • bob
    Nov. 11, 2009 7:54 a.m.

    Who wrote the headline? It is bad policy to call the church the Mormon Church.

  • sutton
    Nov. 11, 2009 7:51 a.m.

    Oh oh... it's very funny how people can go from, "Gay's don't need special protection... blah, blah, blah" which have been prevalent on the forums discussing this. To, "oh how wonderful... blah, blah, blah"... in less then 24 hours.

  • Heather
    Nov. 11, 2009 7:47 a.m.

    LDS church doctrine does not change just because world views change. Im so happy that the church is making it clear as to where we stand. just because we dont agree with the lifestyles of others, doesn't mean we hate gays/lesbians.

  • Corey
    Nov. 11, 2009 7:43 a.m.

    (in response to Don't Get it!)

    "The doctrine has not and will not change."

    That is interesting, it seems that it has changed before, the matter of Black Men holding the priesthood.

    I think that acknowledging our differences in a peaceful way is just what the contemporary world needs, but when an organization such as the church seeks to actively prevent homosexual couples from marrying and enjoying the rights guaranteed exclusively to heterosexual couples, then you will have to pardon my disgust at little token gestures such as this.

    Here is some logic; it was stated earlier in the thread that the church is simply protecting its doctrines, but how may I ask have it's doctrines been assailed? If homosexual marriage were allowed, how would that change the Church's doctrine at all? The church can go on not supporting homosexual marriage and retain their exclusive support for heterosexual marriage without being hurt in the least.

    They need to stop pushing their views on others because they think it's best, and simply agree to disagree acknowledging everyone's differences peacefully.

  • again
    Nov. 11, 2009 7:33 a.m.

    Are we making laws that are unessasary? Aren't all Americans already protected from so called "hate crimes", and discrimination? Are we beating a dead horse here?

  • Sam1964
    Nov. 11, 2009 7:30 a.m.

    Why frame this as gay rights rather than human or civil rights?

  • Mahanri
    Nov. 11, 2009 7:28 a.m.

    I know this Church to be true. I've been a member for over half a century. The leaders of the Church are righteous people, full of love for everyone. I applaud all those who stand up for religious freedom. No one should ever be forced to believe a certain way even if it becomes popular or politically correct. The Gays in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah became the leaders of those cities. They tried to force everyone to think and become like them. Ultimately they were destroyed by God himself because in their perversions they would defile themselves and the children of God and would not repent.

  • @Public affairs
    Nov. 11, 2009 7:25 a.m.

    What about freedom? Can you feel it? Touch it? Possess it?
    Yet there is violence against freedom every day.

  • Ace
    Nov. 11, 2009 7:22 a.m.

    To "Public Affairs Image": I see governments around the world do violence to the concept of freedom all the time. I believe we've fought wars over that. Can freedom be felt, touched or possessed?

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 11, 2009 7:15 a.m.

    My opinion... if I have made the money to buy a place to rent to someone... I should be able to choose who I rent to. If I take a loan or government money for that place then I can accept the conditions of that loan to house who they tell me I must. (similar to section 8 - Private owners don't have to use section 8) I think this is just forcing private people to do something. What if you have 4 men living in an apartment and there is an opening for 1 more... and that person is gay.. what if the other 4 aren't comfortable with that? So they threaten to move if there is a gay person living there... the owner is stuck between a rock and a hard place.

  • Stunned
    Nov. 11, 2009 7:12 a.m.

    Does the Church now support legislation prohibiting discrimination against homosexuals in hiring by the Boy Scouts and by the military? If not, why should SLC businesses be treated differently than such organizations?

  • And...
    Nov. 11, 2009 7:03 a.m.

    the church haters keep on hating. What's new?

  • Linguist
    Nov. 11, 2009 6:51 a.m.

    While I agree that this is a move in the right direction, I am confused about the Church's position on the ability of gay couples to protect their relationships.

    The Church says it "does not object to rights 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 family..."

    So the question is: what specific civil protections must be DENIED gay couples in order NOT to "infringe on the integrity of the family?"

  • The LDS church
    Nov. 11, 2009 6:50 a.m.

    HAs never targeted people with same gender attraction as individuals, what they are opposed to is immorality in any form, including extra marital relationships between heterosexual people.

  • Anon at 12:51 am and 1:09
    Nov. 11, 2009 6:38 a.m.

    I think if the LDS church is going to do what the popular opinion is at the time, women would be able to hold priesthood positions by now.

    We invited a gay friend to church several times, and he wanted to stay in relief society with us, nobody made a big deal out it. Everybody welcomed him just fine.

    Public affairs, violence can come emotionally and mentally not just physically.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 11, 2009 6:36 a.m.

    I understand the concern of those people who rent out part of their home and wish to choose who they rent to. I'm glad I don't have to make that forced choice. You should be able to uphold your values in your own home

  • Southern Utah
    Nov. 11, 2009 6:20 a.m.

    By the look of some of these remarks, no matter what the church says or do it will never be good enough for the LGBT's...

  • Matt
    Nov. 11, 2009 5:56 a.m.

    One's motives are always called into question especially by the skeptical. All along the Church has spoken of mutual respect and civility in this ongoing debate. They have shown that respect. They have been civil. Disagreeing with ones viewpoint is not disrespectful. The manner in which the Church has conducted itself is admirable. This stand by the Church shows that they are desirous to maintain civility and respect and work in good faith with those they disagree with on other issues, i.e. marriage. For those who doubt their motives there should be no doubt. They have made their stance on marriage clear - it is between a man and a woman.

    Members of the LDS Church, or any church for that matter, are entitled to their political voice just as an other man. Their political voice can be influenced by what they believe just as one's voice can be influenced by any philosophy or idea. It is sad that so much of America condemns the political process. It is worse that they do it while labeling those that actually work within the system as "un-american."

  • Asaph
    Nov. 11, 2009 5:47 a.m.

    So the church goes up to Caesar's pavement again. I actually fully support these kind of rights but I dislike seeing the church step up for or against something in this manner. It has ALWAYS sets back the Gospel because it looks fake and insincere no matter what. I makes me very frustrated as a rank and file believer in Zion - Babylon is never going to be satisfied with us.

  • Don't get it!
    Nov. 11, 2009 4:20 a.m.

    I don't get it. For some who comment, it seems to me that you have a bone to pick with the Church no matter what it does to reach out. This is a perfect example of that. It's never good enough, is it? I salute the Church for clarifying a position and standing in the public eye to make that stance known.

    To Anonymous 12:51am....No, the LDS Church will NEVER allow Gay/Lesbian Bishops. You can take that one to the bank. The doctrine has not and will not change. And for that, I am grateful.

    Can we all just get along and acknowledge our differences in a peaceful way?

    Nice move on the part of the LDS church. I applaud it.

  • marc
    Nov. 11, 2009 2:21 a.m.

    they are hypocrites. they arrest two gay guys for a kiss on the cheek, and now don't want employers or landlords to discriminate....as long as THEY still can.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 11, 2009 1:24 a.m.

    Good, now go to the legislature and do the same thing.

    Bet that will never happen!

  • Public Affairs Image
    Nov. 11, 2009 1:11 a.m.

    Violence against the institute of marriage? REALLY? When was there any violence against something that cannot be felt, touched or possessed? HUH?

    I fail to see any relevance to this whole thing. They had the chance to support common grounds, they failed. This is nothing more than a stinky plot to pull the wool over everyone's eyes because they know that behind closed doors at the legislature, they will appose any and every thing that the city is passing. Since the city is a legislative arm of the state, it will be cast out like hot water. This is nothing more than a facade, a wolf in sheep's clothing!

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 11, 2009 1:09 a.m.

    This is about showing the world how much they think they care, this is hogwash!

    They had the opportunity to reach out to talks during the Common Grounds initiative. They showed their true colors.
    The church is doing this only for media, they know that cities are legislative arms of the Utah state government. This will all be overturned during the next legislative session. All with the seal of the LDS church behind closed door negotiations!

    This is nothing more than a farce. The church hates gays, period.

  • JustAJoe
    Nov. 11, 2009 1:04 a.m.

    This shows that while the Church considers it's beliefs non-negotiable, it provides love for all people and seeks than nobody experience harm. The church expresses it's love for people who don't follow the lifestyle it promotes. I have seen talks by the Prophets and Apostles to people who are gay, divorced and have substance abuse problems and they express more love and understanding than I see in much of the rest of the world.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 11, 2009 12:51 a.m.

    The Mormon church has moved far from the ideology of its founders, and will do pretty much whatever popular opinion tells it to do. Just wait. In a couple of decades or so there will be gay and lesbian Mormon bishops.

  • mark
    Nov. 11, 2009 12:29 a.m.

    Maybe the LDS church fears the backlash of the movie 8 the Mormon Proposition, which may appear at Sundance.

    awkward

  • mark
    Nov. 11, 2009 12:26 a.m.

    This is only Salt Lake City
    One of the areas of Utah slipping from LDS control.
    I still don't trust this. The LDS does NOTHING until after they are absolutely forced to do so. SOMETHING big will be revealed or just averted because of their supporting this ordinance....bank on it.
    I really think the Maine and WA state donations are about to be forced into the open, or massive in kind donations.

  • Good move
    Nov. 10, 2009 11:54 p.m.

    The Church has never been about hating gays, or any other group. It has only been about protecting its doctrine, there is a huge difference. This shows that it isn't about discrimination.

  • Applause
    Nov. 10, 2009 11:31 p.m.

    As an active LDS member with gay friends and relatives, this is a great step towards clarifying the church's stance. The deplorable actions of some individual members aside, the church as a whole doesn't hate gays and never did.

    Marriage is the most important thing to protect, and that's what the church is committed to do. I support that. Legal rights in terms of day-to-day life are also fine and well, and the church has no intention of denying homosexuals these basic rights of living--and never did. I can support that, too.

    It's time for working together and truly understanding the issues at hand--not pointing fingers and shouting accusations. Good step forward.

  • Egalitarian Mormon
    Nov. 10, 2009 11:12 p.m.

    I am a person who seeks for equality but absolutely understands the position of the church. What I have failed to understand is the lack of expression from the church on the things it approves. This sort of thing has helped a lot my testimony. Thank you so much for this!

  • Tab L. Uno
    Nov. 10, 2009 11:00 p.m.

    One of the main misperceptions of the Mormon Church in Utah is its direct influence in local politics. While I can't vouch for every or even most political spheres, I feel it worthwhile to point out that during the six years I spent on the Salt Lake City Board of Education, only once did I hear directly or observe that Mormon Church attempt to influence, suggest, or direct any of its religious tenets onto the Salt Lake Board of Education. While, the indirect influence of Board members who were members of the Church can't be ruled out, the Church itself never did use its influence to impose religious policy on the School District. And the one exception was for the use of a school parking lot for Church parking. For the Mormon Church's handsoff approach to public education in Utah's major City for six years, I did come away from the experience with a respect that many people might find hard to believe in the crucial sphere of public education.

  • To JW:
    Nov. 10, 2009 10:25 p.m.

    I can understand that concern for a couple reasons. A landlord over multiple properties or a property other than their own residence is one thing. But I would want to freely control who lives in my own home regardless of whatever law may exist to attempt to prevent bias.

    Human beings may have bias. Not all moral issues are legislated. I believe that in ones own home should be the only exemption merely because though I do not believe that because someone dresses like a 'junkie' that they automatically are, I do not want that influence near younger children. (Call me crazy but I have my reasons and logic that other philosophers may disagree with, but do I not have any right to philosophize myself on my own personal residence. I may offer others an exchange which is mutually beneficial but in cases where the Gov. doesn't have to step in, they shouldn't. Most situations require regulation, perhaps not the home.

    I am LDS, Paleo-conservative and an open minded philosopher. I am glad to see this legislation and the church's support. Hopefully my gay friends will acknowledge this friendliness (some haven't in the past)

  • JW
    Nov. 10, 2009 10:09 p.m.

    If a family has a basement apartment do they have to rent a gay couple. There is a huge difference between that and an apartment complex.

  • Jim G.
    Nov. 10, 2009 9:53 p.m.

    Congratulations to Mayor Becker for his work... truly breath taking after a year of such rancor..... Great work

  • MikeD
    Nov. 10, 2009 9:45 p.m.

    Am I correct in that this ordinance excludes churches, allowing them to freely choose who they associate with but property owners and employers will have that choice further restricted?