Mormon church issues statement in support of gay-rights ordinances

[Maxel]

Rico-

Since the phrase "do violence to the institution of marriage" has been discussed so eloquently by Vort and Elphaba recently, I suggest you look there. The entire reason the Church can get behind this measure is because it doesn't do anything to hurt the institution of marriage. The issue isn't giving new, made-up rights to certain groups of individuals, but preserving and securing the natural rights enjoyed by all Americans.

The only dog the Church has had in this fight, from the beginning, was protecting the traditional institution of marriage. That's the ENTIRE reason it got into Proposition 8- because it was a law dealing with the legal definition of the life union between men and women ('marriage'). The Church isn't anti-gay- it's pro-family and pro-liberty. It is the latter two stances that dictate its official actions.

[john doe]

I am flabbergasted. Sin is sin. Unrepentant sin is unrepentant sin. I thought the Church should stand up and help us keep sin from encroaching into our daily lives instead of giving it an open door?

Someone once told me that gay marriage will be the next Blacks in the Priesthood issue for the Church. I fully expect that the Church will be allowing gays to get married in the temple in the next 20 years. You can only appease sin for so long before you let it overtake you.

I don't. As far as I'm concerned, this was merely putting into straight words what we have been saying for decades. Just because someone is gay does not mean we need to treat them with disrespect. They deserve a safe place to live just as much as any other child of God does as long as they don't infringe on other peoples' rights. The church is also reserving the rights of a religion to exclude whomever they want from joining for whatever reason they want.

[Moksha]

I suspect that Church leaders are simply concerned that some ordinances might sneak up on marriage and give it a sucker punch. Can't support ordinances with the capacity of a sucker punch or a flying drop kick. Ordinances that would hide until marriage was almost upon it then jump out and do violence cannot be supported.***

Ordinances that add to the fairness and justice of the world are fine in the eyes of the Church as long as they don't mess around with a man and his wives... er... wait ... I mean wife. Regis, choice #2 of a wife in the singular is my final answer. Nor should the wife be violent either, she may do too much damage to the sanctity of ordinances.

Let's not spoil the celebration of this Church position by grinding our axes against sinning, for who among us is without sin.

***You know this is true due to the Chiasmus.

:)

[Just_A_Guy]

The fun thing about this whole discussion is knowing that if gays do get all the constitutional protections they've sought (including, but not limited to, marriage), and if the parade of horrors predicted by the Church leadership comes to pass--the latter-day Godbeites who were always trying to change the Church's direction on this (to the point of subjecting its leadership to open ridicule) will doubtless start saying that those horrors never would have happened except that the Church brought them on itself by taking such "inflammatory" actions as opposing gay marriage.

Edited November 16, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[Rico]

. Just because someone is gay does not mean we need to treat them with disrespect.

And just because someone is an unrepentant thief, an unrepentant fraudster or an unrepentant child molester does not mean we need to treat them with disrespect.

[pam]

I hardly put gays in the same category as the others you mentioned.

[Vort]

I hardly put gays in the same category as the others you mentioned.

Why not? A fornicator is actively sinning, just as much as a thief.

[john doe]

And just because someone is an unrepentant thief, an unrepentant fraudster or an unrepentant child molester does not mean we need to treat them with disrespect.

Homosexual behavior between two consenting adults is not illegal in the US. Do you seriously not see the difference between that and the examples you provided?

[pam]

Why not? A fornicator is actively sinning, just as much as a thief.

For the same reason that JD just stated. The other activities are illegal. Engaging in homosexual behavior is not.

[Just_A_Guy]

Well, but Utah still has a statute on the books making fornication (gay or straight) a criminal act . . .

[john doe]

Well, but Utah still has a statute on the books making fornication (gay or straight) a criminal act . . .

When was the last time you saw it enforced against gays?

[Moksha]

Well, but Utah still has a statute on the books making fornication (gay or straight) a criminal act . . .

Did you know they also have a law on the books making shooting dogs, livestock and bison from a motor vehicle illegal? Talk about an infringement on the rights of gun owners, but there is nothing specifically in the books against the aforesaid carnal action with a bison in a motor vehicle.

[Hemidakota]

The church reponse is just not Homosexuals and Lesbians rights but for all humanity to have civic rights.

[Just_A_Guy]

I'm just sayin', guys, that it's kinda hard to come down against landlords for prohibiting what is technically illegal behavior on their own property.

If you want to force landlords to accept fornication (or even outright gay sex) on their property, then it seems like the first logical step is to revoke the statutes prohibiting those acts. Lawrence spoke to anti-sodomy legislation generally; but I'm not aware that it spoke specifically to sexual-orientation-neutral laws forbidding fornication.

[john doe]

I think I know what you're saying, but those laws have been largely ignored for decades.

[Guest mormonmusic]

I think this is a great step foward for the Mormon Church. I shows kindness toward gay people, and may well curb the ire they feel toward us as a Church. And I think the Savior would definitely support laws that protect people of alternate lifestyles from access to basic things like a place to live, or freedom from harm due to their sexual orientation.

Yes, there are concerns that as a minority, they might play the 'gay card' if they are denied housing, but my hope is that other controls might be in place, such as proving the person was unsuitable for bad credit, lack of a job, etcetera, not just because they are gay....

[Hemidakota]

I think I know what you're saying, but those laws have been largely ignored for decades.

Agreed...people need to decide for themselves on which path to walk.

[Just_A_Guy]

OK, getting very Machiavellian/conspiracy theorist here:

Remember the complaint(s) lodged against the Church with the California Fair Political Practices Commission after Prop 8? Those complaints are, as far as I know, still under consideration by the CFPPC.

Since those complaints were lodged, three Commissioners have departed and three new ones have arrived. Two of the newcomers are (I think it's safe to say) certifiable liberals. The third has reasonably solid libertarian credentials. See their profiles here (the newcomers are the bottom three). Of the two "old-timers", both are Schwarzenegger appointees--one a Republican and one a Democrat.

The CFPPC claims to be nonpartisan; but these guys read the newspapers and they have their values and beliefs. As it is now, at least three of the five Commissioners (possibly 4--the libertarian is a bit of a wild-card) probably support gay marriage. What is their political view towards the Church; how might that view be changed by what just happened in SLC; and what repercussions might that have when the CFPPC makes a decision on the complaints currently before it?

[Rico]

Homosexual behavior between two consenting adults is not illegal in the US. Do you seriously not see the difference between that and the examples you provided?

Go back 20 years ago and it was. Actually go back fewer years than that. We have changed and become more accepting of that crime until it ceased to be a crime. Maybe we should do the same towards other crimes?

Anyways, I am sorry. I don't believe that we should change with the times and become more inclusive just to satisfy the world. I think somewhere in the scriptures we can read that it is just plain wrong.

[john doe]

Go back 20 years ago and it was. Actually go back fewer years than that. We have changed and become more accepting of that crime until it ceased to be a crime. Maybe we should do the same towards other crimes?

Anyways, I am sorry. I don't believe that we should change with the times and become more inclusive just to satisfy the world. I think somewhere in the scriptures we can read that it is just plain wrong.

And we can also take heed of the commandment to love our neighbor. No matter how disgusting their lifestyle may be to us, they are still our brothers and sisters. That does not mean we have to roll over and give in to their demands on our religion, but they still are deserving of our respect and basic human dignities.

[pam]

Go back 20 years ago and it was. Actually go back fewer years than that. We have changed and become more accepting of that crime until it ceased to be a crime. Maybe we should do the same towards other crimes?

Anyways, I am sorry. I don't believe that we should change with the times and become more inclusive just to satisfy the world. I think somewhere in the scriptures we can read that it is just plain wrong.

Let's look at it in another way. Forget about any legalities. Let's look at it in how we see it as LDS. We consider homosexual activity a sin. Just as we do for heterosexuals who fornicate or who are involved in adultery. Do we take away their dignity as human beings. No we don't. We love them just as we love those who fornicate and who are adulterers. Doesn't mean we have to love the sin but we do need to love the sinners. As hard as that might be.

We aren't advocating the sin of homosexual activity either. I'm not talking about marriage here. I'm not even going to go there. We are giving them the rights they have as human beings to have some of the same rights we have.

I know many gay people and I personally would love to see them have the same rights as far as insurance, death benefits, rights to be with their loved ones in a hospital during emergencies, the list goes on. Don't we currently have those rights? Why shouldn't they? Why should their sexual preference alienate them from those rights? They are still hard working, loving, assets to the community no matter how YOU personally may perceive them.

Where's the love?

[RanMan]

• Vort is not a young and beautiful Icelandic girl. That is, Vort is not young (46), not beautiful (except to spouse), and not female.

Are you sure?

[Vort]

Vort is not a young and beautiful Icelandic girl. That is, Vort is not young (46), not beautiful (except to spouse), and not female.

Are you sure?

The kicker is, I'm not even Icelandic!

[galenbeesley]

I agree with the stance of the church on this matter. I don't agree with anything that interferes with the rights of other people, even if what they do I think is morally wrong. I believe that even gays and lesbians are children of God and deserve to be treated as children of God.

[RanMan]

The kicker is, I'm not even Icelandic!

How very shocking.