Mormon church issues statement in support of gay-rights ordinances

At Tuesday night's Salt Lake City Council meeting, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a statement showing its support of the city's proposed non-discrimination regulations.

[Rainbow Kid]

After the propH8 debacle and the totally outrageous "church owned" handcuff fiasco, nothing the mormon mafia says or does can ever be trusted.

[PatriciaCross]

The fact they seem to be pushing for bills which give us the same rights as married couples and have already made effort to do so is actually very promising.

While I consider the origins of their faith very silly, I have never met a Mormon I didn't like. I was very confused when I saw them pressing for prop-8, but this makes allot more sense in regards to what I know about their beliefs.

Seems to me they want Marriage kept with the Church and having nothing to do with the state, but since marriage is governed by the state they are working within the laws and system. I can understand and respect that.

[Rick in Kansas]

It's really nothing but a PR ploy on their part. They can come out in favor of the legislation and tell everybody, see we're not nearly as anti-gay as everybody says we are and then deny culpability when it gets sabotaged down the road. While the city commission and Mayor are in favor of this, the state legislature is threatening to whack it and probably will. The Church pretty much pulled the same stunt last year announcing their support for bills heading to the state legislature which would have offered a number of protections to LGBT citizens but then stood silent as they all got shot down...

[Rick in Kansas]

Both ordinances passed unanimously, now let's see what the legislature is going to do to them:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705343558/...

[writewingproxyco ntin]

Whether it's a PR ploy or sincere or a simple political calculation that they can't stop it and therefore shouldn't take a hit on this one, it's the very goal when bigots have to moderate their behavior in the public sphere.

Bigots will almost always hold onto their beliefs, but eventually with social progress they have to keep the bigotry on the downlow. snicker

[unimpressed]

Also, they're probably trying to gain sympathy & support for their 2012 presidential candidate, Mitt Romney. Didn't trust 'em in 2008, won't trust them in 2012.

[Duped since birth]

What was the official mormon position on R-71 in Washington state? Did they have one? Did they contribute? I don't trust anyone who says they are "in favor of rights, just don't call it marriage" because next thing they do is start a referendum to repeal said rights.

[ACLU-Tom]

From the article, "We are not anti-gay..."

If they are against marriage equality, they most certainly are anti-gay.

[Heath]

This thread certainly does an excellent job of exposing the hate, prejudice, and bigotry that lie at the base of the radical homosexual movement.

[Inquisitarian]

ACLU-Tom wrote:

From the article, "We are not anti-gay..."
If they are against marriage equality, they most certainly are anti-gay.

Indeed, the moment you see/hear the words "I'm not anti-gay..." be prepared for what follows to contradict this preface.

[Roisia]

ACLU-Tom wrote:

From the article, "We are not anti-gay..."
If they are against marriage equality, they most certainly are anti-gay.

While im positive that the church is anti gay. I dont think being anti gay marriage makes you anti gay. I have many friends who are very supportive of my and have no issue with who i am but dont agree with gay marriage. I just think some people aren't ready for it yet.

[Inquisitarian]

Roisia wrote:

<quoted text>
While im positive that the church is anti gay. I dont think being anti gay marriage makes you anti gay. I have many friends who are very supportive of my and have no issue with who i am but dont agree with gay marriage. I just think some people aren't ready for it yet.

I suppose it depends on how one defines "anti-gay". Just because someone is otherwise supportive doesn't mean their position against marriage equality isn't anti-gay - such a position is fundamentally based in the idea that same-sex unions are inferior to opposite-sex unions. If you don't think that's anti-gay...

Gay people have become so accustomed to their second-class status that they've internalized a lot of the more subtle anti-gay prejudice of our society.

Bottom line: If someone holds a position that puts a gay person on a less-than-equal footing with that person's orientation as the basis, that position fits the definition of anti-gay. Don't be fooled by careful phrasing that appears to make it about something else. Dig deeper to find out what's really behind their position, and you'll eventually arrive at their cleverly disguised prejudice.

[neutral one]

Roisia wrote:

<quoted text>
While im positive that the church is anti gay. I dont think being anti gay marriage makes you anti gay. I have many friends who are very supportive of my and have no issue with who i am but dont agree with gay marriage. I just think some people aren't ready for it yet.

I am LDS and I've got a gay cousin. I'm not anti-gay by any means. Neither is the church. In our beliefs, marriage between a man and a woman is the highest and most important ordinance we can achieve and partake in this life. Trying to protect that doesn't mean we hate anyone who disagrees with us. This statement that the church put out backs up ALL of our beliefs. It protects religious freedom, yet grants equal freedoms and protections to everyone. We believe that the definition of marriage should be left up to the churches, and that the government can handle civil institutions all they want. However, the differences should be distinguished. One is religious and the other is civil. The way it is now, if you change the definition of marriage to include homosexual unions, it opens up the door to penalizing churches who fail to perform homosexual unions. It may not happen today or tomorrow, but countries that allow homosexual marriages are already starting to see that happen. All men deserve equal treatment and protection under the law. We also deserve our right to believe or not believe what we will. Both things CAN and SHOULD be protected. I love my cousin. We are close in age and great friends. I didn't stop loving him when he came out of the closet, and I never will. The LDS church is aware of their struggles and wants to help them. However, we will not compromise our own beliefs to do so, meaning we will not support a marriage act that could potentially risk our freedom of religion.

Just because we disagree with homosexual behavior does not mean we are "anti-gay". We love and care for our homosexual brothers and sisters. We do not promote violence towards those who disagree with us. Our whole belief system revolves around everyone having the freedom to choose what they will in this life, and loving our brothers as ourselves. You don't have to agree with someone to love them. You just have to accept them and respect them unconditionally. That is what the LDS church is trying to say: We disagree with homosexual behavior and will not support the legal changing of the definition of marriage, but we still love an support our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters and will support their equal treatment under the law. If civil unions offered everything marriage did, would there even be a problem? If civil unions were a state institution and marriage were a religious one? That is what the LDS people support. Civil unions for those seeking a purely governmental status and marriages for those who seek a spiritual one.

[writewingproxyco ntin]

neutral one wrote:

<quoted text>
I am LDS and I've got a gay cousin. I'm not anti-gay by any means. Neither is the church. In our beliefs, marriage between a man and a woman is the highest and most important ordinance we can achieve and partake in this life.

This is not theocracy. And treating a group as less than by law is bigotry.

Anti sex pervert Ken Starr actually argued in the Prop 8 lawsuit that citizens can vote away the rights of any minority. You Mormons should think carefully about possible, larger implications when getting in bed with legal arguments like that.

Finally, given history, we don't need lecturing from Mormons on the sanctity of marriage as one man and one woman. It would be like Mormons instructing people that racism is bad. It's just a little unhinged. Amen.

[neutral one]

writewingproxycontin wrote:

<quoted text>
This is not theocracy. And treating a group as less than by law is bigotry.
Anti sex pervert Ken Starr actually argued in the Prop 8 lawsuit that citizens can vote away the rights of any minority. You Mormons should think carefully about possible, larger implications when getting in bed with legal arguments like that.
Finally, given history, we don't need lecturing from Mormons on the sanctity of marriage as one man and one woman. It would be like Mormons instructing people that racism is bad. It's just a little unhinged. Amen.

If you'd take a look at history, Mormons actually encouraged the freeing of slaves and welcomed African Americans into their churches. Go to www.blacklds.org for more information.

Also, do you believe that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and other prophets who had more than one wife were immoral? I think not. Why? Because God allowed it. If He is unchanging, why, then, is it impossible for Him to command it in recent history? Are you putting God in a box?

The battle over Proposition 8 was about opposing the changing of the legal definition of marriage, not about voting rights away. You'll notice that Proposition 8 states that all gay couples will receive ALL rights and benefits under the law. They just don't get to own the legal definition of marriage. You aren't understanding the full blow to religious freedom in changing the definition in the court of law. Once the definition is changed on the books, further legislation could eventually outlaw or penalize churches who believe homosexuality is sinful behavior! It is already happening in other countries. In Sweden, they have a bill stating that all churches who preach that homosexuality is sinful could be prosecuted for hate speech! It hasn't been passed, but the mere fact that it is being debated at all is appalling!! Just because someone believes something is sinful doesn't mean they hate! The LEGAL definition changing could lead to the further destruction of religious freedom and the rights given to us by the Constitution. Marriage is NOT in the Constitution, but the freedom of religion is. By separating civil unions ("marriages" performed by the state with all of the legal, financial, and medical benefits) from MARRIAGE (a sacred religious institution), all parties can be happy. All gays and heteros would have to obtain a civil union to get the state and federal benefits of a union, and the individual churches can decide how they choose to define marriage. If one church decides that marriage is for a man and a woman only, there is no chance, now or in the future, that they will be prosecuted or penalized for refusing to marry a gay couple as long as the legal definition of MARRIAGE is left alone. THAT is what the LDS church is pushing for: the protection of religious freedom. If you change the legal definition, that is just one step in dissolving our religious freedoms.

[neutral one]

We are not trying to deny anyone's rights. We are just trying to make sure we don't risk losing any in the fight for equality. Gays are NOT second rate citizens, and have never been in my eyes. They deserve the same rights and protections I have under the law. With that said, I deserve to have my religious freedoms protected, too. I shouldn't have to risk giving that up, especially when there is a very simple solution. Keeping the definition of marriage up to the individual churches (meaning some will allow gay marriage and those who don't allow it won't be penalized--ensuring religious freedom), and allowing everyone civil unions in order to get the government benefits. Win-win.

[writewingproxyco ntin]

neutral one wrote:

<quoted text>
If you'd take a look at history, Mormons actually encouraged the freeing of slaves and welcomed African Americans into their churches.

Here comes the cult mind denial again.

Hey liar, everyone knows that blacks were not allowed to hold positions in the Moron Churchcult hierarchy until as shockingly recently as a couple of decades ago. That's sick enough without your insane dissembling on top.

Women are, naturally, still treated like chattel in the Churchcult to this day. Sick.

Don't lecture anyone on marriage being one man and one woman or on racism, you magic underpants, dead Jew baptizing freeek.

This is a secular society. You "religious" views are not sufficient justification for discriminatory laws.

You had better start thinking about the implications of pervert Ken Starr's argument in Prop 8 that voters can decide to remove any group's rights. It could come back to bite you, since now the secular, the Catholic, the evangelical and the g/l/b/t communities all look upon you with suspicion.

No word yet on how the equally cultish Scientologists regard Mormons.

[Inquisitarian]

neutral one wrote:

<quoted text>
In our beliefs, marriage between a man and a woman is the highest and most important ordinance we can achieve and partake in this life. Trying to protect that doesn't mean we hate anyone who disagrees with us.

You aren't trying to protect your beliefs - you're trying to punish those who don't conform to them. That shows a considerable disrespect for the beliefs of others. Imposing your beliefs on others who don't share them through the tool of law is, in point of fact, a pretty hateful thing to do.

neutral one wrote:

We believe that the definition of marriage should be left up to the churches, and that the government can handle civil institutions all they want.

Erroneous. The RELIGIOUS definition of marriage is already left up to the churches, and what the government handles is the CIVIL institution of marriage.

neutral one wrote:

However, the differences should be distinguished.

If you can't distinguish between them as they currently exist, that's your own failing.

neutral one wrote:

The way it is now, if you change the definition of marriage to include homosexual unions, it opens up the door to penalizing churches who fail to perform homosexual unions.

That's an outright lie. What about churches that want to marry same-sex couples? Shouldn't they have that right? Here I'll remind you about the Unitarian ministers that were made subject to prosecution in New York for performing same-sex weddings.

The government doesn't force any church to marry couples that the church deems unfit based on its religious views, and granting civil recognition to same-sex couples marriages won't change that one bit.(and before you bring it up, the New Jersey case was about a church that violated state non-discrimination laws in its dealings with the general public - had nothing to do with marriage recognition, which New Jersey doesn't even have).

The solution to this isn't to deny same-sex couples marriage recognition - it's to revoke the authority of religious entities to act with civil authority when performing weddings - that's how you go about separating the religious and civil institutions - not by imposing your beliefs about marriage on others through the tool of shared law.

neutral one wrote:

It may not happen today or tomorrow, but countries that allow homosexual marriages are already starting to see that happen.

Source? Massachusetts has recognized the marriages of same-sex couples for something like 5 years now - and no church has been forced to perform a same-sex wedding - not there or in any other state providing recognition to same-sex couples. What happens in other countries doesn't count - they're legal structures are often very different, and the separation that the church enjoys from the state in the U.S. doesn't always exist elsewhere. Moreover, what you've made here is a fallacious slippery-slope argument.

neutral one wrote:

We also deserve our right to believe or not believe what we will.

Same-sex couples who believe in their marriages included.

neutral one wrote:

Both things CAN and SHOULD be protected.

Thanks to the interference of the Mormon church in the political process, they no longer are in California, and the same goes for the Catholic church in Maine.

[Inquisitarian]

neutral one wrote:

The LDS church is aware of their struggles and wants to help them.

By taking away the ability of same-sex couples to marry? We can do without that kind of help.

neutral one wrote:

However, we will not compromise our own beliefs to do so, meaning we will not support a marriage act that could potentially risk our freedom of religion.

Translation: We've bought into the fearmongering and don't really believe that other people should have the right to order their lives according to their differing beliefs, we just give lip service to the idea while trying to impose our own through the tool of shared law.

neutral one wrote:

Just because we disagree with homosexual behavior does not mean we are "anti-gay".

Actually, it does. What do you think "anti-gay" means? It means opposing homosexual behavior, opposing protection of homosexuals' legal equality and the civil recognition of their marriages.

neutral one wrote:

We love and care for our homosexual brothers and sisters.

You're way of showing it leaves much to be desired.

neutral one wrote:

You just have to accept them and respect them unconditionally.

Your church has a very strange definition of respect, then.

neutral one wrote:

That is what the LDS church is trying to say: We disagree with homosexual behavior and will not support the legal changing of the definition of marriage, but we still love an support our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters and will support their equal treatment under the law.

Laughable. Seriously, laughable. What they're really trying to do is gain some political cover after experiencing a backlash for their involvement in California's Prop 8 battle. I see no reason whatsoever to believe they're latest statement is sincere.

neutral one wrote:

If civil unions offered everything marriage did, would there even be a problem?

They don't, and the very act of requiring same-sex marriages to be called something different belies the argument that civil unions and civil marriage are equals. There is no way to make them equal, either. The difference in name automatically guarantees that regardless of how the law is written, same-sex couples’ marriages will be treated as something less than marriage.

neutral one wrote:

If civil unions were a state institution and marriage were a religious one? That is what the LDS people support. Civil unions for those seeking a purely governmental status and marriages for those who seek a spiritual one.

Here your own words betray the prejudice. There are many same-sex couples who consider their marriages to be spiritual in nature. Whether you disagree that they are is immaterial – it should have no bearing whatsoever on the recognition of those marriages as a civil matter. What’s more, your saying that despite same-sex couples seeking a spiritual union according to their own beliefs, they should only be allowed to have a “purely governmental status”. Civil recognition of a marriage by the government already has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with marriage as a spiritual institution, regardless of the sex of the parties or their religious beliefs. There is therefore no need at all for a separate institution. The government is not and should not be in the business of providing civil recognition on the basis of a marriage’s “spiritual” nature. All that leads to is a fight over the spiritual definition of marriage and the inevitable favoring of one faith or set of religious beliefs over another. Despite what you seem to mistakenly believe, that is not the question before us. The recognition of same-sex couples’ marriages is only about marriage as a civil institution, not about Mormon’s religious beliefs about marriage as a spiritual union.

[Inquisitarian]

neutral one wrote:

We are not trying to deny anyone's rights. We are just trying to make sure we don't risk losing any in the fight for equality. Gays are NOT second rate citizens, and have never been in my eyes. They deserve the same rights and protections I have under the law. With that said, I deserve to have my religious freedoms protected, too. I shouldn't have to risk giving that up, especially when there is a very simple solution. Keeping the definition of marriage up to the individual churches (meaning some will allow gay marriage and those who don't allow it won't be penalized--ensuring religious freedom), and allowing everyone civil unions in order to get the government benefits. Win-win.

This isn't what the Mormon church (nor any other) is fighting for. No one has made a serious legislative proposal that the government stop calling its civil recognition of marriages by the word "marriage", and instead call them all "civil unions". When such a thing was suggested in New Jersey, the immediate reaction of those opposing recognition of same-sex couples' marriages was that such an idea was even more radical and completely unacceptable.

Civil unions are nothing more than a red herring argument, meant to either distract from the real issue or to make those punishing same-sex couples feel better about themselves.

What's more, no one is making a serious push toward offering civil unions to same-sex couples, either. Probably because 1) they already know that civil unions represent a second-class status and are therefore unacceptable, and 2) because they've never really intended on providing same-sex couples with a legal status.

When civil unions have been proposed in the past, they've been opposed by the anti-gay as an endangerment to the status of heterosexual marriage, characterized as an attempt to install same-sex marriage by another name, etc.

You really don't expect us to take the whole "civil unions" argument seriously, do you? That would be incredibly naive.