Comments about ‘Protections for gays face tough fight at Utah Legislature’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Nov. 12 2009 12:00 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Alexander Pope

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.

To: To Mark

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.

To Bigot Bob

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.

Jeff R

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..........

still no proof

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.

Close Minded

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.

@C Davis

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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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.

concern citizen

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...


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.

and Jesus Wept...

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.

RE: Sarcasm Alert

" 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.

No Comparison

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...

Answer to Mark:

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.


"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.


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.

to comment

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