Now gay rights advocates in Utah want the LDS Church to support legislation promoting gay partnership rights in Utah.
Gay right advocates have both demonstrated against and petitioned the church on recent gay rights issues, including the church’s support of Proposition 8 in California — a constitutional amendment to define marriage as just between one man and one woman. Proposition 8 passed in the November election; Utah has already adopted a similar amendment.
McCoy and others want LDS leaders to publicly support a group of bills to be considered in the Legislature that, according to McCoy, would advance gay partnership rights in areas that the church has not opposed in California.
I don’t know. How much incentive do you suppose Church leaders have at this point to support such legislation, given the response by some in the gay community to the Church’s involvement in Proposition 8?
January 8, 2009 at 6:03 pm
I think they are making a mightly long jump between “we do not oppose” and “we will support”. But that is only my opinion.
January 8, 2009 at 7:00 pm
To its credit, the gay delegation of the Utah Legislature has been pretty classy compared to their ideological compatriots.
But if you read the article I link to below, you’ll see that the bills the gay-rights lobby wants the Church to support haven’t even been written yet. They’re basically asking for a blank check from the Church; that’s pretty cheeky under even the best of circumstances.
http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705275948,00.html
January 8, 2009 at 8:26 pm
They just want to portray the Church as insincere. If the Church doesn’t respond, which seems the most likely result, they will say that it “even fails to support gay partnerships” which will eventually morph into “opposes gay partnerships despite saying otherwise…”
January 8, 2009 at 8:44 pm
I think it would be satisfactory to some if the Church simply reiterated its statements in the Divine Institution of Marriage, and says the Church’s positiom is the same in other states:
“The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.”
Of course, the qualifier “not infringe on” family integrity or churches’ rights is a bit vague, but presumably the Church did not object to those rights already existing in California (and only objected to same sex marriage).
January 9, 2009 at 11:33 am
Given that it’s (a) the right thing to do, and (b) an issue that won’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of passing the Utah Legislature without the signing-off of the Church, shouldn’t that be enough for moral actors to act, regardless of whether some people have treated them unkindly in the past? Certainly you’re not suggesting that the Church should engage in tit-for-tat? The brethren are bigger than that, even if some of the members aren’t.
January 9, 2009 at 12:00 pm
“I do not think that any self-respecting radical in history would have considered advocating people’s rights to get married, join the Army, and earn a living as a terribly inspiring revolutionary platform.”
It’s not a revolutionary platform, and at this point, it’s simply that it’d be kinda nice to know that the folks who matter in Utah can at least agree with some of what Barney Frank is expressing above … even if it’s only insofar as agreeing to codifying an equal shot at employment and housing without regard to sexual orientation.
What’s your motivation at this point, Guy?
I wonder.
You’re a smart guy, but you’ve lately seemed very eager to cry wolf along with the worst of them.
January 10, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Why would you support something God calls an abomination? The church wouldn’t support adultery even if all parties agreed to be participants and it didn’t harm anyone. Do people not think before they ask these questions? Or; do they ask these questions knowing the answer they will be given?
January 12, 2009 at 10:04 pm
During the Prop 8 campaign the church said that they didn’t object to couples having the right to hospital visitations and other things included in domestic partner rights. I think it’s fair for the Utah gay community to expect the church to keep its word now. What they said they supported while in the spotlight of the Prop 8 campaign should still hold true.
January 13, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Why would you support something God calls an abomination?
Where do you think God says registered domestic partnerships for same-sex couples are an abomination? Cite, chapter and verse.
January 14, 2009 at 11:14 am
I just think that if the church is honest in it’s words of support for certain areas in gay rights, then asking them to back up those words is not out of the question. Let’s see how serious they are, or is it just “a blowing of smoke?”
January 20, 2009 at 12:49 pm
I think #4 DavidH said it perfectly. I think that same-sex couples do deserve rights and protection for each other and their families, but we also have to stand up for the traditional family.
January 20, 2009 at 12:58 pm
I think that same-sex couples do deserve rights and protection for each other and their families, but we also have to stand up for the traditional family.
Why would that entail objecting to same-sex couples getting married? As I understand it, the LDS Church doesn’t recognize divorce. Yet divorce is legal and accessible in Utah as in any other state. So there’s no reason for the LDS Church to object to same-sex couples having the same access to civil marriage – and civil divorce – as mixed-sex couples do: the only issue for the Mormon Church is that they won’t recognise a same-sex marriage (or any divorce) in temple. Which is their right. But not to impose their religion on people who don’t share their beliefs.
January 21, 2009 at 2:51 pm
jesurgislac You’re an idiot. I mean that in the kindest way. We’re not talking about roommates. You really don’t think that makes you witty do you?
January 21, 2009 at 3:22 pm
I think I am both witty, and right.
I think that “You’re an idiot” is neither witty, nor right. Try harder.