Mormon church issues statement in support of gay-rights ordinances

[Heather]

The LDS Church (Mormon Church) affirms it's position in support of Gay Rights.

Deseret News | Mormon Church backs protection of gay rights in Salt Lake City

ksl.com - Mormon church issues statement in support of gay-rights ordinances

[Just_A_Guy]

The LDS Church (Mormon Church) affirms it's position in support of Gay Rights

ksl.com - Mormon church issues statement in support of gay-rights ordinances

Deseret News | Mormon Church backs protection of gay rights in Salt Lake City

:clap::clap:

[Elphaba]

From the Deseret News story:

An LDS Church representative read the supporting statement at a public hearing before the Salt Lake City Council regarding the ordinances proposed by Mayor Ralph Becker.

"The church supports this ordinance because it is fair and reasonable and does not do violence to the institution of marriage," said Michael Otterson, managing director of the LDS Church's public affairs office. (italics mine)

Does anyone understand Otterson's use of the word "violence"? How does one do violence to the institution of marriage? That sentence makes no sense to me.

I've also never heard the Church use the word in any other comments about marriage, but perhaps I've missed it.

I just have to say, I certainly hope Chris Buttars isn't involved in any of this.

Elphaba

[Just_A_Guy]

Elphie, you'll love the Trib's story. Apparently this is the result of weeks of secret meetings between LDS officials and the Utah gay-rights leadership.

[pam]

Heather you beat me again. I had just read those articles and was getting ready to post them.

[mightynancy]

From the Tribune article:

Despite the fact everyone in the clandestine meetings was LDS or gay, Seed describes the tone as sincere and says minds remained open.

Despite!

[Heather]

Mormon gay-rights group Affirmation issues statement applauding LDS Church's action. Read statement (PDF)

http://media.bonnint.net/slc/1563/156385/15638549.pdf

[Moksha]

The church supports this ordinance because it is fair and reasonable and does not do violence to the institution of marriage," said Michael Otterson, managing director of the LDS Church's public affairs office.

As a result, the Salt Lake City Council voted unanimously to approve this measure. It is good when they are not divided on along religious lines.

I really appreciate this statement from the Church as well:

"I represent a church that believes in human dignity, in treating others with respect even when we disagree — in fact, especially when we disagree," said Otterson. "Our language will always be respectful and acknowledge those who differ, but (we) will also be clear on matters that we feel are of great consequence to our society."

:)

[hordak]

We're talking about people being able to go to their job and not be concerned about getting fired. We're talking about people being able to go home and feel safe in their homes, and they're not going to be kicked out for any reason other than they're gay or lesbian," Equality Utah's Stephanie Pappas said in January of 2009.

Is this really a problem? What legal grounds are there for firing someone because they're gay or kicking them out of there home aside from there being no law specifically protecting them and couldn't that be used on any non protected group like, meat eaters, vegetarians, people who look funny, people who laugh weird. etc.

Don't get me wrong if someone is canned or loses their home based only on their sexual preference it it wrong but is there some sort of legal president that allows an employer or landlord to discriminate on everything that it's specifically protected? And if so how will they protect the millions of other people with a lifestyle that is different then the employer or land lord?

Wouldn't i be easier to say you can evict or fire based on this critera rather then specially protecting every new minority group that comes along?

[Tarnished]

Is this really a problem? What legal grounds are there for firing someone because they're gay or kicking them out of there home aside from there being no law specifically protecting them and couldn't that be used on any non protected group like, meat eaters, vegetarians, people who look funny, people who laugh weird. etc.

Don't get me wrong if someone is canned or loses their home based only on their sexual preference it it wrong but is there some sort of legal president that allows an employer or landlord to discriminate on everything that it's specifically protected? And if so how will they protect the millions of other people with a lifestyle that is different then the employer or land lord?

Wouldn't i be easier to say you can evict or fire based on this critera rather then specially protecting every new minority group that comes along?

I agree, that part of the article made me a bit worried. What if you are a landlord and someone comes to you to rent but their credit is terrible and they didn't even pay off all of their rent to their last landlord and so you don't want to rent to them, but...they are gay and so when you turn them down you get hit with a legal suit because you didn't rent to a gay person? Truthfully, like Hordak said, I think there should be critera that you can use for such cases instead of setting up laws to "protect" any minority out there.

[NeuroTypical]

Reading the Trib story, I was touched by this:

Christensen suggested to LDS leaders that a dialogue with Utah's gay community may ease hostilities.

The officials reached out to leaders of Equality Utah and the Utah Pride Center, proposing they huddle at the Church Office Building. The gay leaders suggested a coffee shop at the Utah Pride Center. They settled on a neutral location -- the Avenues home of Sam and Diane Stewart. The Stewarts are active Mormons and close friends of Jim Dabakis, who helped found Equality Utah and the Pride Center.

Suspicion marred initial meetings. "These were two communities living in the same town that just had no understanding of each other," Dabakis said. "It was quite uncomfortable in the beginning."

Slowly they built a level of trust and good will. They searched for common ground, understanding that the LDS Church wasn't about to back gay marriage and Utah's gay community would not stop pushing for what it considers civil rights.

I would have loved to be at those first meetings, and watch it slowly dawn on both parties that they weren't sitting in a room with an enemy, but a potential friend.

It reminds me of something my crotchety old anti-mormon dad used to tell me as he was trying to get me to go the casino with him: "How ya gonna fight sin if you can't recognize it?" That translates over pretty well to "how ya gonna love thy neighbor if you've never sat down next to him and talked to him?"

I'm glad this happened. The church has long maintained it's position of tender compassion towards folks struggling with SSA, it looks like it's found a way to walk the talk in a meaningful way.

LM

[beefche]

I'm glad to hear about this. But I must say that the headline is a little misleading. "Gay-rights ordinances" means something different to Mormons than they do to non-LDS.

[Vort]

I am mildly surprised by this. I am not unhappy, but I am a bit bewildered.

Suppose a group of people who like to have sex with dogs starts demanding that their right to equal housing and job protection not be abrogated. Hey, they like sex with dogs, they're going to speak out about the wonders of canine love, and they are not ashamed! They are loud, proud, and won't be cowed! (Just dogged.) Do we also support them in their noble struggle for equal rights? Or do we tell them, "Look, deviant sexual practices are not a cause for legal protection"?

Or do we understand that deviant sexual practices are in fact a cause for legal protection?

[zippy_do46]

delete and delete and delete this is my comment on this. At least on the computer I can delete before I open my mouth. :0)ok what I ment to say is anything you can say on this subject could be taken wrong at any point in time. What is right today can be taken wrong tomorrow. I so didn't want Vort to think I was talking about him.... ok my comment was about the thread. ok so now I can add editing to that comment. lolol there I go again delete delete :0) You can not win on some things can you :0)

Edited November 23, 2009 by zippy_do46
"her is a him"

[Vort]

delete and delete and delete this is my comment on this. At least on the computer I can delete before I open my mouth. :0) I so didn't want Vort to think I was talking about her .... ok my comment was about the thread. ok so now I can add editing to that comment. lolol there I go again delete delete :0) You can not win on some things can you :0)

• Vort is not offended.
• Vort has had many past instances of open-mouth-insert-foot, and expects to have future incidents as well.
• Vort is not a young and beautiful Icelandic girl. That is, Vort is not young (46), not beautiful (except to spouse), and not female.

[macc]

I think the quote at the end of the Daily Universe's article is interesting. What do you think?

Church supports Salt Lake City’s anti-discrimination ordinance | Universe.byu.edu

[hordak]

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

It's not just me who thinks your a women

[Seminarysnoozer]

You would think there would already be ordinances in place to protect against discrimination in housing and employment. It's strange they are just coming out with the ordinance.

[john doe]

I think the quote at the end of the Daily Universe's article is interesting. What do you think?

Church supports Salt Lake City’s anti-discrimination ordinance | Universe.byu.edu

Why do you find it interesting?

[BenRaines]

MACC,

I read the quote at the end of the article. I think it is one person's opinion. That is what I think.

Ben Raines

[zippy_do46]

ok a very good example ... :0) I remember that thread. The change!!! Your right sometimes delete and editing are not any good. :0) Why do I get the feeling I am just digging the hole deeper....

Edited November 11, 2009 by zippy_do46
thinking how does foot taste, ugh

[DigitalShadow]

I am mildly surprised by this. I am not unhappy, but I am a bit bewildered.

Suppose a group of people who like to have sex with dogs starts demanding that their right to equal housing and job protection not be abrogated. Hey, they like sex with dogs, they're going to speak out about the wonders of canine love, and they are not ashamed! They are loud, proud, and won't be cowed! (Just dogged.) Do we also support them in their noble struggle for equal rights? Or do we tell them, "Look, deviant sexual practices are not a cause for legal protection"?

Or do we understand that deviant sexual practices are in fact a cause for legal protection?

Dogs can't really give consent, while a partner of the same sex can. I think there is a huge difference between "deviant sexual practices" that involve and consenting partner and ones that don't. In my opinion, whatever two consenting adults want to do in the bedroom is none of my business and I don't think they should be discriminated against for it.

Whether we should make laws that explicitly lay out what minority groups are protected or not is an entirely different question though.

Edited November 11, 2009 by DigitalShadow

[Just_A_Guy]

This does beg the question of whether BYU's Salt Lake center is now barred from imposing BYU-housing standards on apartment complexes where its students live.

(The question is hypothetical, of course, since I don't think BYU-SL students are required to live in approved housing.)

[Vort]

Dogs can't really give consent, while a partner of the same sex can.

In a strictly legal sense, dogs cannot give consent because they are not human, and only human beings (and not even all of them) can give consent. This is purely a definitional matter. Canophiles would argue that the law in this area is clearly deficient.

I think there is a huge difference between "deviant sexual practices" that involve and consenting partner and ones that don't.

I doubt anyone disagrees with this.

In my opinion, whatever two consenting adults want to do in the bedroom is none of my business and I don't think they should be discriminated against for it.

Interesting that your love of freedom and choice does not extend to the business owner or apartment landlord.

I don't know what the best answer is, but I think there is enough muddy, shallow thinking all around to leave plenty of room for the idea that "discriminating" against people for their overt sexual practices is as much a protected right as those sexual practices themselves.

[DigitalShadow]

In a strictly legal sense, dogs cannot give consent because they are not human, and only human beings (and not even all of them) can give consent. This is purely a definitional matter. Canophiles would argue that the law in this area is clearly deficient.

I believe that also from a rational standpoint dogs can't give consent since they can't directly communicate with us. While we can certainly infer certain things from their behavior, I find it unlikely that even the Dog Whisperer could accurately convey to a dog that he wanted a yes or no answer whether he could have sex with them.

Interesting that your love of freedom and choice does not extend to the business owner or apartment landlord.

I don't know what the best answer is, but I think there is enough muddy, shallow thinking all around to leave plenty of room for the idea that "discriminating" against people for their overt sexual practices is as much a protected right as those sexual practices themselves.

This is exactly why I said laws regarding this are different question altogether. When I said that I don't think people should be discriminated against for their sex life, I only meant that it was my opinion that it is unethical to do so, not that it should explicitly be made illegal. I'm really not sure what the best answer to all this is either.