Reader comments
Protections for gays face tough fight at Utah Legislature
163 comments | Read story
Nothing changed | 12:28 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009
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!!!!
Joel Wright | 12:41 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009
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.
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.
Scotty | 1:18 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009
Any gay rights law should also include polygamists.
Comments continue below
Bad Move.... | 1:36 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009
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.
Milt | 1:36 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009
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.
RGret | 1:37 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009
Polygamy is illegal. Homosexuality is not.
to RGret | 2:00 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009
Homosexuality is always wrong. Polygamy is not.
Veann Hayes | 2:13 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009
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.
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.
Veritas et Aequitas | 2:21 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009
Years ago, blacks AND women didnt have any rights. Its almost 2009 and people
are prevented from having rights due to sexual orientation. Weird.
matt | 2:35 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009
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"?
meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee | 2:48 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009
RGret homosexuality is illegal
C Davis | 2:54 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009
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.....
Abe Lincoln | 3:03 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009
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.
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.
sad | 3:09 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009
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.
Gert | 3:15 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009
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.
RE: meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee | 3:17 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009
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.
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.
BelfastIRA | 3:21 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009
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
What rights? | 3:23 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009
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.
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.
SO tired fo this! | 3:24 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009
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?
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?
MATTIE | 3:34 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009
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!!!
Sarcasm Alert | 3:40 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009
Re: sad - if you couldn't marry the person you loved, you'd change
your tune pretty fast.
RE: SO tired fo this! | 3:48 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009
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.
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.
Loodie | 4:00 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009
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.
discrimination | 4:04 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009
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.
James | 4:08 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009
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
UNLV | 4:09 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009
Love they neighbor as thy self does not mean Love they neighbor only if he
beleives what I believe.
Mike - Exempt Org Specialist | 4:11 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009
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.
to Loodie | 4:21 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009
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.
tashekor | 4:21 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009
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.
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.
Wrong name | 4:22 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009
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."
Close Minded | 4:28 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009
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.
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.
mark | 4:34 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009
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.
Remember | 4:35 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009
Hate the sin...love the sinner. Pretty simple concept if you ask me.
Ed | 4:41 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009
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.
to -- Joel Wright | 12:41 p.m | 4:55 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009
["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?
"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?
To Mark: | 4:56 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009
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.
question | 5:21 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009
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
re -- Abe Lincoln | 3:03 p.m | 5:43 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009
["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?
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?
To Remember: | 6:03 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009
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.
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.
Leslie | 6:15 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009
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.
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.
Re:CloseMinded | 6:39 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009
"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
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
hate the sin? | 6:43 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009
do you like this: hate Mormonism, love Mormons? Save them and heal them from
their folly, etc.
Christy | 7:17 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009
Gayle Ruzicka is worse than Gladys Kravitz. She's like Wilma
Flintstone's annoying, bigoted neighbor that tested poorly to audiences.
Who defined it? | 9:09 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009
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.
Jim | 4:43 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009
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.
Segregation laws. | 5:31 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009
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.
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.
Protection laws are needed | 6:33 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009
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.
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.
Amazing Ingorance of Facts | 7:53 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009
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.
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.
Emjay | 7:56 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009
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.
Giving blacks the priesthood was always prophesied. We all knew it would happen at some time. No such prophesy exists for women or gays.
On-board | 7:58 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009
I hear that Senator Chris Buttars is thinking of being a co-sponsor of the
bill. That should give it some credence.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
Related content
- Miley Cyrus tour bus overturns 3:11 p.m.
- Giuliani back in spotlight, but why? 3:11 p.m.
- Reid health bill helps chiropractors 3:10 p.m.
- US to drop Blackwater guard case 3:10 p.m.
- Drug in Jackson case from Vegas firm 2:48 p.m.
- Stocks fall for 3rd day 2:40 p.m.
- Farmington recycling starts Nov. 30 2:30 p.m.
- Violent scene at Green Street 2:16 p.m.
- RSL's first Qwest Field practice 2:06 p.m.
- Timpview T-Birds win 4A title 1:56 p.m.
- Mailman's nomination delivered
- Jazz finally win in San Antonio
- U. professor dies after fall from bus
- 'New Moon' doesn't rise to occasion
- Officer cleared Cardall Taser case
- 'New Moon' rising: Vamps vs. 'wolves
- Archuleta still calls Utah home
- Horrifying scenario described
- Utah jobless rate at 6.5%
- Palin plans tour stop in Utah
- Buttars wants to limit gay rights laws
178 - Palin plans tour stop in Utah156
- MWC expand? Get rid of deadweight141
- BYU, Utah struck gold in coaches123
- Lies shatter Utah family122
- BYU cuts Women's Research Inst.92
- Utes knock off rival Aggies92
- Wounded Utes limp home91
- Officer cleared Cardall Taser case91
- Jazz finally win in San Antonio87
A little after midnight Wednesday morning, about 21 hours ago as I write...
There's a lot of reason to leave your plastic home as you shop:
Latest comments
Boozer, granted as good as he may be, shoots around 45% from the field,...
"One thing Mormons sure don't lack is self-assuredness, which to a lot of us...
Why not just let people read the book and decide for themselves.
Isn't the logic of wearing a flag, button, beannie, etc. the same as that of...
Just Ed, unless you are aligned with the first 3 posters, I wasn't...
Utah's two Senators apparently see their RINO political lives flashing before...
I'm actually a vampire who feed on the energy of chocolate,I'm also starting...
I got it. Go RSL!
Wesley isn't the crook here.The pompass over grown wharf rats in Washington...
I think we should give, but give more wisely than ever. If there is...
Advertisements