Quantcast
Utah

Protections for gays face tough fight at Utah Legislature

Comments

Return To Article
  • JSM
    Nov. 21, 2009 12:28 p.m.


    Maybe this will work.
    see JSM comments last page

    For mark, my mother grew up in East LA. There were only two white kids in school, no one left families for gay relationships.

    Pagan

    You know already, but here are some references for fun. There are so very many, I just grabbed a few, some I look at aren’t online yet, but there are lots you can Yahoo, etc.

    From a homosexual magazine “Rejecting the Gay Brain.”

    ‘Gay marriage’ and homosexuality: Some medical comments (includes one showing significant increase in homosexuality for unrelated siblings with gay adopted sibling)

    HOMOSEXUALITY NOT HEREDITARY


    Another very pro-gay article
    (I cut this quote, in case that is why they won't post, was Patti Bazemore, saying social context determines homosexual expression, it had an Ereference Google her)

    Democrats and Republicans - Rhetoric and Reality


    Also, to be fair, I noted twinstudies with 50% above, allegedly done by gay researchers.

    Not sure if that's what you wanted? Are you interested in those showing that homosexuals are more violent, more addicts,pedophiles, children raised by gays are more often gay, etc.?

    So, are you full time?
    Is this part of an organized effort?

    stillloveya

  • JSM
    Nov. 21, 2009 11:41 a.m.

    Pagan, wanted to let you know that I have sent studies, I even removed URLs but often my comments aren't posted for some reason. I'll try again.
    But, the reason I said "Studies show exposure increases homosexuality. 60 years ago my mother personally knew of no one who left their wife and children because they thought they were gay and simply could not keep their marriage vows. Now it is everywhere. You may argue that this is because society didn’t accept breaking homes back then; many feel this destruction of families should not be today" is because there is a lot of propaganda out there, but, like weather science,we can all just walk outside and see what is really going on.

    The idea that all people were born gay, who pursue a heterosexual relationships, marry for years and then come out, in spite of commitments, etc., that is absurd to me. They could have run off long before the children, or marriage etc. There is far more pressure after.

    Also, I have always supported gay rights, as the LDS Church does. I just don't believe in legally enforcing it.
    Still loveya, thanks for the kindness

  • Re:Pagan JSM
    Nov. 20, 2009 3:31 a.m.


    The above being said (if they post), I truly have no need to prove that homosexual behavior or leaving families for gay relationships etc, are wrong, we all know. I have no animosity towards you, and care deeply for all humanity. That’s why I comment, trying to slow the flow.

    I do notice a dangerous amount of hatred among homosexuals though, against my wonderful people. It seems your powerful special interest group has singled out a hated religious minority for attack, and there is truly an attempt to “destroy the Utah brand,” drive Mormons “into the ground,” and some even give an Amen to Boggs’ call for increased violence and extermination (Want references? I tried on DoubleStandard2 “No backlash for handcart”) And it’s not just a few. Activists seem to need to hate on Mormons. We know, of course, that it is the same hate that inspired attacks against Jesus. It is truly bigotry, and wrong.

    It is the duty of every LDS to give love in return, and turn the other cheek. And you should teach your friends likewise, to be both, human and kind, instead of trying to lead astray from Christ's love.

  • Pagan
    Nov. 16, 2009 7:24 p.m.

    'What if such people (homosexuals) were working with children or people with special needs?' - 6:21 p.m.

    Nothing.

    Why should children be afraid of homosexuals? What are you trying to imply?

    Homosexuals watch children every day. Nothing happens to them. We also fight fires, handle food and draw blood.

    Bottom line, nothing much seperates what a gay person does from a straight person. To think otherwise is childish.

    And to imply your children need to be 'saved' from gay people is pathetic. As nothing is wrong with them.

  • Christy
    Nov. 16, 2009 6:43 p.m.

    Do you go around 'flaunting' your heterosexuality? I wear a wedding ring. I have pictures on my desk at work of my family. I talk about my husband and kids to friends, co-workers, neighbors. Am I 'flaunting' my heterosexuality?

    If you don't want to look at any gay people, if it offends your delicate sensibilities, if it threatens you, and if you don't want to move to the moon, then I pray you open up your heart and mind a little. Gay people are just people, just like you and me. We have the same beating hearts and the same laughter and the same desire to be accepted and liked.

  • This is only the beginning
    Nov. 16, 2009 6:21 p.m.

    Gays are happy, but this will not be sufficient.

    They will use this to frame the Church as being hypocritical and inconsistent in its positions on marriage down the road so that it will sway public opinion in their favor.

    I feel like we're empowering and emboldening some who will think they can flaunt the fact they're that way in the workplace and on private property.

    What about the rights of those of us who don't need or want to know that? What if such people were working with children or people with special needs?

    We need to SLOW DOWN and think this through a little bit--the radicals are going to want us to rush this through without thinking through the consequences carefully.

    Just wait for CNN, NBC, CBS, and the other liberal news outlets to portray the Church as changing their position on marriage now for their support of this.

  • Sign of the Times
    Nov. 16, 2009 5:36 p.m.

    The fact that the LDS Church's opinion on the status of CIVIL marriage means anything at all, let alone that it influences millions of sheeple to act in bigoted ways, is downright scary!

  • Pagan
    Nov. 16, 2009 2:39 p.m.

    'please site the sources for all these claims. you claimt here are studies I would like to read them.' - 1:09 p.m.

    There are none. It is fiction.

  • Pagan
    Nov. 16, 2009 1:45 p.m.

    'Pagan, how are you? Interesting that you’re here full time, like professional Mormon haters...'

    JSM, darling, pumpkin, at what point did I mention the Mormon faith in my last post? LDS?

    If your going to call someone a hater, it should be due to something they have done, not something you can only accuse them of.

    Also, what studies are you quoting? I would like to know the names and who did them. I have mentioned my sources who support being gay is natrual and any attempts at re-orientation are harmful. The American Psychological Association, The American Medical Association & the CDC.

    Also, I would be hard pressed to say that homosexuality has increased. Granted, there is more exposure, however as for actual numbers? That is fiction.

    If a person is in the closet, are they straight?

    No.

    There is a need to protect minorities. SLC's own discrimination report gives us 300 exampels of why.

    Oh, but JSM knows better.

    Sin and moraility are fiction. No one is 'guilty' of being in a healthy, loving relationship.

    If one family is denied due to ignorance, the lies are not worth it.

    Loveya

  • @JSMagainsorry |
    Nov. 16, 2009 1:09 p.m.

    please site the sources for all these claims. you claimt here are studies I would like to read them.

  • JSMagainsorry
    Nov. 16, 2009 11:41 a.m.

    Just want to again state that studies have shown that exposure to homosexuality, legally enforcing, and mainstreaming it does increase the numbers of people who think they are gay.
    It has also been proven, through identical-twin studies and others, that in many cases, if not most, gays were not born that way. There is no known gene forcing homosexuality. There is a lot of propaganda trying to prove otherwise. I don't know why gays feel the need to do this.

    Not long ago very few people left their wife and children because they thought they were born gay and simply could not keep their marriage vows. Now it is everywhere. You may argue that this is because society didn’t accept breaking homes back then; many feel this destruction of families should not be today, mainstreaming homosexuality isn’t the answer.

    You are free practice it, there is no need to legally enforce it, and when you encourage and promote homosexuality you are hurting them, and all humanity. I have seen the tears, felt the anguish, and know the broken homes.

    If one person returns to their family, it is worth it to get the truth out.

  • JSM
    Nov. 16, 2009 11:33 a.m.


    As Nevada thoughtfully explained, Christ's Church is progressive,changing from the days of Adam.
    Some changes are PR. Paul gave us “when in Rome.”
    Sometimes God has to open minds. Originally Levitical priesthood was racist, and familial. It was not given to white Europeans, nor was the gospel taught to anyone but Israelites. Peter had to be bonked before he would share.
    Paul and Barnabas fought over changing doctrines and separated.
    For years Church leaders debated eliminating the “eternal covenant” of circumcision, they waited for Peter’s revelation.
    Polygamy waxed and waned.
    After the restoration LDS were again progressive. Many churches wouldn’t let blacks through the door. JSmith gave blacks priesthood. Utah women were first to vote, first lawyers, Doctors, etc. LDS scriptures and most leaders opposed slavery, and taught that blacks are blessed with superior “wisdom,” and are equal, etc. LDS were attacked for their pro-African and Native American and women stances. Rules were made.
    (And, yes, we know that quote you want to dig up.)

    There were reasons for all this changing, but, while Abraham prayed for Sodom's rights, I can still think of no circumstance where homosexual marriage is necessary or good.

  • JSM
    Nov. 16, 2009 11:28 a.m.

    And, to mark, above, there’s a lot of propaganda out. I’m not sure what you wanted to say, but I feel it’s wrong for men to leave their families for other men, or for any other reason. There is a recent flood of this, and if it is caused by a lack of education, then perhaps we should start educating our children at two.


    And, are you the same mark who thinks the Church controls Utah and everything else, yet, at the same time, the Church only came out for gays under “duress” and pressure from legislators and gays? Hmmm.


    Anyway, again, there is a dramatic increase in persons who grow up heterosexual, persue relationships, marry, have children, and ten years later, being subjected to propaganda, decide they are gay and abandon families. I think we should discourage this.

    And, we are all sinners, I don't think it's right to assume you are better than smokers, or me, with my issues, etc. I think we should all admit our sinful natures, and this is a step to overcoming, as many have overcome homosexuality, which is also unhealthy, yet we are all God's children.

  • JSM
    Nov. 16, 2009 11:18 a.m.


    Pagan, how are you?
    Interesting that you’re here full time, like professional Mormon haters elsewhere, who can be much more open about their hatred.
    Are you in Utah? Most organized, paid, fulltime activists seem to be from other States.

    Anyway, I hope all is going well for you in your personal life (not in your attacks against LDS if you’re involved in that), and you’ve responded to my comments several times, possibly without reading them. I assume you know from past conversations that marriage legally and lawfully enforces relationships, and thus lifestyle.
    I hope that clears things up.
    We should all fully understand what marriage is, and why it is a crucial act of compassion to lovingly preserve traditional families, while supporting human rights.

    And you’ve heard this before, most gays I talk to pass judgment on siblings, polygamists, etc, and feel they should not have the right to marry, but those 100 benefits (now 1000) are gay rights, not rights of everyone. Sad.

    For visitation and taxes, attack hospitals and Obama, not Mormons, we can’t control them. The Church is already risking Tribune outrage and lawsuits for speaking out for your rights.

    Still loveya.

  • Pagan
    Nov. 16, 2009 10:08 a.m.

    'gays have always had equal rights under the law. (sic)...everyone is already treated equally under the law.'

    Wrong.

    Abe, a gay person cannot join the military, donate blood, not to mention the over 1,000 rights that come with marriage.

    A staright person can do all that openly.

    How equal is that?

    Also, this law WOULD protect someone from being fired for being straight.

    However, I have yet to hear of one case in 30+ years. So, don't act like the victim here.

    Previous 'definitions' of marriage was white on white and black on black.

    America has since learned that everyone should be treated equally.

    Being denied marriage and protections when discrimination is very much a fact of life is pathetic.

    Gay marriage will not make you gay. These protections will not allow 'special' protections when gay men and women are fired every day. Don't Ask, Dont Tell is only one example. The SLC discrimination report in July '09 is another. How many do we need?

    If you are against gay marriage, fine

    don't have one.

    Allow others the rights and privilages you covet.

  • Abe Lincoln
    Nov. 16, 2009 9:16 a.m.

    to: I am so excited!/Winky

    you mean special rights. gays have always had equal rights under the law. these rights that you want are brand new and will favor only homosexuals. there is not one right in the book that you do not already have, including marriage. it doesn't matter whether you are gay or not, you can marry. marriage is a man and a woman. if you fit that criteria, you can marry, regardless of your sexual orientation. housing,: you you can evict someone for being staright? yes, that is the law. workplace? you can fire someone for being staright as well. the question here is not equality, everyone is already treated equally under the law. you want new rights. the kind of society you want is one dedicated to nothing other then sexual conduct. sounds pretty perverted if you ask me. just keep it private, thats all people want. equal rights for all (and you gays alredy have that), special privilages for none (and no, straights don't have that).

  • Pagan
    Nov. 15, 2009 7:07 p.m.

    'However, mainstreaming and legally enforcing homsexuality are not the answer.'

    JSM, how would one legally enforce homosexuality?

    This is to enforce none discriminate due to orientation.

    No one is asking you, much less force you to be a homosexual.

    Know the difference.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 14, 2009 4:37 p.m.

    attempting....typo in previous post

  • mark
    Nov. 14, 2009 4:35 p.m.

    JSM

    Authorities agree sexual orientation IN EVERYONE is set by the age of three. It is inalterable, and those attemting to change people's orientation cause HARM.
    My Mormon mother had never seen a Black person, until she left Utah on her honeymoon and traveled to the midwest(in 1945.) She probably knew no people who divorced....for any reason, either.
    The highest divorces are caused by less educated young people marrying. States with more mature couples marrying with higher levels of education have the lowest divorce rates. THAT'S MA and they've had same sex marriage for 6 years, and their already low divorce rate DECREASED since marriage equality.
    As someone who has attended 12 step groups, it is OFFENSIVE that you treat LGBTs in the catagory of alcoholism, overeating, drug addictions, sex addictions, co dependency. Being gay isn't an illness and needs NO CURE. Hatred and Ignorance needs the CURE.

  • JSM
    Nov. 14, 2009 1:12 p.m.

    The Church has once again done the right thing in supporting rights and showing compassion.

    I wonder if there will be outrage and lawsuits etc, for LDS involvement.

    I agree with those above that polygamists and others should also have these rights.


    I disagree that all homosexuals are born that way, like eye color. There is no known gene forcing gayness. Race is genetic, twin studies show that many homosexuals, probably most, are not born that way. There is a potential, just as there is for alcoholism, terminal nicotine addiction (especially when those with the gene start young), and etc.

    Many have realized they are free and have come back from homosexuality

    Studies show exposure increases homosexuality. 60 years ago my mother personally knew of no one who left their wife and children because they thought they were gay and simply could not keep their marriage vows. Now it is everywhere.
    If we teach people to avoid it when they are young we will help slow this flood destroying families.
    I know the tears and ruined lives.

    Gays should have the rights to live
    and work peaceably, as everyone. However, mainstreaming and legally enforcing homsexuality are not the answer.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 13, 2009 5:28 p.m.

    @5:10
    The way this article should have begun:

    Discrimination in SLC has ended, don't get used to it, the state legislature will never allow it to stand....it is afterall still Utah.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 13, 2009 5:10 p.m.

    How this article should have started:

    Now that the LDS Church has approved ordinances that make it illegal to fire or evict someone for being gay, will the Legislature and Gov. Gary Herbert follow suit?

  • Pagan
    Nov. 13, 2009 2:33 p.m.

    'Who knows, maybe this will lead to more shoulder rubbing between all of us. I know that I would like that.' - 1:42 p.m.

    I agree.

  • I am so excited!/Winky
    Nov. 13, 2009 1:42 p.m.

    I am so excited that we gays may finally get considerations that the rest of you have enjoyed for forever. I applaud the strong people in church and government that stand up for all the people and not just the majority. Who knows, maybe this will lead to more shoulder rubbing between all of us. I know that I would like that.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 13, 2009 10:14 a.m.

    TO -- @Pagan (know it all) | 2:28 p.m

    ["No, of course it's not adult like to fire a gay person for being gay. But where is the intelligence in firing someone who is against gay marriage? Your arguments are all one sided"]

    no one is ever fired for being against gay marriage. but there are harrassement laws that make it so you CANNOT make someone feel harrassed at work. they apply to EVERYONE. if you're mormon and every day a person walks by your desk and says your religion is a fairy tale and that you're crazy, that's harrassement and that person can be fired. same with someone telling a gay person they are sinning. companies would much rather fire the harrasser than get sued by the harrassed paerson. and trust me - harrassement lawsuits pay big bucks.

    want to know the secret to preventing it? DON'T HARRASS PEOPLE AT WORK. people's private lives have NOTHING to do with work so keep it professional.

    can't believe I actually have to explain this to people. how sad that you wouldn't already know this...

  • to -- k | 12:39 p.m
    Nov. 13, 2009 10:08 a.m.

    ["As I was watching the news last night, I saw a story of a man in Massachusetts who was fired for verbalizing his beliefs to a gay co worker that her life style was wrong, all the while she taunted him about the fact she married her gay partner knowing full well his stance on the matter.

    Who was protecting him from being fired? No one! Now who isn't tolerant?"]

    who is protecting him from being fired? not me!! he DESERVES to be fired!! how stupid is this guy? what if the other person was black and this guyt didn't like blacks? the black person "flaunts" it every day just by showing up to work!! so if this guy calls them the n word that would be ok?

    this idiot guy needs to mind his own business. if the gay person "taunted" him every day by saying things, then HE should have filed a complaint. but sounds like he wasn't smart enough for that. he should be fired just for being stupid!!!

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 13, 2009 9:35 a.m.

    I own a couple of duplexes. I was leary of renting to a couple of lesbians, but, I can tell you that they put a whole backyard in. Nothing was taken off their rent, but they just wanted to have a place to hang out!

    Some of the best renters I ever had!

  • Pagan
    Nov. 13, 2009 8:20 a.m.

    'Dude I totally agree with you, but you are using the example of DADT way too much. I am on your side and I totally am getting bored of your broken record statistic.' - 6:17 p.m.

    Then please, do something about it.

  • Livingsone
    Nov. 12, 2009 7:23 p.m.

    I'd like to know what Whaddoups is thinking. If only I could talk to him personally. He said something about not wanting gays "flaunting their lifestyle" at his business or in his rental units. I'm concerned he has been watching too much TV...that he's depending on stereotypes to judge how homosexuals act, not actually knowing any himself. There are two homosexuals who work where I do in Utah county (we only have 13 employees). Nobody could tell they're gay unless they have exceptional gaydar. They do their jobs well. There are also many Latter-day Saints there. They don't flaunt their religion by proselyting or expressing themselves beyond an employee of the company either. I just don't think he's thinking realistically.

  • mark
    Nov. 12, 2009 6:58 p.m.

    @@Pagan (know it all)

    No one has been fired for being against gay marriage,, or even for funding anti-gay marriage initiatives, referendums, or questions.
    Two peopole QUIT their jobs after prop 8.
    People quit their jobs every second of every day for all kinds of reasons.

  • Peggy
    Nov. 12, 2009 6:29 p.m.

    "gay employees "out flaunting the gay lifestyle" during work hours. He said he also had concerns about similar behavior among his tenants. "I'm not going to put up with that on any of my properties," Waddoups said."

    Does Waddoups mind if straight people "flaunt their lifestyle during work hours" or similar behavior among his straight tenants? I've been witness to lots of "flaunting" of straight lifestyle at workplaces and at rental properties and no one seems to do anything about it or even mind very much. So if straight people can "flaunt their lifestyle", why can't gay people do the same? Seems only fair to me. - And, by the way, I am a straight person, but in favor of equity for ALL!

  • re -- The Truth | 12:05 p.m
    Nov. 12, 2009 6:22 p.m.

    ["To pretend that homosexuals are "born gay" is to deny nature, biology, physiology and evolution not to mention facts, truth, reality and common sense. Nothing could possibly be more normal or natural than the relationship between male & female human beings."]

    to pretend that homosexulas are NOT "born gay" is to deny common sense and your own eyes. it goes against everything that a person can see right in front of them.

    if gays aren't "born gay", then why are they gay? why are 4% of animals gay? who would purposely be gay?

    you really need to think about it. you know how disguste you feel when two guys kiss? i get disgusted too. but the gay guys get disgusted thinking about kissing a woman. why do you think that is? are they hypnotised by gay rebels as children? alien abductions?

    think before you post.

  • To Pagan
    Nov. 12, 2009 6:17 p.m.

    Dude I totally agree with you, but you are using the example of DADT way too much. I am on your side and I totally am getting bored of your broken record statistic.

  • @2:22
    Nov. 12, 2009 6:14 p.m.

    Prejean is a horrible example as she was FIRED FOR NOT DOING HER JOB! She lied on her application and hid the fact that she had posed for nude/semi-nude pictures.

    She may have lost the pageant because of the gay marriage question (the opinion of one disgusting bottom feeder of a gay man) but she got fired all by herself and it had little to do with her opinion.

    Unless you count going against her contract and holding unauthorized interviews as being fired for her opinion.

  • MormonDem
    Nov. 12, 2009 5:21 p.m.

    "But, being black was never considered a sin, it's not a behavior that needs repenting of. You can't even put blacks and gays in the same category. One is deviant behavior, the other is not."

    Actually, for a long time it was widely believed, and even preached by McConkie, that skin color was the result of good or bad behavior in the preexistence. Thank goodness that erroneous thought has been rejected.

  • to: keep it private Gayle
    Nov. 12, 2009 4:21 p.m.


    guess what? you can ban her from your business, and property. no one is denying you that right. if you just don't like the person, or what she beleives in or the way she acts, then you don't have to associate yourself with that person. that has always been the law. you always have the right to refuse service. so tell me, why is it that you can ban gale but i can't ban a gay person? why is that all of a sudden i have to give special rights to someone because of the way they have sex? what, you can discriminate against appearences but not against open immoral and disgusting acts?

  • Oh goodie
    Nov. 12, 2009 3:43 p.m.

    The population of the LDS church will start dropping as soon as the ultra-right start leaving...

  • Pagan
    Nov. 12, 2009 3:01 p.m.

    'But where is the intelligence in firing someone who is against gay marriage? Your arguments are all one sided.'

    And your claims are a work of fiction.

    I have yet to hear of one high-profile case of a straight person being fired for being anti-gay.

    Prejean was fired for posing for topless photos and making a tape for her boyfriend.

    Oh yeah, big pillar of morallity. And she's your only example.

    And yet you ignore 13k examples of it happening to gay people. 300 of which happen here in SLC.

    There IS no intelligence in firing someone for anything besides not being able to do the job.

    This is what the bill is.

    You agree, yet it's ok to do it to gay people?

    Your defens is 'it's ok for you to be a victim because I'm a BIGGER victim.'

    If your against discrimination against you, you should be against workplace discrimination against others.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 12, 2009 2:55 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.


  • @Pagan (know it all)
    Nov. 12, 2009 2:28 p.m.

    You're not making any sense.
    No, of course it's not adult like to fire a gay person for being gay. But where is the intelligence in firing someone who is against gay marriage? Your arguments are all one sided.

  • @Pagan
    Nov. 12, 2009 2:22 p.m.

    You are completely missing the point.
    The Massachusetts situation is a blue print of what others can expect if they too speak out.
    Because you haven't heard the story does not dismiss the fact this is happening. The point is that it's happening. The story is true, try watching the news.

    The comment from Miss California, Carrie Prejean, at the Miss USA pageant is another perfect example.


  • Anonymous
    Nov. 12, 2009 2:05 p.m.


    'Who is protecting the guy in Massachusetts who recently was fired for verbalizing his view of gay marriage to a gay co- worker?'


    Many companies have anti-discrimination bylaws that state that you cannot deride those who are LGBT. If he was decrying her partnership and telling her that because of his beliefs, she was doomed to hell, YES, he could be fired for stating that.

    Can you imagine that you just have a picture of your partner on your desk and a co-worker feels it necessary to tell you that he believes that you are evil and going to hell? What type of atmosphere is that? That is why companies will not accept this.

    Ask a person in HR. You might be surprised how many companies right here in Utah have these policies too.


  • gays...some explanation
    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.

  • John Pack Lambert
    Nov. 12, 2009 1:55 p.m.

    To the 8:24 commentator,
    It was the conservatives who dissented on immenent domain to help a business. Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist and Kennedy all dissented. It was the moderates and liberals who affirmed the taking of private land for private use. At least get your facts straight before going on the attack.

  • Pagan
    Nov. 12, 2009 1:52 p.m.

    'Any elected official who supports said measures will not get my vote.' - Stop.

    They'll get mine.

    And while talking about shoving a lifestyle let's meet up at your local Hooters on 7100 S. State Street in midvale and discuss this further.

  • Pagan
    Nov. 12, 2009 1:44 p.m.

    'Was that an insult to my intelligence or just an oversight?' - 1:11 p.m.

    Whichever. Any reply I give will be wrong as you are looking for insult.

    So because I say 'act like an adult' it's ok to fire a gay person?

  • John Pack Lambert
    Nov. 12, 2009 1:41 p.m.

    To the 4:11 commentator,
    I was under the impression it was a percentage of budget and not a specific amount allowed.
    There is also the long-standing issue of why unions, whose membership in many states is fored by law, can be tax exempt and campaign for specific candidates, but churches cannot.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 12, 2009 1:30 p.m.

    Laws regarding marriage.... | 12:39 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009
    "...are the same for everyone. We all have the exact same rights and restrictions when it comes to marriage. To change those laws because some people don't want to obey them is asking for trouble."


    But, the anti-gay marriage group is the ones that are changing the laws and passing NEW LAWS that state that marriage is only between men and women.


    This is the truth. We all HAD the same rights, but because they covered EVERYONE, they were changed.

    Isn't that interesting...

  • Stop
    Nov. 12, 2009 1:29 p.m.

    Any elected official who supports said measures will not get my vote. This would just encourage more laws and shove this life style down the throats of citizens that will not support these made up rights.

  • Pagan
    Nov. 12, 2009 1:25 p.m.

    'Who is protecting the guy in Massachusetts who recently was fired for verbalizing his view of gay marriage to a gay co- worker?' - 12:51 p.m.

    I would assume religious freedom. However, if this person dosen't use it, that's his choice.

    You have given one (1) example of discrimination. One that I have never heard of.

    While I think it is wrong, where is your outcry for the 13,000 men & women discharged under Don't Ask, Don't Tell? This still continues. We loose 1-2 per day due to this law.

    While you have given one example of the opposite.

    If all this man DID was argue about someone else's marriage, I can see how it would cause conflict. I would put these two in different departments. If it continued I think this would be harrasement about one's marriage before discrimination.

    However, again, I have never heard of this story. I can only bring the facts I know.

    And while both are wrong, you would need 12,999 more examples for them to be comparable.

  • @Pagan
    Nov. 12, 2009 1:11 p.m.

    " And I'm just going to reply I'm not better than anyone else"

    You obviously don't practice what you preach. This was your response to my comment.

    "Get over yourself" "try arguing like an adult"

    Was that an insult to my intelligence or just an oversight?

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

    'Pagan, can I just say your awesome? :)' - 12:21 p.m.

    Heh. You can. And I'm just going to reply I'm not better than anyone else. :)

    'I'm pretty confident that the Prophet Thomas S. Monson will never have a revelation that gay marriage is o.k.' - 12:04 p.m.

    Good thing you can't make any Guarantees, huh? That would be covered under the 'men will never fly', 'we will never reach the moon'arguments.

    'No one is discussing the actual issue - the rights of a business owner to run his or her own business...'

    Haline, business is good for business! If your trying to limit your customers, perhaps you should not BE in business.

    '..." Polygamy itself, within the bonds of marriage, is not sin.' - No comparison.

    You realize that that a "sin" is a religious viewpoint, that has no legal standing whatsoever. Thanks 11:23 a.m.

    Covered under the 'Oh, it's ok when YOU want to do it' argument.

    Bottom line. This is about fundamental rights. To keep a job. To live in a home.

    I think marriage will come later. As the pursuit of happiness is not limited.

  • @Pagan
    Nov. 12, 2009 12:51 p.m.

    Who is protecting the guy in Massachusetts who recently was fired for verbalizing his view of gay marriage to a gay co- worker? If you want to talk about feeling safe where you work, lets talk about protecting everyone.

  • NICE
    Nov. 12, 2009 12:49 p.m.

    I think the LDS church did a good thing. Hate the sin and not the sinner. That's what JESUS did. The church is not for homosexuality.

  • Ted
    Nov. 12, 2009 12:43 p.m.

    How is it that everyone acts like Utah is the only place like this, there are many states (including Maine and California which are considerably more liberal than Utah) that have refused to give gays the chance to marry. The problem obviously isn't Utah or that the people here are closed minded or anything like that.

  • keep it private Gayle
    Nov. 12, 2009 12:41 p.m.

    I do not want my business image to be of old white ladies with helmet hair and I certainly do not want to portray that image at my properties less it hurt my sales and rental values so is Gayle alright with me banning her and her friends from my business's and properties? I certainly do not want my daughter to grow up thinking helmet hair is an acceptable behavior choice and I wish Gayle and her friends would keep that behavior behind closed doors where it belongs.

  • k
    Nov. 12, 2009 12:39 p.m.

    As I was watching the news last night, I saw a story of a man in Massachusetts who was fired for verbalizing his beliefs to a gay co worker that her life style was wrong, all the while she taunted him about the fact she married her gay partner knowing full well his stance on the matter.

    Who was protecting him from being fired? No one! Now who isn't tolerant?

  • Laws regarding marriage....
    Nov. 12, 2009 12:39 p.m.

    ...are the same for everyone. We all have the exact same rights and restrictions when it comes to marriage. To change those laws because some people don't want to obey them is asking for trouble. If we change the laws to accomodate homosexual marriage, it will be just a matter of time until people will demand that we allow polygamous marriage, incestuous marriage (why CAN'T I marry my own sister?), marriage to children, etc. Do we really want to go there?

  • xscribe
    Nov. 12, 2009 12:38 p.m.

    If you all want to pull the religion card about this issue, then use that religion card for all aspects of life. Don't pull out one issue and say it's wrong, because I can guarantee that for everyone who is against gay rights has not followed some aspect of his/her religion and/or the Bible. But because they think they are "normal," and are heterosexual, that somehow they can stand on the pulpit of morality and judge other people.

  • Sarah
    Nov. 12, 2009 12:38 p.m.

    Thank you "Amazing Ingorance of Facts". Your comment is like a breath of fresh air in this forum.

    Change will come, in time, but the church will have to do it in baby steps, as they are. We must all be patient and willing to listen and learn with our hearts.

  • Promised I wouldn't comment but,
    Nov. 12, 2009 12:35 p.m.

    Wow, I am amazed at how many idiots on here think that gays have the same rights as straight people. Have ANY of you ever met a gay person? Let alone asked them how their lives differ from others in the community? For starts, lets look at tax benefits... while you're 12 kids are going to school and getting free lunches I'm flipping the bill and you're getting a tax break from the gov. because you were too stupid to use birth control. When your partner dies, their SS reverts to you and mine is eaten up by your poverty stricken butt. When your loved ones are in the hospital you can go see them...the list goes on and on and there are more 298 rights and responsibilites that come with a marriage license. Take the time to look them up before you spout off about how we have all the same rights.

  • Ignorance
    Nov. 12, 2009 12:35 p.m.

    I am not gay but have gay friends. I want them to be happy but they seldom are. I do not want to see them discriminated against but they sometimes are.

    Most Christian churches believe Homosexuality is a sin but
    the LDS Church (along with many other religions) teaches tolerance but they have many members who are not.
    The LDS Church (along with many other religions) Preaches love thy neighbor but many of their members don't.

    I have seen some of the most bigoted comments on this site. Both those for "gay rights" and those who oppose "gay Rights".

    If you preach "Tolerance" while you trash another groups beliefs you are a BIGOT.

    If you can't teach your family good values but help them to understand that some people you see do things differently, then you are failing as a parent.

    If you are so bitter against religion you take every chance to attack the prominent one in the area (trust me there's one in every big city) I have for pity you and hope that someday you find solace some place.

    My advice is to accept people for who they are and be happy.

  • kp
    Nov. 12, 2009 12:33 p.m.

    Now if we can prevent companies and institutions like the U of U from ridding themselves of full-time employees over the age of 45 who have benefits by dumping entire departments so they can hire youngens cheaper and stop bullying others into retirement that would also be a giant step upward.
    All kinds of bullying by employers,managers, etc should be stopped and not ever have to be tolerated.

  • Know it all
    Nov. 12, 2009 12:33 p.m.

    People are born gay, they have a choice as much as you do to choose you eye color. It's not a chosen lifestyle the Rights stomping Southern Institute should get that right!

  • Gert
    Nov. 12, 2009 12:32 p.m.

    The bottom line is that there is discrimination against gays and there should not be. As a devout, heterosexual Latter-day Saint woman, I'm glad to see that there is a move, albeit a slow one, to protect everyone, not just white, middle-class males.

  • Pagan
    Nov. 12, 2009 12:29 p.m.

    'Gays are using the power of law to force everyone, including religious organizations, to compromise their beliefs that marriage is between a man and a woman.'

    Uh, no. This is about job protection and eviction process.

    When was this about marriage again?

    Granted, 11:52 a.m, I would like to get married one day. And apparently you think my marriage would affect yours in some way.

    That is for another day.

    This is about the right to hold a job and feel safe in where you live.

    I think even you have that.

    Why not me?

    Because it 'immoral' or 'sinful'?

    You realize these are made up terms that cannot be verified one way or another as whatever I say will not be from 'God', right?

    Try arguing like an adult.

    If a gay man cannot pay you rent, fine. Begin the eviction process.

    But to evict someone because of what they do on sunday?

    Get over yourself. Your belief does not dictate as law for the world.

  • @ 4:56
    Nov. 12, 2009 12:27 p.m.

    I hate to burst your bubble, but the LDS church will close its Temples before allowing gay marriage to take place in them. Christ does not allow the least degree of sin, and homosexuality is a sin unto the Lord.
    Instead of going through the process of repenting like everybody else would be expected to do, gays have chosen to force their way inch by inch, hoping that doctrine will simply change or that revelation will take place.
    The argument is that blacks were given the priesthood due to changes within the church. This is true. But, being black was never considered a sin, it's not a behavior that needs repenting of. You can't even put blacks and gays in the same category. One is deviant behavior, the other is not.
    Christ did not create gay spirits and then turn around contradicting himself when he declared that homosexuality is an abomination. He does not change with the political winds, neither will His church.

  • to Pagan
    Nov. 12, 2009 12:21 p.m.

    can I just say you're awesome? :)

  • Re To Mark
    Nov. 12, 2009 12:10 p.m.

    Sorry to burst your bubble but it's not gonna happen.

  • The Truth
    Nov. 12, 2009 12:05 p.m.

    To pretend that homosexuals are "born gay" is to deny nature, biology, physiology and evolution not to mention facts, truth, reality and common sense. Nothing could possibly be more normal or natural than the relationship between male & female human beings. Consequently, nothing could be more abnormal than homosexuality. It is too bad the truth is constantly trampled in favor of politically correct rhetoric & extremism.

  • Haline
    Nov. 12, 2009 12:04 p.m.

    Everyone is talking about the "rights" of homosexuals (as if they differ from the rightsd of heterosexuals). No one is discussing the actual issue - the rights of a business owner to run his or her own business the way that is best for business. This is an issue of business-owner rights, not homosexual rights.

    Personally I'm opposed to any legislation that tries to dictate every detail of how a business can operate, it's un-Constitutional. However, I appreciate Gov Herbert's view of local government - if these kinds of laws are going to be passed it ought to be done as locally as possible, as a city ordinance, or maybe at the county level. That may complicate it for businesses that operate in multiple cities, but it would be far more Constitutional than a state-wide law.

    Utah is a right-to-work state, which attracts businesses, which leads to more jobs. Making it harder for someone to run their own business is why states like California are LOSING business owners every day, and their citizens are losing jobs.

  • @12:41
    Nov. 12, 2009 12:04 p.m.

    I'm pretty confident that the Prophet Thomas S. Monson will never have a revelation that gay marriage is o.k.
    I know many people out there are hoping this will come to pass some day, but it won't.

  • @3:48
    Nov. 12, 2009 11:52 a.m.

    " Gay marriage is only immoral in certain religions"

    So that makes it right?

    " don't make your religious dogma civil law"

    Gays are using the power of law to force everyone, including religious organizations, to compromise their beliefs that marriage is between a man and a woman. So please , don't make your gay marriage dogma into law, period.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 12, 2009 11:44 a.m.

    "D&C 134:9 We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, WHEREBY ONE RELIGIOUS SOCIETY IS FOSTERED AND ANOTHER PROSCRIBED in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied."

    What the scriptures are talking about here is the same thing our Founding Fathers wrote into the Constitution: that it is illegal for ONE religion to rule the nation at the expense of all others: they are NOT saying that religious people and organizations cannot vote their conscience and/or speak about their beliefs in the public square, respectively. Quite the opposite, a couple of verses later the scriptures say "we believe it just to preach the gospel to the nations of the earth..." and at the beginning of the section the D&C says the just laws must "secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience." What about those of us who are religious individuals who are exercising our conscience by voting against homosexual marriage, since we believe homosexual marriage will further weaken the family and society?

  • Pagan
    Nov. 12, 2009 11:36 a.m.

    'GAY MARRIAGE & ANY SPECIAL PROTECTIONS FOR THEM ARE WRONG! I was an LDS for years, first time i have EVER been ashamed of it!'

    So, you think discrimination is ok, so long as it's gay people derick?

    Race, gender, age, disability, religion, all those SHOULD be protected but not your sexual orientation? Is that what I'm hearing?

    Sounds like the LDS church should be ashamed of you.

  • Jeff
    Nov. 12, 2009 11:30 a.m.

    The church gave the priesthood to blacks because it was in the church's interest to do so. (Didn't they have a temple burned to the ground in Africa awhile ago?) Extending basic rights to gays short of marriage is also in the church's interest. They have hurt their reputation permanently and have lost members and their tithing money.

  • to -- Jeff R | 9:13 a.m.
    Nov. 12, 2009 11:28 a.m.

    ["Ok you people seriously are not arguing whats better between Polygamy and Homosexuality are you. Seriously, its a no contest. While polygamy is illegal today it wasnt back in the biblical days when it was widely accepted. Homosexuality has been a moral sin since the time began. Reguardless of its legality or not its still a sin"]

    wow - another religious fanatic. good one, jeff. so gay is a sin.. per your old books... and so everyone should conform to your idea of right and wrong, regardless of the fact that there is no "victim" in gayness (other than bullies and bigots). and homosexuality was accepted long before polygamy. look at rome BC. and polygamy has lots of victims - just look at the flds.

    you aren't seriously calling homosexuality a sin based on your old books of wild tales, are you? your books have lots of other things you ignore - why focus on that? and other books - aesops fables for one - don't say anything about it.

    if you want us all to follow your old books, perhaps we need to bring back stoning of women, and child sacrifice... how'd that be, jeff? you good with that?

  • "sin"
    Nov. 12, 2009 11:23 a.m.

    I keep seeing this word in these comments. I would like to take a moment and remind everyone that a "sin" is a religious viewpoint, that has no legal standing whatsoever. You threaten the very religious freedom you claim to want every time you try to turn a "sin" into a crime.

    In the United States of America, land of the free, there must be a victim for there to be a crime. And homosexuality, no matter how gross you may find it personally, and no matter how immoral your religion may view it as, does not victimize people. And it is not a crime.

  • My Question
    Nov. 12, 2009 11:21 a.m.

    What I would like to know, is how many "known" gays work for the LDS church in a paid function.

    Wonder if they practice what they preach...

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


    Here is a proclaimation on blacks and the priesthood by the chuch leaders in 1949:

    "The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to."

  • Abe Lincoln
    Nov. 12, 2009 11:07 a.m.

    to: Emjay | 7:56 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009

    you are right. and it is not that priesthood to blacks was prohibited, it was just not explicitly allowed. people just assumed that they couldn't hold the priesthood because in joseph smith's lifetime, there was still slavery, and god forbade us from preaching the gospel to slave without permission from the owner. so people assumed there was no reason to allow the blacks to hold the keys to the priesthood. when the lord saw that there was this misunderstanding, he revealed that it was allowed for blacks to hold the priesthood. the problem with gays is completely different. god has said that it is a sin. god never said being black was a sin, only that they were the children of cain. for this reason, many people with the lingering notion of original sin, just assumed they were inferior. with gays, you are not talking about a sin of the parents, but about a sin of that person, and that is unacceptable.

  • @Loodie
    Nov. 12, 2009 11:05 a.m.

    Try to go to the hospital after your best friend was in an accident and tell them you are not family. See what they do.

  • @So Tired of This
    Nov. 12, 2009 11:03 a.m.

    I think you should read Ammendment 3, you would see that homosexuals cannot get a civil union. The truth of the matter is, no matter what you think in your closed little world over there, gays do not have the same rights as strait people. I for one would be glad to get a civil union. I would be happy for it... But alas I cannot.

  • Abe Lincoln
    Nov. 12, 2009 11:00 a.m.

    re -- Abe Lincoln | 3:03 p.m | 5:43 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009

    hate to break it to you, but marriage was invented by religion and adopted by the state. if you take away the religious definition, then you might as well get rid of marriage completely. in fact, when the common law began, marriages had nothing to do with civil law. disputes were handed in the courts of the church. as for the workplace, you want an example, fine. the mere fact of saying you are gay describes how you have sex. so to be openly gay means you are describing how you have sex. and as far as the 100s of cases, i'll gladly address that. if you want to protect all citizens, then enact a don't ask don't tell law. that way, a landlord can't ask if you're gay. but if you demonstrate, he would be within his rights to evict. you know what i can't believe? i can't believe society has become so perverted that we have to pass laws to force people to accept sexual behavior.

  • Derick wildstar
    Nov. 12, 2009 10:49 a.m.

    This saddens me & breaks my heart! I have NEVER seen anything in the Bible to allow for this! GAY MARRIAGE & ANY SPECIAL PROTECTIONS FOR THEM ARE WRONG! I was an LDS for years, first time i have EVER been ashamed of it!

  • Mikee
    Nov. 12, 2009 10:49 a.m.

    Doctrine & Covenants 134:9 "We do not believe it just to amingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied."

    Your own religious texts say to keep your religious viewpoints out of our government.

    Please follow your scriptures.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 12, 2009 10:38 a.m.

    "Gay couples can get civil unions. They should be entitled to and already are entitled to inheritance benefits, tax benefits, medical decision making, etc, etc. "

    Not in Utah (or most states) we can't.

  • Answer to Mark:
    Nov. 12, 2009 10:34 a.m.

    To Mark who said: "...And I would also bet, based on the LDS Church's change of position on many things political and cultural, they will allow gays to hold the priesthood and most likely marry in your temple. It is simply a matter of time." Mark: To some extent this already happens, but not the way you interpret it. If a man who struggles with "Same Sex Attraction" and doesn't follow by acting out in behavior as such (in other words: "he lives the law of chastity") he may hold the priesthood and attend the temple (assuming he also abides by the other requirements). However, if he is supporting any groups who fight against the church (another temple interview question), then he would be most likely be excluded from priesthood advancement and from holding a temple recommend. But this is probably different than what you may mean by saying an openly practicing gay man will someday be allowed to worship in the temple. With that I don't agree, as living the law of chastity is a foundational covenant in temple worship.

  • No Comparison
    Nov. 12, 2009 10:33 a.m.

    to: Jeff R

    Good start on making your point on the morality/sin of Polygamy vs. Homosexuality from the beginning of time. :) BUT... In regard to polygamy, I don't think God's ways change based on the winds of public opinion, or what men have made legal/illegal. Being "accepted" by the people -- even a majority -- doesn't make something right or wrong. It's His truth or it isn't. Period.

    ...and as far as polygamy being widely accepted, it still IS accepted and lived in many parts of the world in general, just not in the good ole USA.

    "Regardless of its legality..." Polygamy itself, within the bonds of marriage, is not sin.

    Just saying...

  • RE: Sarcasm Alert
    Nov. 12, 2009 10:27 a.m.

    " if you couldn't marry the person you loved, you'd change your tune pretty fast."

    My exhusband who lives in another state is being denied the option of marrying his long time girlfriend(over 10 years) because he has already been married in that state their 'legal limit' Yes, he loves her.

    There are statutes and laws in place we don't have to like them but we still have to live with them. Two MALES or two FEMALES that love each other are going to have to deal with the fact that they can't get married to each other.

  • and Jesus Wept...
    Nov. 12, 2009 10:22 a.m.

    Without going COMPLETELY OFF-TOPIC, let me say that I've lived on the front lines of this war. Been discriminated against for housing and employment. I lost one job because I lived with my partner outside marriage. The boss didn't like that image.

    We have lost out on several apartments because the manager/owner wanted someone with "high values" and they were running a "family place." Since when are a couple of grownups with a daughter NOT A FAMILY?!?

    In the end, we did get married (for issues like hospitals and legal stuff), but if he had been Jane instead of John, I would still love that PERSON!!!

    Ultimately, I think people just want to be left alone to live their own lives. I remember from Sunday School that God thought that was SO IMPORTANT that he let there be a war in heaven about it.

    I don't remember God letting there be a WAR in HEAVEN about anything else. Satan lost, get over it.

    Wait, does that mean the only really Satanic act is to deprive someone of their personal Free Agency?

    BTW, the 11th article of faith is my favorite.

  • WOW
    Nov. 12, 2009 10:20 a.m.

    so the uber right-wing Eagle-Forum nut jobs are going to further polarize themselves by dismissing the Mormon Church's stance on the SLC Ordinance to be "to liberal"? LOL, it only gets better.

  • concern citizen
    Nov. 12, 2009 10:17 a.m.

    this should never been an issue at all in the first place..its simple..discrimination against gender or sex has to do with only two sex..male and female..thats it..gay is a sexual preference..please keep that in mind...

  • Pagan
    Nov. 12, 2009 10:05 a.m.

    I was at the city council vote. I spoke before them and gave them my example of being evicted from my home after I paid my rent. I will be there, contacting my legislature and Gov. Herbert to pass this.

    The LDS church has also made the choice to support this bill.

    Chris Buttars will likely move against tolerance and protection where it is needed most. Who votes for this fool?

    While I appreciate any support, chris buttars is LDS.

    He, and those like him gives the LDS church a bad name when he represents his religion in a way against the foundations of tolerance and peace.

  • LearntheLaw
    Nov. 12, 2009 9:49 a.m.

    Virtually all antidiscrimination laws, state and federal, everywhere, exempt religious organizations. It is because of the First Amendment prohibitions on making laws that infringe upon religious belief or practice. There is no conspiracy here. Move along.

  • UNLV
    Nov. 12, 2009 9:42 a.m.

    I love gay people. I don't think they have the right to marry each other. Marriage is for man and woman. Gay people are the nicest people in the world (other than those posting negative stuff on here). I would hang out with a gay person any day of the week. I just don't want them thinking marriage is for them. it's not. If you want to live with someone of the same sex, go right ahead. Just don't ask me to stand behind you in the marriage thing.

  • Scevadabelievah
    Nov. 12, 2009 9:39 a.m.



    No actually you do not have the right to discriminate.

    One reason is the Commerce Cluase of the United States Constitution - which Mormons preach is inspired by God - states Congress has power over commerce. Congressional Commerce power is the basis for the United States Supreme Court ruling that resturaunt can not discriminate. So a God inspired document states you can not discriminate, a God Inspired Apostle says not to discriminate, yet you still want to discriminate...ever read the passage where Jesus talks about those who "kick against the pricks"

    What many of you are missing is that anti-discrimination law PROTECT EVERYONE. These protect homosexuals and hetrosexaul. These laws state "You can not discriminate on the basis of Gender or Gender Identity". These laws protect everyone equally.

    Nothing about discrimination is Christ like behaviour.

  • CTRman
    Nov. 12, 2009 9:37 a.m.


    I see the LDS church as one who admonishes G&L rights in domestic partnerships and very few G&L appreciate that. It’s never enough. Give a so called decimated minority group an inch and they will take a mile, eventually they will push for many self brought entitlement that interferes with ones religious practices, it’s only a matter of time, as bitterness & anger fuel the fire for acceptance to the point of reverse decimation

  • @C Davis
    Nov. 12, 2009 9:35 a.m.

    Humorous comment C Davis. Since when is it illegal to express an opinion? Is your secular opinion any more protected than my religious opinion? I assume that your post was in jest.

  • Close Minded
    Nov. 12, 2009 9:26 a.m.

    to: Re:Close Minded.

    I got my definition from the same place as you apparently. But what you are failing to do, in the fairness of a debate, is to post the rest of the definitions listed where marriage is described ambiguously for the purpose of homosexual unification. So, you are now guilty of reading only what you want, and ignoring the rest. Congratulations, another act of "close mindedness".

    Don't forget that the English language is an organically evolving thing. Words and definitions are constantly changing to coincide with the times. i.e. the word "ain't" didn't use to be a word before its use increased dramatically.

  • still no proof
    Nov. 12, 2009 9:20 a.m.

    to: Who defined it. This is the problem I have with this forum. You are under the "assumption" that I accept your belief that there is a God when, as a very spiritual person, I am surrounded by evidence that there is not, as Christianity defines it, a white, bearded man controlling life like a game of monopoly. I cannot accept your answer: "God said it". Sounds like, "The devil made me do it." A scapegoat to me.

  • Jeff R
    Nov. 12, 2009 9:13 a.m.

    Ok you people seriously are not arguing whats better between Polygamy and Homosexuality are you. Seriously, its a no contest. While polygamy is illegal today it wasnt back in the biblical days when it was widely accepted. Homosexuality has been a moral sin since the time began. Reguardless of its legality or not its still a sin.
    Thats like seeing who is better; Stalin or Hitler. Both are really bad. Just saying..........

  • To Bigot Bob
    Nov. 12, 2009 9:02 a.m.

    Just try not renting to someone or tell them you are not hiring them because they are black and you will see just what your "rights" are.

  • To: To Mark
    Nov. 12, 2009 8:55 a.m.

    the LDS church will NEVER allow gay marriage in our temples. What are you basing your statement on? The fact that our African American brotheren were denied the preisthood for a time? That was a cultural issue, there were not procolamations from the church against them. The family (a man, a woman, and their children) is the basis of everything we believe in, the proclamation on the family makes that quite clear. That is one thing that will never change, don't fool yourself into thinking otherwise. If the rest of the world wants to allow gay marriage to happen it will but the LDS church's standpoint will not.

  • Alexander Pope
    Nov. 12, 2009 8:55 a.m.

    Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
    As to be hated needs but to be seen;
    Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
    We first endure, then pity, then embrace.

  • Thomas K.
    Nov. 12, 2009 8:54 a.m.

    Slight correction to the article, Representative Jackie Biskupski ran a common ground bill for about half a second. The first and only bill ever run by her for the benefit of homosexuals. She is more vested in the protections of the insurance industry than the homosexual community. She was not in attendance at the City Council meeting and I for one, cannot estimate why she continues to hold office.

  • Are ya kiddin'
    Nov. 12, 2009 8:52 a.m.

    Civil Union=Marriage?
    Ha, I don't believe so.

    Yes you do have the right to control your property but not discriminate. The way some of you people sound makes it seem like you also probably think everyone is crazy for not having black slaves and that everyone is so weird because we have women voting.

    Haha. It's all a matter of time. Read your history books.

  • Huh?
    Nov. 12, 2009 8:40 a.m.

    What is "flaunting the gay lifestyle?"

  • Observer
    Nov. 12, 2009 8:35 a.m.

    Homosexuality is defined as a BEHAVIOR, not a genetic trait. The Church, in supporting legislation protecting homosexuals, is actually supporting an immoral behavior, as defined in the Bible.

    Church policy does not discriminate against those that are attracted to members of the same sex. These men and women can attend church, hold callings, and get temple recommends. It is acting on those behaviors that is offensive.

    I am truly disappointed in the Church's stand on this issue.

  • Kevin in Nevada
    Nov. 12, 2009 8:33 a.m.

    Evolution must be real, because I'm seeing a lot of it right here on this thread.

    From this straight guy, married (to one fine woman) over 25 years, here's my take. So far as I can tell we are either born straight or gay or somewhere in between. Our orientations are not something we choose, it's something innate within each one of us. Many people hold views on this which are contrary to fact, believing that sexual orientation is a 'lifestyle choice'. It is not.

    I also know - and everyone reading this knows such cases - that people who live in denial of this central fact in their lives wallow in guilt, confusion and pain. The only happy gay people I know are thoroughly out of the closet, to themselves, their family and the world at large.

    Good luck dealing with this issue. Social attitudes - especially when backed by religious prescriptions - can be the very devil to deal with, when they conflict with reality.

    From outside the LDS, I add one thing: yours is a church designed to evolve, superior in this regard to any other I've seen. So good luck to you.

  • Get with the times Mister
    Nov. 12, 2009 8:33 a.m.

    re Bob | 8:03 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009

    "As a property owner I should have the right to control my property. If I want to discriminate against anyone, it is my right".
    __________________________

    So says who? Not the law. Don't believe this? Try owning a resturant or an apartment and discriminating on the basis of race? You will likely find that the person you discriminated against will become the new owner of your resturant or apartment, either that our your retirement nest egg will be depleted to pay for the judgement that will be levied against you.

    And rightfully so. Such practices are from a bygone era, society no longer tolerates such dispicable behavior.

  • Dixie Dan
    Nov. 12, 2009 8:24 a.m.

    Wrong, property owners can not protest their property! The Conservative Supreme Court took care of that when they ruled that local government can take your property through eminent domain. Too bad the Conservatives gave away this valuable principle of owning property.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 12, 2009 8:16 a.m.

    It now seems clear that the Church approved of the SLC ordinance because it explicitly exempted corporate religion from its effects. The Church apparently felt that those who also want to protect the personal religion of individuals could fend for themselves. While protecting the latter wasn't a top priority for SLC lawmakers, I think it will be a priority for state lawmakers.

  • Silas
    Nov. 12, 2009 8:04 a.m.

    to the comment of Nothing change...we as gay people are sick and tired of it too...when rights are given then this would be over. Nothing change it sounds like you got some problems with life.

  • Bob
    Nov. 12, 2009 8:03 a.m.

    As a property owner I should have the right to control my property. If I want to discriminate against anyone, it is my right. As an employer I should be able to choose what employees I want.

  • On-board
    Nov. 12, 2009 7:58 a.m.

    I hear that Senator Chris Buttars is thinking of being a co-sponsor of the bill. That should give it some credence.

  • Emjay
    Nov. 12, 2009 7:56 a.m.

    TO: TO MARK: Would you point out to me when women were given the priesthood? It must have happened due to political pressure. I just can't figure out when it was.

    Giving blacks the priesthood was always prophesied. We all knew it would happen at some time. No such prophesy exists for women or gays.

  • Amazing Ingorance of Facts
    Nov. 12, 2009 7:53 a.m.

    Please follow the example of your church and learn a little compassion for your fellow human beings.

    It is shocking, the level of ignorance around the facts found here concerning civil rights for Heterosexuals and Homosexuals as well as our Gay & Lesbians family members.

    It is a waste of time trying to educate some, who just want to believe lies and wallow in their self-pity and personal prejudice.

    If this is in fact true, the LDS Church has its work cut out for it, trying to convince many of its members to actually treat our Gay & Lesbian friends and family members with respect.

  • Protection laws are needed
    Nov. 12, 2009 6:33 a.m.

    I was listening to Bob Lonsbery this morning, he said there should be no protected classes. I wish I could send him back to the days when LDS were persecuted, or I wish I could turn him into a black or hispanic person.

    Then when opportunities were denied to him or when he suffered discrimination, he would either have the choice of availing himself of the laws that specifically protect classes of people or he would have to suffer the loss of opportunity.

    My parents back in the late 1950's were denied to rent several apartments, based on race. My dad tells of how when he went to resturants they refused to serve him.

    It should not be up to the business owner or the renter of the apartment to make their own decisions in such matters. It unjustly impacts the life of people too severely. Laws that target classes for protection are needed.

    If you don't like such laws, act in a manner so that these laws are un-necessary.

  • Segregation laws.
    Nov. 12, 2009 5:31 a.m.

    Talk about discrimination, segregating and writing laws to protect gays is just as bad as writing a law to protect and promote an individual religion.

    The homosexuals already have the same rights as every other american and there is no need to alter our Constitution and rights just to protect the choices these misfits have created.

    The only reason the LDS and minority groups like such a law is as ammunition to stop americans from telling illegals to go home and get out of this country. It's a protectionist law where we cannot protect our rights and freedoms and our country.

    We americans do have the right to discriminate and voice that discrimination from any and all individuals or nationalities. Government or individuals do not have the right to infringe upon these rights, especially in our thoughts and ideas.

    We don't need anti-discrimination laws, we need laws reinforcing our god given and constitutional rights. What Utah needs is its own labor laws that address the issues, not constitutional laws that deprive us of our rights of free speech and choices. Utah has gone long enough without its own labor laws, federal laws are too vague.

  • Jim
    Nov. 12, 2009 4:43 a.m.

    It's ok for guys to "sleep" around and father many childern, it legal. Just don't marry more that one woman at a time and care for those cildern, you will go to jail.

  • Who defined it?
    Nov. 11, 2009 9:09 p.m.

    To Re:CloseMinded-- where did you get the definition from? Man-yes, man defined it. Who ultimately defined the "sex of the elements united"-- God. I love how everyone today changes man's laws to fit their needs and to make them feel better about their incorrect actions and the immoral consequences. At the end of the day, homosexuality is wrong- God said so. But someone shouldn't be discriminated against when renting. Some Utahans are a little dumb and close minded.

  • Christy
    Nov. 11, 2009 7:17 p.m.

    Gayle Ruzicka is worse than Gladys Kravitz. She's like Wilma Flintstone's annoying, bigoted neighbor that tested poorly to audiences.

  • hate the sin?
    Nov. 11, 2009 6:43 p.m.

    do you like this: hate Mormonism, love Mormons? Save them and heal them from their folly, etc.

  • Re:CloseMinded
    Nov. 11, 2009 6:39 p.m.

    "And for the record, marriage is defined as the unifying of elements. It's origin is Maritus, Latin for conjugal - To unite. No where is there reference to the sex of the elements being united."


    con⋅ju⋅gal
    —adjective
    1. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of marriage: conjugal vows.
    2. pertaining to the relation of husband and wife.
    Origin:
    1535—45; < L conjugālis, equiv. to con- con- + jug(um) yoke + -ālis -al 1

  • Leslie
    Nov. 11, 2009 6:15 p.m.

    Wrong Name: "In reality, they are exactly the same as everyone else and have exactly the same rights, they just choose to engage in homosexual behavior. They should be referred to as 'people who choose to practice homosexuality.'"

    And mormons are?... people who choose to practice mormonism.

    When you have "practiced" enough and can do it right, come join the rest of us in the human race - it has no finish line and nobody looses.

  • To Remember:
    Nov. 11, 2009 6:03 p.m.

    You are exactly right.

    The problem is that the sinners want to redefine what is and is not sin, thereby declaring that their actions are not sinful. As a result, the sinners are legislating that we create a civil law that states that the sin is not a sin, and anyone who practices the sin should be treated with more "compassion" than those who do not practice the sin.

    It goes against the grain of most freedom loving Americans to be required by force of law to be extra "compassionate" towards people they consider sinners: breakers of moral laws. It's one thing to choose to love the sinner; it is entirely something else to be forced to "love" the sinner.

  • re -- Abe Lincoln | 3:03 p.m
    Nov. 11, 2009 5:43 p.m.

    ["name one right a straight person has that a homosexual does not"]

    marriage, for one.

    ["marriage? they can marry, marriage is a man and a woman regardless of the sexual orintation of either party"]

    marriage is a civil contract between two consenting adults regardless of the sex of either party. you're thinking of religious marriage and we can all do without that. you want religious marriage, go to your church. you want real marriage, you can go right after that nice gay couple over there...

    ["when you rent someone's basment, and then you want to throw a gay garden party in front of the landlord's children, then yes, you should be evicted if the landlord asks you to stop and you refuse"]

    got any more obscure examples? decide to skip over the 100s of cases where the landlord says "you're gay - get out"?

    ["and yes, i would evict a straight person who wants to describe how he/she has sex to my children. i would fire a straight person who comes to work talking about their bedroom life"]

    hahaha - you crack me up. why don't you use real life examples?

  • question
    Nov. 11, 2009 5:21 p.m.

    every one here seems to judge on group of people who are different why? only because they are opened about it. i will admit it is not normal and not right. i do find the fact that the gays claim they are christian and belive in the bible. where does it say a man can marry a man? the last time i read the bible it said that woman is for man and to multiply and replenish the earth, no where in the bible can i fin that is says for man and man to be married. how can they follow the " Multiply and Replenish the Earht Part "? i do know if i ever found out that one of my kids were gay he or she would be out the door

  • To Mark:
    Nov. 11, 2009 4:56 p.m.

    Want to bet on that? My bet would be that Utah, along with the rest of the country will allow gay marriage in your lifetime. And I would also bet, based on the LDS Church's change of position on many things political and cultural, they will allow gays to hold the priesthood and most likely marry in your temple. It is simply a matter of time.

  • to -- Joel Wright | 12:41 p.m
    Nov. 11, 2009 4:55 p.m.

    ["If the LDS Church decides to affirmatively support a similar equality ordinance at the Legislature next year, I'm guessing it will likely pass."]

    "likely pass"? are you kidding? if the church said everyone had to wear plaid pants, a law for it would pass the next day... you do realize 85% of the utah legislature is mormon, right?

    your "prophet" could have a "revelation" that gay marriage was ok and state that, and the next day it would pass a general population vote unanimously...

    you own the state - what don't you get?

  • Ed
    Nov. 11, 2009 4:41 p.m.

    Judge not lest ye be judged. Love thy neighbor. Treat others and you would have them treat you. What is it about Christianity you don't get? After a lifetime of growing up as a minority in utah, I realize how racist, bigoted, and hypocritical mormon's are. Not all, for there are some extremely wonderful Mormons, but for the most part the religion is a facade for them to express the most deplorable behavior in the name of righteousness. It's not ours to decide which rules to obey. Life and it's challenges are a test of faith, and for the most part the average mormon fails miserably. Love and Compassion would be the Divine message, however, it's judgment and intolerance that most mormon's would rather practice. Again, I lived in Utah for 28 years, was baptized Mormon, and went to church for 16 of those. I'm not making this up, but I don't expect many deseret news readers to empathize. Intellectual honesty and self reflection are not amongst the virtues of a Utah mormon. No, self righteousness is their savior.

  • Remember
    Nov. 11, 2009 4:35 p.m.

    Hate the sin...love the sinner. Pretty simple concept if you ask me.

  • mark
    Nov. 11, 2009 4:34 p.m.

    No one alive now, will see a statewide non discrimination policy or marriage equality passed by a Utah legislature. ANY progress will be imposed on Utah by the federal government...and you'll be one of the LAST states dragged into THIS century.

  • Close Minded
    Nov. 11, 2009 4:28 p.m.

    I'm actually enjoying the irony here. Those of you who know the least, seem to know it the loudest. It is entertaining for me to read all the comments from you close minded people who are telling us readers that despite what any of us think, your words are the truth. No proof, no facts. Just simply, that's the way it is, like it or not. This is the definition of bigotry. This epitomizes an "old way of thinking".

    For those who say that gays are treated equally, why don't you try asking them if they feel the same. It is not for anyone to declare how another party feels they are being treated. Caucasians will still try and tell the African Americans that they aren't being discriminated against, when we ALL know that is not true. This shows EXACTLY what is wrong with the issue on the table.

    And for the record, marriage is defined as the unifying of elements. It's origin is Maritus, Latin for conjugal - To unite. No where is there reference to the sex of the elements being united.

    Open your mind and understand things beyond your own bubble.

  • Wrong name
    Nov. 11, 2009 4:22 p.m.

    It is erroneous to refer to people who choose to practice homosexuality as "gays" because that implies that they are different from others in some innate way. In reality, they are exactly the same as everyone else and have exactly the same rights, they just choose to engage in homosexual behavior. They should be referred to as "people who choose to practice homosexuality."

  • tashekor
    Nov. 11, 2009 4:21 p.m.

    I guess most of the people on this page don't know anybody from grade school that everyone knew was "different?" Honestly. Come on, think about it for two seconds, I bet you can name four or five. Also, most of the people on this page apparently have no member of their family who is gay. Again, think about it. You don't think gay people are denied any rights? Really. How about the basic acknowledgment from their family and friends that they have existed since birth?

    We are here. You can't legislate us away. You can't pray us away. We will win in the end, because even all the bigots on this page don't want to live in a country that denies its citizens the pursuit of happiness.

  • to Loodie
    Nov. 11, 2009 4:21 p.m.

    Yes, yes they do stop you at the hospital door in many states if the person you love is in emergency or intensive care and you don't have a legal bond with them. And, many states also prevent you from making ANYONE your beneficiary.

  • Mike - Exempt Org Specialist
    Nov. 11, 2009 4:11 p.m.

    Let me quell a falsehood that has been repeated over and over again on this and other sites. Churches are public charities and are subject to the rules of public charities. Public charities are allowed to "meddle" in politics it is not against the law. Human Rights Campaign, Utah Pride, Planned Parenthood are also public charities and they also are allowed to "meddle" in politics. What they are not allowed to do is spend more than 1 million in lobbying or to campaign for a specific candidate. Please read the instructions to IRS Form 990, it can be found on www.irs.gov to become more informed. No organization will "loose" it's tax exempt status for trying to influence public policy within certain restrictions already mentioned.

  • UNLV
    Nov. 11, 2009 4:09 p.m.

    Love they neighbor as thy self does not mean Love they neighbor only if he beleives what I believe.

  • James
    Nov. 11, 2009 4:08 p.m.

    Wow just Wow. A lot of people just don't get it. This is try to prevent a double stander when it come to Gay people. For example if a Gay man and a Straight Man both bring someone home form the bar for a night of fun in there apartment. If the Landlord evicts the Gay man for his night of fun and not the Straight Man that would be illegal now. You have to Evict both men or nether. In short the same action lead the same consequence

  • discrimination
    Nov. 11, 2009 4:04 p.m.

    This ordinance is not a Gay marriage or Civil Union law. It only protects them from discriminatory housing and employments options. Utah is among 20 or so other states (living in the dark ages) where it is legal to fire, not-hire, evict, or deny housing to someone simply due to their sexual orientation. It's not a don't ask don't tell situation either; your boss could come up to you one day and ask: "Say John, there's a rumor going around that you're gay, is that true?" and if you happen to say yes you could be fired and your only recourse is to go back into the closet and look for another Job.

  • Loodie
    Nov. 11, 2009 4:00 p.m.

    They don't stop you at the door of the hospital or office and ask you your sexual orientation. No one has ever stopped me and asked me what I do in the bedroom. There are other churches in this state and nation that have the same views as the LDS church and no one bothers to ask their opinion. They just pick on the LDS church. I think that in its self is a form of discrimination. You can make ANYONE you want your beneficiary; you can have ANYONE you want know your medical history; you can ANYONE know anything about you or receive anything from you without declaring what you do in the bedroom. But keep it there. No one wants to know what any of us do.

  • RE: SO tired fo this!
    Nov. 11, 2009 3:48 p.m.

    You really need to check your facts. Civil Unions exist in fewer states than the States that allow same gender marriage and of those rights you list, many, especially the Federal ones, do not apply. So, there is much that gay couples don't already have.

    Gay marriage is only immoral in certain religions. Other religions (such as the Unitarians which have been around much longer than the Mormons) support same gender marriage. It is their religious freedoms that are being trampled upon. Believe what you want, worship how you want, but don't make your religious dogma civil law. By its very definition, that destroys the freedom of religion.

  • Sarcasm Alert
    Nov. 11, 2009 3:40 p.m.

    Re: sad - if you couldn't marry the person you loved, you'd change your tune pretty fast.

  • MATTIE
    Nov. 11, 2009 3:34 p.m.

    IF YOU HAVE BAD BREATH AND YOU AND AND EVERYONE THAT HAS BAD BREATH WAS BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST THEN YES.DONT MAKE UP THINGS THAT ARN'T THERE LGBT PEOPLE ARE BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST AND THATS NOT WHAT IF!!!

  • SO tired fo this!
    Nov. 11, 2009 3:24 p.m.

    I'm so sick of this. The bottom line is that gay marriage is immoral, indecent and not normal. No matter how many retorts this statement gets, it is true. Why else is are there millions and millions around the world against it? It's not about being close minded, it's about disgusting and right and wrong.

    Gay couples can get civil unions. They should be entitled to and already are entitled to inheritance benefits, tax benefits, medical decision making, etc, etc. Why are they gunning for the marriage label which means a union man and woman? If they don’t like the name “civil union” then let them come up with whatever other name for it they want.

    What do Gay couples want that they don’t already have?

  • What rights?
    Nov. 11, 2009 3:23 p.m.

    What rights do gay's lack? Their options for marriage are the same as everyone's. Just because they don't like their options, doesn't mean they don't have them. There are no "gays need not apply" signs everywhere.

    This whole issue isn't about equality, they already have that. It's not about tolerance, they have that too. Its about moral parity. They want their unnatural behaviors to be treated as morally equal to natural behaviors in a vain attempt to feel better about what they do. But that can never be because wickedness never was happiness. And that will be an ever present reality forever.

  • BelfastIRA
    Nov. 11, 2009 3:21 p.m.

    I’m not sure which carving “out based on our beliefs” Gayle alludes to, just more of her closeted, bilious diatribe and spewing of hateful discourse. The carving I would like to see is the resection of the cancer that she embodies as “The Voice of Future Victims” She represents all that is wrong when a majority feels the need to oppress the minority

  • RE: meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
    Nov. 11, 2009 3:17 p.m.

    You should tell the USSC that. Oh wait, in Lawrence vs Texas, they overturned any laws still on the books. Nice try.

    Waddoups is showing his prejudice. His statements show he's prejudged people based on their orientation and exactly why these laws should be in place. It doesn't create any special rights that don't already exist for race, gender or religion.

  • Gert
    Nov. 11, 2009 3:15 p.m.

    It doesn't matter if a person is homosexual or polygamist--he or she has the right to not be evicted or denied work because of beliefs. If you can't see the distinction, then you're the one with the problem.

  • sad
    Nov. 11, 2009 3:09 p.m.

    How about rights for people as human beings. I don't want to know who they prefer to sleep with. I am so sick of this gay agenda for special rights. No...Marrying is a right for men with women, not men with men.

  • Abe Lincoln
    Nov. 11, 2009 3:03 p.m.

    to: Veritas et Aequitas | 2:21 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009

    no is preventing them from having any rights. name one right a straight person has that a homosexual does not. marriage? they can marry, marriage is a man and a woman regardless of the sexual orintation of either party. housing? no one is saying they should be homeless, but when you rent someone's basment, and then you want to throw a gay garden party in front of the landlord's children, then yes, you should be evicted if the landlord asks you to stop and you refuse. employment? if i walk into the office talking about the way i have sex, i woul;d probably be fired too. no one is being fired or evicted for being. they are being fired or evicted for being explicit about sex. and yes, i would evict a straight person who wants to describe how he/she has sex to my children. i would fire a straight person who comes to work talking about their bedroom life. the problem is you keep thinking they are being discrminated. you fail to produce evidence for such.

  • C Davis
    Nov. 11, 2009 2:54 p.m.

    Why does the church not stay out of Political affairs, last time I checked it is against the law for a non profit church or group to meddle in politics,,,,, I think we need to call for a invetigation into this.....

  • meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
    Nov. 11, 2009 2:48 p.m.

    RGret homosexuality is illegal

  • matt
    Nov. 11, 2009 2:35 p.m.

    What if I'm discriminated against for being fat or having bad breath or having a really annoying laugh? Should there be a non-discrimination ordinance for these types of "orientations"?

  • Veritas et Aequitas
    Nov. 11, 2009 2:21 p.m.

    Years ago, blacks AND women didnt have any rights. Its almost 2009 and people are prevented from having rights due to sexual orientation. Weird.

  • Veann Hayes
    Nov. 11, 2009 2:13 p.m.

    Same sex relationships are the love of ONE for ANOTHER---that is to say have the desire of your heart fulfilled once.

    Polygamy on the other hand could be said by some to be selfish, and taking more than what you need of the one you ALREADY HAVE.

    Thus, you cannot logically compare Same Sex Relationships to that of Polygamy, nor Polyandry. That is comparing appples to oranges.

  • to RGret
    Nov. 11, 2009 2:00 p.m.

    Homosexuality is always wrong. Polygamy is not.

  • RGret
    Nov. 11, 2009 1:37 p.m.

    Polygamy is illegal. Homosexuality is not.

  • Milt
    Nov. 11, 2009 1:36 p.m.

    Gay's are like the poor, they are always with us. I think that it is so very interesting that the LDS Church whom the gays continually critize is probably doing things to help them that they cannot do for themselves. Gays are like alot of other groups, they bite their nose off to spite their face.

  • Bad Move....
    Nov. 11, 2009 1:36 p.m.

    Any action by the L.D.S. church is sure to inspire debate. By endorsing any action concerning homosexuals you give weight to their entire cause. The rights endorsed by the church already exist for any legal American citizen, homosexuals want "special" status and the church just gave it to them.

  • Scotty
    Nov. 11, 2009 1:18 p.m.

    Any gay rights law should also include polygamists.

  • Joel Wright
    Nov. 11, 2009 12:41 p.m.

    What was interesting was that in SLC, the LDS Church didn't just remain neutral, like they had in the last legislative session.

    Instead, they affirmatively supported the equality ordinance in SLC.

    If the LDS Church decides to affirmatively support a similar equality ordinance at the Legislature next year, I'm guessing it will likely pass.

  • Nothing changed
    Nov. 11, 2009 12:28 p.m.

    While Homosexuals hope this is just the beginning...the rest of us hope it is the end....sick of this discussion....stick a fork in it ...its done!!!!