Deseret News | Log Cabin touts GOP backers for 2 gay-rights bills

Reader comments
Log Cabin touts GOP backers for 2 gay-rights bills

Anonymous | 6:56 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009

and what???
Why this homosexual lifestyle s lately pushing so hard.

No way | 7:00 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009

Gays should have no special rights. They are not a suspect class and should never have special rights. Homosexuality is a choice and they should never ever have special rights that any other person has. EVER!

Carry S. | 7:01 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009

The camel's nose has just entered the tent. It will be interesting to see how long it will take for the whole camel to displace the owner.

Comments continue below

Yeah, right | 8:15 p.m. Nov. 13, 2009

It's not surprising the "Republican" sponsor to the gay rights bill doesn't want to be named: He either doesn't exist, or he realizes that he is sure to lose next fall if he follows through on his promises to the gay lobby.

Silence Dogood | 12:11 a.m. Nov. 14, 2009

It would behoove the above commenters to recall that religion, including our own, is a choice. Arguing vehemently against the moral choices of others is thin ice to tread when we claim that our perfectly legal way of life should trump their perfectly legal way of life.

If it's a might-makes-right numbers game, we lose in only a few generations, or hadn't anyone else noticed the droves of young folks leaving Salt Lake and the Church for the grass over other fences...

Common sense | 12:16 a.m. Nov. 14, 2009

Anonymous: Was that English? I though conservatives believed if you are in this country, you should learn the language.

No way: I agree with you only because you used all caps and an exclamation mark. You don't have to have a good argument if you have both of those.

Carry: Do you seriously think that homosexuals will displace the rest of Utah are you just mean-spirited ad don't have a real argument?

Yeah right: I agree.

re: Common sense | 7:02 a.m. Nov. 14, 2009

Please spell correctly in your argument. Especially if you are mocking other people about their use of the English language.

Respectful Dialogue? | 8:51 a.m. Nov. 14, 2009

So much for "Respectful" dialogue as called for by the LDS Church.

Half the post by LDS members have been respectful,
the other half are anything but.

The world is watching to see if there is any truth to these new claims of civility and fairness.

Karma | 9:52 a.m. Nov. 14, 2009

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
===============

Let me elaborate:

If you are a bigot, intolerant and hateful --

You will be avoided, rejected and hated as well, by others [and the Lord].

RE:No Way | 10:03 a.m. Nov. 14, 2009

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

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

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

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

LDS in Ogden | 11:14 a.m. Nov. 14, 2009

Religion is a choice, and yet religion is a "protected class." It was not enough that the constitution gives religious expression total freedom, we required laws to protect those of any religious background from being fired or forced to move because of their "choice of faith." Of coarse that has never happened in the entire history of our country. Mobs of people did not burn and kill many our of ancestors. We always worshiped how we wanted with no ill effects.

Anti discrimination laws are are meant to encourage someone to "do the right thing" as the governor says, when they might lien to being just as forceful as some on these responses have been.

What you choose to do in your own bedroom should never be allowed as reason for dismissal. If you cannot do the job, your performance is effected etc, then replace the employee, but to arbitrarily terminate someone for something they do on their own time and in their own privacy is wrong.

These laws would not protect just "gay" people. They also protect the bigot who works for a "gay" owned company that could fire you for saying what I have read here.

Anonymous | 11:42 a.m. Nov. 14, 2009

REspectful Dialogue... that is really funny because I see the opposite...

To Karma | 11:45 a.m. Nov. 14, 2009

So, if my judgment is that a man lying with another man is an abomination (Lev. 18:22), do I get to be judged as one who adheres to Biblical tenets? Will the Lord avoid, reject, and hate me for believing the Bible?

By what authority do you speak for the Lord in saying who He will avoid, reject, and hate? Maybe it is you who should beware of your judgments, and, by presuming to speak for the Lord, beware you're not taking His name in vain.

Mark | 11:45 a.m. Nov. 14, 2009

Who are the Log Cabin Republicans? What? Why is this even a headline?

@Karma | 11:55 a.m. Nov. 14, 2009

I never get tired of laughing at people who cite the New Testament to chastise people for judging others, and in their next breath proceed to castigate those they've judged to be bigots, intolerant, hateful, and worthy of banishment from society and heaven.

Karma, indeed.

LDS in Ogden | 2:53 p.m. Nov. 14, 2009

The Log Cabin Republicans is a conservative group of Republicans that believe in equal rights or all, while hold that being fiscally responsible is important. They also believe in a strong national defense, fairness in taxation and limited government interference in our personal lives. I am a member of this group because I believe in Republican values, but do not necessarily agree with the moral agenda pushed by the religious right.

And can we all remember that most of the vehemence I hear on this subject is not terribly Christlike.

I will not judge you or impose my will upon you. The government has no place in sanctioning one belief system over another. Leave that to the church's to do.

When it happens to you | 10:28 a.m. Nov. 15, 2009

Ok, when you find that you can't rent an apartment or your job is at risk because of who you love, then you can tell the rest of us that an extra protection isn't necessary.

Linguist | 10:46 a.m. Nov. 15, 2009

As a gay man, I must say that I find the charge that I "chose" to be gay a particularly strange one.

Want to know whether I "chose" to be gay? Just ask me. I am more than willing to talk about how I grew up, began to realize I was "different," and spent decades of my life in a sometimes desperate effort to change my sexual orientation. If ever there were a human being who "chose" not to be gay, that would have been me. But, apparently, it doesn't work that way.

I did eventually come to accept the fact that I was gay, and now live my life honestly and with integrity, and that includes choices I have made--not to pretend, not to marry a woman, but rather to live in a committed relationship with someone I love.

But I didn't "choose" to be gay. That's the bottom line, and the truth.

For anyone looking for reasons not to treat me or other gay people with fairness under the law or even with respect, I respectfully suggest that you look for other rationales. This one has no basis in fact.

Peace,
Linguist

Sam | 11:09 a.m. Nov. 15, 2009

For everyone saying homosexuality is a choice:

I am a Mormon. That is my choice. Even so, I would prefer not to be discriminated against based on that choice. Everyone's different, that doesn't mean that we can't treat each other with basic respect, even if we don't agree with each other.

brillo | 11:32 a.m. Nov. 15, 2009

Some maintain that the sin of Sodom was being mean-spirited, inhospitable and judgmental. None of that here, of course.

mark | 12:08 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009

Log Cabin Republicans...the ONLY gays/lesbians who would sit down and talk with LDS. In case you don't know LCR, these would be like African American voters who preferred Alan Keyes to Obama. Nearly so small a group, you could count them on your fingers and toes.

Doug Cortney | 12:08 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009

LDS in Ogden seems to have overlooked the fact that the Log Cabin Republicans is a gay and lesbian organization within the Republican party. That's really the main identifying aspect of the group, not anything mentioned in the previous post.

mark | 12:12 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009

Log Cabin Republicans in my previous home of the Twin Cities, were TWO out of 400,000 who would attend Pride. The two who manned their booth...that's ALL.
So imagining what they tell you about how the LGBT community feels or will respond....is NONSENSE.

Albert | 12:16 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009

Why must there be a seperate bill or law passed for gays when we already have laws that protect ALL OF US from discrimination? Again, these people are looking for Special Rights and the more they are given, the more they will ask for until they convince us all to allow them to marry. Homosexuality is a mental issue and should have remained classified as such. Any time someone has a hate or dislike for the opposite sex and then they mimick that which they hate or dislike have a mental problem. Utah has it's share with problems trying to hold on to those family values that keep our children safe. Why should we threaten those values by changing our laws for those that do not share our way of life or our thinking. Enough is enough. NO to any law or bill that will destroy the foundation set by those that came before us. Why appease the few and decieve the many. Let one die so many can live. Sodomy was a crime, what's happenning to Utah?

Why "Special Rights"? | 12:32 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009

First, I think the focus on gay rights is way out of proportion to those who are gay. However, having said this, why can't civil unions satisfy that group? Truth is, the act is anti-Christian and is abnormal. So, why should that group's desire for marriage be accepted as a "Norm" when in fact, the lifestyle is anything but normal. Why elevate an immoral lifestyle to be acceptable? Yet, on the other hand, they should not be assaulted or discriminated against as human beings. Marriage is often diminished by the high amount of divorce; hence the bible is clear on that. However, marriage is an ideal and it should be protected. Gays should also retain their civil rights, but the lifestyle doesn't quite cut it to be honored, or to dishonor marriage.

Can we now focus on nationalism, creating an economy for Americans, the Constitution and standing up for our liberties and get rid of this tyrant president and his cronies. Those are the real issues.

mark | 1:31 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009

@Albert

Gay men have no hatred of women that is a total fabrication. Women make up over half of my closest friends, and they are heterosexual and lesbians.
During Katrina eight of our friends (and all their pets)left New Orleans, and stayed with us. They were gay and straight, married and single, men and women....all were welcome to stay for as long as they needed.
Something LDS might try to mimic.

I'll be interested . . . | 3:42 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009

to see if the gays will stop there or will keep pushing to legalize gay marriage. If gay marriage ever gets a solid legal hold, because churches have civil authority to perform a ceremony, I wonder if churches will find themselves in the situation of the Louisiana Justice of the Peace who refused to perform a racially mixed marriage. The article indicated he had been sued for refusing. Why wouldn't legalization of gay marriage force church leaders autorized to perform civil marriages in a position of either having to perform a gay marriage or be sued?

Rationale for Gay Marriage | 3:57 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009

If I were gay, I would not impose myself on the tradition of Marriage. The only reason I can figure is quite simply this. The Leftist-radical-atheist agenda was to always get rid of God in America. One way to do this, is to file suit and put churches out of business. If gay marriage is legal, then if a church doesn't marry a gay couple, well..then the state will sue the church. This is why, in my vew, the atheists want gay marriage.

Linguist | 4:14 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009

Dear "I'll be interested":

Any religious official can refuse to perform any ceremony he wants, including an interracial one.

With respect, you are confusing civil ceremonies with religious ones. A Justice of the Peace is a CIVIL employee, and must follow the laws. He cannot pick and choose who he lets into a public facility and who he grants licenses to, just as the Driver License Division can't refuse to give driver's licenses to people based on their race or other characteristics having nothing to do with their ability to drive.

Clergy, on the other hand, are clearly protected from this requirement. The LDS Church not only doesn't need to marry gay couples-- it doesn't have to marry ANY couple at all that it doesn't want to. Ever. It doesn't even have to let individuals inside the Temple doors if they don't want to. The Catholic Church routinely refuses to marry divorced individuals. Rabbis can refuse to marry non-Jews. And so on.

Clergy are generally also licensed to perform civil marriages. They are never required by law to do so.

Anonymous | 4:19 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009

Whatever the outcome from the various peoples involved the results will never be settled to everyones satisfaction.

Anonymous | 4:20 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009

"Why wouldn't legalization of gay marriage force church leaders autorized to perform civil marriages in a position of either having to perform a gay marriage or be sued?"

Because the Justice of the Peace was an official working DIRECTLY FOR the government. That is a BIG difference from church leaders who are allowed to facilitate in marriage services but do not work for the government. You cannot discriminate against someone for something that is PERFECTLY LEGAL when their tax dollars pay your salary.

Linguist | 4:46 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009

Dear "Rationale for Gay Marriage":

With respect, many gay people, myself included, are people of faith. There are many religious groups that perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples, including, for example, many Reform Judaism congregations.

Religious marriage, however, isn't civil marriage, though understandably, there is often some confusion about the two--given that many clergy are licensed to ALSO perform civil marriages.

Neither I nor any of my gay friends seek to do injury to the institution of marriage or, indeed, to those of faiths that reject our lives and our commitments as couples.

And, because I believe strongly in the First Amendment --for ALL-- I would be out there with you protesting at the first sign of anyone trying to infringe on the right of any religious institution to refuse to marry anyone civilly OR religiously--including gay friends of mine. We all would lose if that happened.

Fortunately, it's not likely. The First Amendment is brilliant, and works quite well to protect both the religious and the non-religious, gay and non-gay alike.

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.