Mormon Church Backs Gay Rights Law In Salt Lake City

Comments

They probably figure if they can keep Salt Lake City gays locked up at jobs and apartments, they won't be making out in public.

MythicFox on November 10, 2009 at 11:38 PM

This is a trick or something.

very bad homo on November 10, 2009 at 11:42 PM

Yes, I suspect this would never have happened without all the sh*t they got for their bullshit on Prop 8 . . . but still its pretty amazing, especially for 'teh gayz' in Salt Lake City who probably could never have gotten this through the city council if the church had come out against it.

on November 11, 2009 at 12:56 AM

They're clever beasts. If anybody's visions of conspiracies ring true, this one should. There is in fact a velvet-lined chamber with high-backed chairs surrounding a v-shaped font of baptismal waters flanked by in (down)- and out (up)-ward slanted steps, bordered by hieroglyphic passages on embossed golden ribbons. The tenants of these seats are only partially responsible for their stances; obligatory representation is key. This is a game of chess, but the players are not the silly faces that we see in the news. They are the Church.

Michael of the Green on November 11, 2009 at 1:05 AM

And now what does the non magic underpants of the Pope have to say?

Catholic church intervention in Maine killed gay marriage, not Mormons.

So confusing ... moving beyond Utah, this is good news in all Western states.

I did not hear of any Mormon stuff in Ref: 71 .... any info. about that?

Do priests wear underwear under the skirt? Magic or non.
Just wondering.

on November 11, 2009 at 3:49 AM

Towleroad said that the motive for this was to blunt the impact of a new film called "8: The Mormon Proposition" that Magic Underpants, Inc (and specifically Mitt Romney) thought would make it more difficult for Mormons in public life. So yeah, this is completely motivated by selfishness. These laws end up toothless anyhow because very few people engaged in discrimination are stupid enough to say so directly, so the cases can never be proven in court and conservative judges and juries tend to disfavor them. But it allows them to say, "We're not bigots," and never have the media call bullshit.

Saadi on November 11, 2009 at 3:56 AM

This has to cause some kind if rift. These religious types don't allow any waivering from the hard line.

Vince on November 11, 2009 at 4:46 AM

"the assault on the rights of gay couples that was waged and funded by the Mormon Church."

What are you refering to?

on November 11, 2009 at 6:53 AM

Notice how Fast it all happened? The LDS church snapped its fingers and the City Council's vote was practically instantaneous and unanimous. Why they even bother having elections in that state I'll never know.

Bruce Garrett on November 11, 2009 at 7:00 AM

Two things come to mind.

1. After the defeat of Prop 8, "LDS leaders said that they had no problem with non-marriage related protections for LGBT people. In August 2008, the church issued a statement titled “The Divine Institution of Marriage” in which church leaders claimed to support “rights regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights.” That spawned the “Common Ground” initiative, which consisted of a set of LGBT protections based on the LDS statement. But the LDS church turned around and blocked every single proposal in the state legislature which they had earlier said they could support."

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/11…

2. The Argument of the Beard is at play now. Everyone agrees that Santa Claus has a beard. Take just one hair away and is it still a beard? Yes, everyone agree? Repeat until there are no hairs. Clearly no beard, right? What number of hairs make a beard?

So, they are saying that one "right" won't hurt because it is not marriage. Well, then, one more won't because it's not marriage either. Follow this logic for about 1400 rights and there we are. What number of rights/benefits/guarantees of equality "does violence"?

http://www.ltn.lv/~markir/writersguide/P…

on November 11, 2009 at 7:09 AM

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/11…

http://www.ltn.lv/~markir/writersguide/P…

meagain1 on November 11, 2009 at 7:15 AM

It's my understanding that most Saints consider Salt Lake City (and Ogden, too!) to be secular humanist hellholes. Thus, let them eat cock.

Catalina Vel-DuRay on November 11, 2009 at 7:36 AM

Since Mormons like polygamy and gay guys have like, on average, 150 sex partners...gays and Mormons are a marriage made in Heaven.

on November 11, 2009 at 7:59 AM

WTF, people, can a group just "do the right thing" without being buried with suspicion? You folks won't be happy until the LDS leaders offer up their asses to be repeatedly fucked, all while paying homage to the goat god.

Chris in Vancouver WA on November 11, 2009 at 8:01 AM

...can a group just "do the right thing" without being buried with suspicion?

A group with a history of creating bogus grass roots organizations to conceal the magnitude of its effort to prevent the right thing from happening? Why...come to think of it...no.

Bruce Garrett on November 11, 2009 at 8:15 AM

@ 15 - So nobody gets the benefit of the doubt in your world? Man, that doesn't sound like a very pleasant place...

People change, OK? Give 'em a chance.

Chris in Vancouver WA on November 11, 2009 at 8:31 AM

Here's what must have happened: This anti-discrimination law was in danger of NOT passing, but then the LD$ leaders stepped in and raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to ensure that gays and lesbians couldn't be discriminated against in these particular arenas. That's what happened, right? Otherwise, this would seem like a cheap, effortless PR grab by the church.

dangerkitty5000 on November 11, 2009 at 8:34 AM

The most revealing thing here is the line in the sand they draw for our civil rights that "...does not do violence to the institution of marriage".

It says a great deal about their thinking that simply having gays and lesbians *be* married would be considered violence against marriage. I'm trying to wrap my mind around a world where the most violent criminal or domestic abuser can marry with nary a peep of judgement or condemnation, while loving same-sex spouses, 31% of them already raising children, would somehow damage and injure marriage.

We also have to note that the language used by those who are ultimately opposed to marriage equality is shifting to more diligently paint themselves as "victims" of "violence" even as they attempt to appear conciliatory and make minor concessions.

The Gay Curmudgeon on November 11, 2009 at 8:36 AM

Salt Lake City is actually pretty normal, at least as far as normal goes in Utah. There's some diversity, the majority of the politicians are usually Democrats (still miss Mayor Rocky Anderson!), and there are quite a few liquor stores, coffee shops, and restaurants that serve booze - with state restrictions, of course. The church doesn't have as much influence over the local city/county politics in comparison to the state politics. This would have passed even without the church "blessing", thus they needed to get their mitts in there and try to make nice so that they could say they're only opposed to gay marriage, not discrimination of gays.

Once you get out of the city and into places like West Jordan, Sandy, and Utah Valley though, it's all over.* Every new neighborhood that is built has its own Mormon wardhouse, front and center, as a constant reminder that they are being watched and judged.

*Park City and Moab would be the only other exceptions.

StuckInUtah on November 11, 2009 at 8:41 AM

@16 Give 'em a chance? That's absurd. The Mormon Church has had hundreds of chances and 99%+ of the time they have worked to block the advancement of gay rights; therefore, they don't deserve any benefit of the doubt. This, combined with their political sensitivity and their state-of-the-art P.R. machine, means that people are correct to be skeptical of the Church's motives. You, however, are entitled to continue living in your pleasant place.

john t on November 11, 2009 at 8:46 AM

As best memory severs, they did something similar to paper over their historic racism.

It takes some digging, but I think I found out that the Human Rights Commission (the people who might actually take up a case for you, if you don't have thousands to hire a private lawyer), is essentially toothless in the city and the state.

I could be mistaken, but I believe that is true. Someone should check with ACLU Salt Lake...

Amicus on November 11, 2009 at 9:12 AM

This is all fine and well, but seriously--that dig? "Does not do VIOLENCE to the institution of marriage" !!??? Makes my stomach churn. Appropriating victim status (as a protected entity) from a minority that faces violence on a regular basis...is gross.

Lizabeth on East Harrison on November 11, 2009 at 9:17 AM

@ 20 - Responding to an inflexible mindset with an even more inflexible mindset on your own part is the height of stupidity. The herd mentality is alive and well on Slog. You people are supposedly educated, but the whole "if Dan says the sky is green, it must be green" mentality reveals massive intellectual laziness. Nobody here on Slog really thinks anymore, they just react.

Chris in Vancouver WA on November 11, 2009 at 9:26 AM

Quite clever, indeed. Their history if flip flopping on "values" that become incredibly socially unacceptable should be foresight enough on the LDS church.

Carollani on November 11, 2009 at 9:45 AM

Savage's Slog is animated and blinded by hate and ignorance and bigotry no less that David Duke or the skinheads.
The targets of the bigotry may be different but everything else is the same.

on November 11, 2009 at 10:03 AM

"Savage's Slog is animated and blinded by hate and ignorance and bigotry no less that David Duke or the skinheads."

And the mornons aren't...how?

LovesChoad on November 11, 2009 at 10:08 AM

#24

Confused. I thought we were all working balls to the wall for change?

Not true?

And, I thought in the past 20 years a lot of change has happened. Not good?

Now, get the Catholics in the same place, remember Mormons did not oppose the Anderson-Murray civil rights bill or domestic partnerships in Olympia. BUT, the fucking Catholic Bishops Council of Washington sure as hell did .... openly and in public testimony.

Change that? Sure need to ... so all you lapsed Catholics in denial get on it!!!! Your work is cut out for you. Gay marriage is gone in Maine because of the Catholic Church - bingo - the forest and the trees for all to see.

I don't like any organized religion, but when it comes to major homophobia which has injured GLBT folks all over the world, sure as fuck isn't the Mormons alone.

on November 11, 2009 at 10:18 AM

So nobody gets the benefit of the doubt in your world?

Haven't you heard...the economy's in the crapper and everyone's benefits are being cut. Speaking of which, I wonder how many health care benefits the LDS church could have paid for the children of unemployed workers with the money they've spent so far this year making sure same-sex couples remain strangers in the eyes of the law? Gotta love that sanctity of marriage for the sake of of children thing...

Nobody here on Slog really thinks anymore, they just react.

Pot. Kettle. Green. I'll give the benefit of the doubt to a lot of people but not someone who has a lengthy track record of hiding what they're up to in the political arena and then lying through their teeth about it. Say...has NOM released its campaign finance statements yet? The ones that Maine law requires? I wonder where all that money came from...

Bruce Garrett on November 11, 2009 at 10:20 AM

Good for them. Most people here need to get your head out of the gutter and stop seeing boogie men and woman everywhere, especially those of faith who are the current targets of their fears and anger.

Just because people support traditional marriage and seek to protect them doesn't mean that they want to deny homosexuals any housing, employment, health care or any other basic necessity that all humans as members of society need. Until you start seeing this the mistrust and resentment will continue and no gain will be achieved in those things that are really important in all of our lives regardless of our couplings.

Loveschild on November 11, 2009 at 10:22 AM

@23, I have observed that the Mormon Church leadership has demonstrated a consistent pattern of homophobic political action based on their homophobic doctrine, and this news item is *one* deviation from that pattern. If the pattern were to change and the Mormons were to consistently support gay rights, then my attitude towards the Mormon Church would change, but until that happens, I will remain skeptical. Please explain to me why this is the equivalent of believing that the sky is green just because Dan said so. Even though you called me stupid and lazy and conformist I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because sometimes I too act like a bitch in the morning before my coffee kicks in.

john t on November 11, 2009 at 10:24 AM

#30

Read the SLC news accounts.

Having negotiated directly with gay leaders in Utah for months, the Mormon top leadership supported gay rights in SLC - but - made it clear they will oppose gay marriage. That I guess, because of beliefs.

Very good news as pointed out for the Western States where there are tons of Mormons, big step forward.

Now the challenge is for the other conservative religious groups to follow suit.... and there are many of those incl. official Catholic Bishops.

As to why? Who gives a shit. It is an unexpected victory which will make tens of thousands of GLBT lives a little better, or a lot better in employment and housing options.

Good news, big news, and the jaded cynics can go to the proverbial hell - course they live in the Seattle bubble, all safe and cozy. Nice.

SLC is a pleasant place and very gay as well. Now, it will get much gayer, let the immigration begin. And Mormon men are famed for being sweet, virile, stable and hot in bed ....

Hey Dan, is it true? Ask David.

on November 11, 2009 at 11:21 AM

@29:

"especially those of faith"

How fucking DARE you to claim a corner market on faith, you arrogant idiot?

And your red dress is still frumpy and ugly.

LovesChoad on November 11, 2009 at 11:51 AM

@28
How much has the LDS church spent so far this year making sure same-sex couples remain strangers in the eyes of the law?

on November 11, 2009 at 12:03 PM

this is great timimg!
Now that the Mormons and the Gays are such bossom buddies Seattle can pull for Real Salt Lake in the Eastern Finals against Chicago Saturday...

on November 11, 2009 at 12:07 PM

@ 29 - So, in your world, gay folks get to have jobs, houses, and healthcare -- but they DON'T get to visit their partners in the hospital, they DON'T get to make decisions about the terminal care of their partners, they DON'T get to adopt children, they DON'T get to inherit their partner's property when their partner dies... In short, they DON'T get to participate in the normal aspects of life (marriage, family, property rights) that heteros do... Because, why again exactly? Because The Creator made them different from you, is that it?? They are "different", ergo they are, by default, NOT entitled to live their lives as fully as you?

Do you even HEAR yourself, lady?

merry on November 11, 2009 at 1:07 PM

Stunning, and even if the LDS have motives, why is this such a tough concept to grasp for churches? Just ignorance.

Brandon Hansen
Just South of North
http://www.justsouthofnorth.com

on November 11, 2009 at 1:23 PM

#14.

WTF, people, can a group just "do the right thing" without being buried with suspicion?

Not this group.

jade on November 11, 2009 at 3:35 PM

What if two people just decide that they want to live together and share the cost of buying a house and then maintaining it. They may be good friends, one taking care of the other, perhaps, who knows? But you can see by their behavior that there is no sexual relationship there -- they may go out with various boy/girlfriends on their own. OTOH, who cares what they do at home? The fact is they are either just good friends or they have something else that binds them together. It could be love, too.

Here's the deal: One gets sick and is hospitalized; does the other have the right to see her/him in the hospital and influence care decisions? Then the sick one dies, leaving his/her half of the estate; how is the inheritance handled? Does the other one get to inherit it without a will? No, nobody expects that. If there is a will, how about taxes -- in some jurisdictions there is a sizable automatic deduction from the estate value for close family members, but not applicable in this case.

The answer would be to have a legal "partnership" agreement, that would make you equal to married couples in all other respects but one: You could not force this "partnership" on churches who don't want to marry same-sex couples, because it's just a legal agreement. There might, naturally, be some implications here that I haven't figured out, but it sounds damn simple to me.

Why isn't the GLBT community campaigning to achieve that as a step towards being treated equally? That would make them equal in all aspects before the law. Except nobody could be forced to call that "marriage" against their will -- but anybody could call it that if they so wish...

on November 25, 2009 at 1:06 PM

Mormon Church Backs Gay Rights Law In Salt Lake City

Comments

Please wait...

Add a comment

Preview

Editors' Picks

Anatomy of a Paul Hlava Ceballos Poem

An Oral History of the First Seattle Trans Pride

Issaquah: A Modest Paradise

Big Business Attempts to Derail Seattle’s Search for New Progressive Taxes

The Long Con

Why Gen X Sucks

Support The Stranger

Comments

Please wait...

Add a comment

Preview

Editors' Picks

Just Can't Get Enough?

Sign up for our newsletter for news recaps, updates, and more!