Quantcast

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

Return to article »

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

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Anonymous

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?

will anyone reciprocate?

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.

Perfect...

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.

Molli

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.

customartist

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.

Anonymous

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.

Anonymous

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.

To Zell

[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.

Gert

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.

Invisible Hand

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.

Misunderstanding

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.

"The government has no right to

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.

Rita

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.)

facts

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.

Anonymous

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.

@Molli9:03

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

"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.

Chris B.

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.

to customartist

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

Anonymous

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 comment

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