salt lake

Why Is the Mormon Church Supporting Gay Workplace Protections?


Well isn’t this novel: Rather than trample on the livelihood of gay Americans, the Mormon Church has come out in support of anti-discrimination measures to protect the ‘mos in Salt Lake City.

As the Salt Lake City Council yesterday debated whether to add sexual orientation to the list of protected classes in housing and employment backed by Mayor Ralph Becker, LDS public affairs managing director Michael Otterson testified that the Church supported the measure “because it is fair and reasonable and does not do violence to the institution of marriage.”

And while LDS’s position may sound shocking, given the Church’s high stakes role in defeating marriage rights in California, Otterson said LDS has always maintained a position of “not object[ing] to rights 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” (that quote is from a statement released last year before Prop 8’s decision).

Noted Otterson: “I represent a church that believes in human dignity, in treating others with respect even when we disagree — in fact, especially when we disagree. 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.”

So, as we understand it, the Mormon Church views gays as worthwhile human beings in the workplace, but not in their own bedrooms. Got it.

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #discrimination #legislation #mormonchurch stories and more


  • Jack

    Translation: Let them eat cake.

  • Brian

    Christian “public relations.” I guess if HRC was using their “rating system,” the Mormons would score some points. That’s how fuc*ked up HRC is.

  • Attmay

    It’s a fucking smokescreen.

  • terrwill

    Attention Gays: Get married at work!! then the Moron church will support it!! :-P

  • romeo

    Mormon congregations got the shit scared out of them here in California after Prop. 8. A couple of their twinks came knocking at the door of some straight friends I was visiting in the suburbs last Spring. Friends gave me permission to slam the door in their faces, but not before I called them a couple of Nazi motherfuckers. You should have seen their faces. A lot of lower lip, yuck yuck. Have you ever seen what that religion is based on? Old guys getting the first pick.

  • Bill

    This is simply a way for them to appear compassionate towards gay people. They are doing this so that when they continue to fight to deny us our marriage rights, they can then point to this and say, “see, this isn’t about our personal animus towards gay people. we even passed a law saying they can’t be fired for being gay.’

    This is nothing but a ploy.

    Are we really supposed to feel warm and fuzzy towards a group that has caused so much pain and destruction in our lives?

    I would tell them to go shit in their magical underpants.

    Mr. Rodney the Mormon and his brethren should be here ANY minute now to start posting their bat-shit crazy mormon bullshit…

  • Andrew

    The Mormons are smart enough to realize that passing anti-discrimination “laws” does not add to LGBT equality it does the opposite. The laws actually make us a “protected class,” which is the opposite of equal. Mormons have no problem seeing us permanently defined as a minority, just like Blacks and Women and the handicapped.

    They get it – we don’t. Mormons are making us “less than” them. I wish our LGBT community was as smart as they are.

  • Keith Kimmel

    Hit the nail on the head, Andrew.

  • romeo

    @ Andrew #7: I’m not sure I’m following your train of thought. The mormons themselves are very aware of their own minority status, especially after the last presidential primaries. I think they just want to throw us a bone to avoid hassles, insofar as they can.

    Their religion is based on such bullshit, and they are SO condescending to everyone, not just us. Typical bluster of the insecure. I wasn’t kidding about the Nazi stuff. They’d just love to have a fourth Reich up there in Utah.

  • romeo

    And, Bill, I doubt that the brethren will come in here. They know we know they run forced “rehabilitation” camps for us up there.

    As for their being big about job discrimination, yeah, maybe they’ll let us be hired to do clerical, but will we be promoted? Will we be allowed to supervise mormons up there?

  • schlukitz

    “not object[ing] to rights 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”

    And should we not object to their “infringement” on the integrity of our families or the constitutional rights of LGBT, tax-paying American citizens to administer and practice (live) their lives free from religious interference?

  • Drake

    These are the same Mormons that had a gay couple arrested in Slat Lake City for kissing in public, only a few weeks ago.

  • ggreen

    Everything the Morons due from this point forward is to get Mittens Romney elected president so they can indoctrinate the rest of the country in to their vile cult.

  • Robert, NYC

    Its a ploy to dampen the fight for marriage equality in Utah. Many of them would rather have other forms of legal recognition other than marriage. Don’t forget….there are gay mormons too, probably log cabiners, a source of revenue. They don’t want to totally alienate them, so what they’re doing is throwing the dog a bone. Its so transparent.

  • ousslander

    Andrew isn’t that the same thing our “gay leaders” and a majority of the gay “community” feel?

  • Andrew

    @ Romeo:

    The Mormons are part of “religion,” hardly a minority in the US.

    There intent here was to “define” us, not contribute to our equality or even equal rights. They know laws do not protect anyone – they simply define which groups need “protection” because they are hated. Nothing they did suggested we shouldn’t be hated – in fact, it only confirmed that belief.

    Another way to see it is the fuc*ed up Christian belief that being gay is a “choice” and because we choose that lifestyle we need to be protected.

    It was a brilliant move by the Mormons. HRC has never been that clever. We are getting our asses kicked by clever people. I thought we were the clever ones.

  • Cam

    They knew this was going to pass with or without their support. This way, they can pretend that they don’t hate gay people. They will use it as a defense when they support the next extreamly bigoted issue. Remember, they used to claim they didn’t hate blacks either, even though they preached that they were inferior. It took social pressure before they finally caved in. Now they try to pretend that that was never part of their beliefs.

  • B

    Brian wrote ‘Christian “public relations.”‘ Try again, Brian – many Christians don’t think Mormons are Christians. Aside from that, however, you might want to read,9171,1904146,00.html for some background material. The Mormon support of Proposition Eight was tied to their theology (odd beliefs regarding marriages that persist for eternity) more than their attitudes towards homosexuality per se, so their apparent support of the Salt Lake City ordinance is not inconsistent with that, although I can see where some PR might be involved, primarily in being vocal about it.

    I think the people trying to repeal Prop 8 should be talking to “friendly” Mormons (maybe ex-Mormons – its understanding how Mormon beliefs work that is important) to see if it can be worded in such a way that would undercut their theological objections. It might be something as simple as a clause that makes a distinction between a civil marriage and a religious one, with the state allowing only the former and being silent regarding the latter. It may be a distinction without a difference to most of us, but if it is enough to get the Mormons to butt out, there goes half of the opposition’s funding, and that is not trivial in determining the outcome.

    Finally, if you’ve ever been in Salt Lake City – maybe for a ski trip – you can buy alcoholic beverages there, although they make it a bit inconvenient, in spite of the Mormon’s opposition to the use of alcohol: there’s apparently some theological wiggle room that allows for the profit motive as long as Mormon sensibilities are protected.

    Their “Prophet’s” “revelations” can sometimes be influenced by reality in so far as it intrudes in their ability to increase their membership. So, a Teddy Roosevelt approach might work with them – “Speak softly but carry a big stick.” If you give them a theological out, but with a threat of a PR disaster for them if they don’t take it, their “Prophet” might have the same sort of revelation that they had regarding Blacks being allowed to be Mormon priests after racial discrimination became socially unacceptable.

  • JohnVisser

    In the Olson/Boies (sp?) case, Judge Vaughan Walker is basically exploring the concept of whether or not the vote/campaign was based in part on animus toward gays. Now the defense team can point to this action in SLC and say, “see we love the gays”, even though they stripped us of our inherent rights and are responsible for the murder and suicide of so many of us.

    It’s all strategy. Especially after the vote in Kalamazoo, they made a calculated decision, knowing can’t win many battles on ENDA type laws, and are turning ENDA laws to their political advantage.

    Simple really.

  • Keith Kimmel

    Anyone else find it funny how if you drop an “m” from Mormons, you get Morons?

  • Andrew


    The gay community is focused on “equal rights” and not “equality.” They are very different.

    There is no benefit to being “singled out” for protections because it just reaffirms the idea that we are defective.

    The goal should be equality, which means we’re the “same.”

    John Corvino has a great video regarding regarding the morality of homosexuality:

  • mark

    I don’t trust this AT ALL.I know LDS, half my family are in SLC and VEGAS are LDS. They don’t do ANYTHING until they are forced to, usually because it costs them money. Either LDS tax exemption is being investigated, or NOM donors will be revealed and REALLY P*SS US OFF…again.

    I smell a rat, and the statement of “not doing violence to marriage”….shows the LDS church REALLY doesn’t like being forced to make this tiny concession in SLC.

  • mark

    I also thought Mittler’s possible campaign might have nudged LDS to make this babystep….MITTLER is all about “looking” gay friendly, when we all know he used a foul RACIST 1913 law to ban out state couples from marrying in MA, and it was ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

  • RS

    As much as I’ve felt that our emphasis on marriage equality has come at the expense of other LGBT issues, it has at least served to move the goalposts. Issues like workplace discrimination laws and domestic partnerships used to be radical, uber-left wing notions. Now they’ve become the moderate compromise.

  • rudy

    As much as we all have a right to be angry over Prop 8 and Maine, the Mormons just leap-frogged over Evangelicals and the Vatican. This is an absolute first for a conservative religion, and an opportunity.

  • John in SF

    I say take the LDS endorsement while we can get it. We can say that recalcitrant Democrats are to the RIGHT of even the Mormon church on basic civil rights protections for LGBT Americans.

    It fuels the basis that underlies the boycot of the DNC: that our issues are not controversial and so there is no political motivation to delay acting on our equality.

    And lest we think we are making progress on ENDA, here is a post today indicating that there are delays afoot on ENDA. Now is the moment for change: No delays, no excuses.

  • Daniel

    Do not be naive. The Utah Supreme Court is dominated by and controlled by the LDS Mormon Church. No law is meaningful without a fair and independent judiciary and Utah does not meet either requirement of democracy. A jew is more likely to get fairness under an Islamic Sharia court than a gay person in Utah.

  • Jason in UT

    I think many people are missing the point here. The LDS Church is far less politically oriented than you would think.

    The importance of LDS concerns about the restriction of their ability to teach their beliefs and maintain the integrity of their ecclesiastical and private academic institutions should not be overlooked.

    What made this SLC bill different from its predecessors, as I understand it, was that the bill included language to protect the right of religious organizations to choose their hiring practices, and in the case of church-owned universities, to allow religious standards of conduct to guide student housing policies.

    People here need to understand that there is a very real concern on the part of churches that these anti-discrimination laws will eventually be turned against them, i.e., threaten the integrity of their organizations. These concerns just can’t be ignored if there is to be constructive dialogue between both sides. The Salt Lake City bill included protections for churches, and may be a model for future successful legislation everywhere.

  • Mark from NM

    Wolf in sheeps clothing – watch out folks – I don’t trust this people any further than I can throw them – and that isn’t very far at all given all the hate that fills their bodies.

  • Cam

    No. 29 · Jason in UT said..
    I think many people are missing the point here. The LDS Church is far less politically oriented than you would think.

    The importance of LDS concerns about the restriction of their ability to teach their beliefs and maintain the integrity of their ecclesiastical and private academic institutions should not be overlooked.

    This is a lie. A HUGE majority of the Utah state delegation is Mormon, nearly their entire Congressional delegation is. Additionally, Mitt Romney met consistently with Church representaives while campaigning for president. The Mormon church also made an agreement with the Catholic church in CA. to oppose Prop 8 politically. They admit to making overtures to work against gay rights politically…

    The Mormon church is ALL about politics and control. The line about “Language to protect religeons” is bullshit, relligeons already have freedom to practice their beliefs in the U.S. Remember, the Mormon Church did not finally allow blacks to be full members because they were forced to by law, they weren’t, they did it because of horrible P.R. and outside societal pressure.

  • galefan2004

    Actually, much like the vast majority of this country, the Mormon church would probably support civil unions. Way to keep fighting over a word!

  • Ritorna

    Using their own words, the Church of LDS views gay marriage as doing “violence” to the institution of marriage. What kind of contempt for gay people must someone have in order to feel that the mere existence of married gay couples does violence to the institution of marriage? The answer to that is simple. The same kind of contempt that would prompt a Church to finance a campaign of lies in order to not only overturn gay rights, but obliterate 18,000 existing marriages. Fortunately they failed in California to nullify the 18,000 existing gay marriages, but they succeeded in imposing their religious views on a State that is only 2% Mormon, revoking the right of millions to marry. Clearly they hold gay people in contempt. Therefore any apparent effort in Salt Lake City to support gay rights while the corpse of gay marriage still lies in the streets of California is nothing but a cynical ploy to moderate the anti-Mormon backlash from Prop 8.

  • Steve

    The LDS church has received a lot of “blow back” as a result of the Prop 8 campaign. They might only be trying to do some damage control. Or, they might have actually thought about the consequences of their actions, and realized that they have actually done great harm to a great many people.

    I think the latter is actually possible. The Mormon position on homosexuality has been extremely unforgiving for a very long time. For at least a hundred years, young Mormon men who realized that they were homosexual were encouraged to commit suicide. If they did not, they were excommunicated and exiled. The LDS church did grievous and permanent harm to a lot of their own children. I can’t imagine them changing that position just for “damage control”. They had too much invested in it. Something deeper, maybe even actual repentance, must be happening.

  • B

    Ritorna wrote, “Using their own words, the Church of LDS views gay marriage as doing ‘violence’ to the institution of marriage. What kind of contempt for gay people must someone have in order to feel that the mere existence of married gay couples does violence to the institution of marriage?”

    It is not necessary “contempt for gay people” but rather a bizarre belief that marriages last into an “afterlife” where having celestrial “spirit children” is a necessary step before turning into some sort of demigod. (I’m probably scrambling their beliefs quite a bit, but this version is close enough for this discussion). So for theological reasons they see same-sex marriages as a real threat.

    Sure its crazy, but keep in mind that only a few hundred years ago, the Catholic Church would have heretics and witches burned alive at the stake, with a promise to make it less painful by using faster-burning wood to kill them quicker if they confessed and repented. The clerics thought they were being merciful because they were “saving” the heretics and witches from for worse treatment in Hell. You can find this “save them by burning” theory at so it seems it is something some Christians believed.

  • B

    Steve wrote, “The LDS church did grievous and permanent harm to a lot of their own children. I can’t imagine them changing that position just for ‘damage control’. They had too much invested in it. Something deeper, maybe even actual repentance, must be happening.”

    While I wouldn’t read too much into the current support for a single civil rights law, one might look at the history of the LDS attitude towards blacks, who were allowed to become Mormon priests only after civil rights laws achieved widespread acceptance and racial discrimination became socially unacceptable. It would be interesting to see if the Mormon’s “Prophet” had a revelation about blacks before or after the point where racial discrimination would have a noticeable negative effect on recruiting more members. That might tell you something about what strategy to use regarding the LDS Church.

  • Jason in UT

    What I meant (but vaguely expressed) by “political” is that the LDS church pays much more attention to whether their policies gel with what they believe God wants them to do, rather than what the general public wants them to do. Let me say this another way, there is no such thing as “damage control” to the LDS PR office. They are very deliberate about their actions and enormously consistent with their stated beliefs, and therefore don’t have a reason to apologize. They will change, if they believe God has told them it is time for change.

    LDS politicians are entirely a different matter. I suspect many of them make their decisions to be personally consistent with the LDS position. However, I wouldn’t doubt that there are many others who simply realize that they will not keep their jobs long (especially somewhere like Utah, where a huge part of their consituents are LDS) if they take a public position that appears controversial. IMO, the LDS Church and Utah politics really are separate. If the politicians follow the LDS direction, it’s because they personally agree with it, because their constituents do, or some of both.

    Second, language that protects religious interests IS important. Why would you say it isn’t? In some foreign countries, the goverment interferes with the free practice of religion. There is some concern that, even with our constitution being as it is, this could happen in the U.S. Some have discussed instances that hint this is already happening (shutting down a church-affiliated adoption service, for example).

    Now whether this fear is justified or not, I don’t know. But my point is, it needs to be addressed if anyone is going to make good progress advocating change to the large religious communities.

  • B

    Jason in UT wrote, “Now whether this fear is justified or not, I don’t know.” At least some of the fear is a sham. They claimed that without Proposition Eight, churches that objected to same-sex marriages would be forced to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. The truth is that this would never happen – in the California Supreme Court decision that allowed same-sex marriages, the issue was explicitly covered and the court ruled that religious organizations would not have to perform such ceremonies.

    The fact that the LDS Church butted in even though their religious practices were being carefully protected by California courts is just one reason people are mad as hell at them. Their only “excuse” is to plead ignorance of the law.

  • romeo

    Andrew #16: I think I see your distinction, and I appreciate what you’re saying. However, in the absence of being regarded as totally “equal” I’ll gladly accept for now some actionable laws protecting my right to work, and be treated fairly on the job. That gives more of us access, which will make being regarded as “equal” more likely, though I think what the mormons are doing is just hypocritical PR bullshit.

    You’re right, Andrew, most of us are settling for being a “protected class” which implies an “otherness” on our part. But we’re kind of stuck with it here in the interim on our way to full “equality.” We need these protections. Lot of assholes in America.

  • WillBFair

    Of course I detest the Mormon Church. But this is a good thing. It’s a small step toward basic fairness. Do all of our opponents have to be a thousand percent evil? Might they not have decided that we deserve fair housing and employment?
    Of course they were vicious on the marraige issue. But we were stupid: going after marraige, which the public are selfish and sentimental about, instead of domestic partnership, which they support.

  • Andrew

    I appreciate your comment. Obtaining “equal rights” is actually the default goal. It is not equality. The problem is ALL of our resources and efforts have gone into “equal rights,” not equality.

    That’s a big mistake. Data indicates that we can achieve our equality, but we’re not trying. The “machine” of LGBT Equal Rights is about delaying-while-fund-raising. HRC has NO incentive to actually achieve our equality.

    It’s a problem. But, I have reason to believe that young people can not only see the distinction, they are going to create a movement. They understand that if we create our equality we don’t need politicians, laws, courts or protest – all those things we’ve financed for the last 50 years. it’s coming soon.

  • John in SF

    @Andrew: I’d encourage you to take a look at the Let California Ring program, designed to change hearts and minds in favor of equality — well outside an “equal rights” frame. I’d also suggest that what GLAAD attempts to do is to achieve equality to change hearts and minds by encouraging true and correct portrayals of LGBT people in media and entertainment. Even some of HRC’s efforts are aimed at changing hearts and minds outside of a strictly “equal rights” frame. Just a thought.

  • Andrew

    @ John In SF #27:

    You said: It fuels the basis that underlies the boycot of the DNC: that our issues are not controversial and so there is no political motivation to delay acting on our equality.

    And lest we think we are making progress on ENDA, here is a post today indicating that there are delays afoot on ENDA. Now is the moment for change: No delays, no excuses.”

    WHO do you think you are kidding? There was never enough support in the Senate for ENDA or DADT or DOMA. Now, it won’t even be tried. After Maine’s vote against SSM, we are a political “lightning rod.”

    Then, you post a link to – the site that suggests all we need to do is “demand equality.” Really? Somehow you and your friends believe America doesn’t KNOW we want our equality? Your solution is to yell?

    Everyone’s attention should be on our “fellow citizens” and not those that mislead us and/or take our money. If we truly want equality – we will have to do it. Figure out how.

    For more than 40 years we have heard false promises while being told “one of these days.” No thanks.

    We need smarter, not louder.

  • Andrew

    @ John In SF:

    There are a few small groups that encourage conversation. I’ll check out Let California Ring.

    But, GLAAD and HRC? Come on John.

    GLAAD wastes $30 million a year “policing” bad behavior. Hyper-sensitive responses – like the one over South Park – simply tells people we’re thin-skinned. Having our own “media cops” doesn’t make us more equal or more ‘same,” it makes us whiny victims.

    HRC isn’t focused on equality. They are focused on legislation and elections. They have a few token programs – like embracing gay-friendly churches (which can’t hurt), but no strategy for equality.

    One group you didn’t mention is GLSEN. Helping schools, teachers and parents regarding LGBT issues makes sense.

    You’re a bright guy. You know, as a community, we are spending almost everything on “equal rights,” not “equality.” You also know that we really want equality – more than any law, protected class or even sympathy. We just want to be treated the same. But, that’s not what we’re fighting for.

    We need to stop fighting and start creating – creating the change we desire – our equality.

  • Andrew

    @ John In SF:

    I looked at Let California Ring. I think it’s probably helpful, but like many things seems “reactionary.” It is a shame that whenever LGBT is turned into a commercial it usually says “please like us.” Perhaps that is too harsh, because I am certain the intentions are good.

    I am interested in media campaigns that make gay “cool” in a very proactive way. I’m tried of seeing gays only in referendum-style “please don’t hurt us” advertisements. We have been branded as wrong, sinful and deviant – it’s been going on too long. We need to re-brand the whole idea of “gay.” Most of these political Ads suggest we’re not that bad or please save us. It isn’t helpful.

    With all the money we spend as a community – we don’t spend anything on re-defining who we are. Our Community is made up of the most creative people in the world – we can do better, and we must.

    So, no I think GLAAD is a huge waste of resources. I want to be home in the evening watching LOST and see a commercial that shows my fellow LGBT community in a cool, hip and positive light. I’m sure many others would like to see that, too.

  • juoking1

    a bright guy

  • Andrew

    Very bright. Complaints? Call GLAAD. (646) 871-8019

  • Bot

    Marriage reflects the natural moral and social law evidenced the world over. As the late British social anthropologist Joseph Daniel Unwin noted in his study of world civilizations, any society that devalued the nuclear family soon lost what he called “expansive energy,” which might best be summarized as society’s will to make things better for the next generation. In fact, no society that has loosened sexual morality outside of man-woman marriage has survived.

    Analyzing studies of cultures spanning several thousands of years on several continents, Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin found that virtually all political revolutions that brought about societal collapse were preceded by a sexual revolution in which marriage and family were devalued by the culture’s acceptance of homosexuality.

    When marriage loses its unique status, women and children most frequently are the direct victims. Giving same-sex relationships or out-of-wedlock heterosexual couples the same special status and benefits as the marital bond would not be the expansion of a right but the destruction of a principle. . If the one-man/one-woman definition of marriage is broken, there is no logical stopping point for continuing the assault on marriage.

  • Robert, NYC

    Bot, get your own house in order. One in two straight marriages fail for various reasons, usually adultery or financial issues. Isn’t that an assault on marriage perpetrated by you breeders? That has been going on for centuries and same-sex marriage played no part in it. Further, straights should also be barred from marrying if they choose not to procreate or can’t if that’s the underlying reason why you think we should be barred. Isn’t that at the root of all this opposition, procreation? It doesn’t wash any more, pal, we see through your bullshit. Give us one example of how same sex CIVIL marriage affects a straight marriage, where’s the evidence? It doesn’t deter straights from marrying, so come on, provide us with the evidence to the contrary.

  • Cam

    No. 47 · Bot said…
    Marriage reflects the natural moral and social law evidenced the world over. As the late British social anthropologist Joseph Daniel Unwin noted in his study of world civilizations, any society that devalued the nuclear family soon lost what he called “expansive energy,” which might best be summarized as society’s will to make things better for the next generation. In fact, no society that has loosened sexual morality outside of man-woman marriage has survived.

    Gee, then that would include the Mormon Church sponsored Polygomy now wouldn’t it? Additionally Joseph Daniel Unwin produced his works in the 1930’s. How desperate you are to have to reach back THAT far to find a theory that supports your cause. In keeping with your use of Joseph Daniel Unwin, the next time you get sick will you be telling the Doctors to not give you any medicines or proceudures developed after the the 1930’s?

  • Robert, NYC

    Cam, actually if you look at the marriage laws in all states, underage children (base age being 14) are permitted to marry (with parental consent) some of whom marry adults, usually in those hill-billy red states. Now that to me signifies state sanctioned straight pedophilia/ephebophilia does it not? How can states outlaw pedophilia yet permit it with these unhealthy marriages involving underage children? Pretty sick to me.

  • Cam

    No. 50 · Robert, NYC

    Hi Robert, the first part of my comment was repasting what “#47 BOT” said. I think your resposne was aimed at him. :)

  • romeo

    @ Bot #48: Nice try fella. LOL Along with that being an old study, it was a dipshit one for even the times. Typical for “scientific studies” of those days, the agenda, and consequently results, were predetermined. At that time the subject had not been widely researched, so virtually nothing was known about the reality of homosexuality in societes. But they did know perfectly well that homosexuality coexisted perfectly well within all societies in the ancient world — you know, the thousand year reign of the Romans. And it was the Christians that finally brought down Rome after they took it over with their dithering about the afterlife and not paying attention to this one.

    Additionally, homosexuality is widely accommodated in various forms in Asia.

    Finally, that study was done during a period in the United States when the Nazis were just beginning their rise and were greatly admired here because of their supposed “return to family values.” A lot of people at Harvard wrote a lot of things during that period that they later lived to regret. Get It?

    Don’t know what your problem is, Bot, but I can guess.

  • ChicagoLIberal

    Hey B! Where’s Rodney. Do you just wait to paste the drivel about Unwin’s study on marriage? If I remember your doctrine right from 4 years of LDS seminary and current sealing practices – plural marriage is part of the celestial path for the most faithful Mormons (see Islam and 40 virgins.) Also that eventually your prophet will be the POTUS which is why the temple in DC has a special room for meeting with Jesus just like SLC. So heaven has a different set of rules for how families hold together the fabric of a society? what will your prophet/POTUS do to GLBT groups then?


    Ban same sex door to door Mormon missionaries! It is violient to my peace at home.

  • Alan

    Respectful bigot’s. Nice try LDS.

  • FlopsyMopsyCT

    @ Bot’s Comment:

    I don’t necessarily disagree with what these researchers conclude, but what civilizations and societies have crumbled in the past irrefutably due to the loosening of sexual mores and a furthering distance from the nuclear family? I will admit, I am not an anthropologist or historian, but I feel like the claims those researchers are making are a tad difficult to come to given the complex nature of the makeup of societies. How can they pinpoint it on such a direct cause?

    Further, although I totally agree that a society losing its “expansive energy” would probably decrease it’s chances of survival (or, at the very least, it’s ability to flourish), but why do homosexual marriages necessarily make that occur? Simply because they would never biologically conceive children? I think there is a disconnect there. Couldn’t, theoretically, homosexual marriages achieve this type of energy if these couples did have children they loved and had a reason to make society better for their progeny? I think this is playing into a over-exaggerated hedonism that doesn’t really properly characterize the gay community at large.

    Further, the gay community, as large and as solid and vocal as it is, is not so large that opening the doors of marriage to them would threaten the “expansive energy” of the remaining %85-95% percent of heterosexuals and their marriages (I realize the percentage of heterosexual marriages is most likely smaller than the actual percentage of heterosexuals, so give or take). These researchers’ conclusions seem to assume that the amount of gay marriages would offset the “expansive energy” of married heterosexuals. This seems grossly exaggerated and highly unlikely.

    But of course, I have not read these studies and do not know the context in which they were created.

    I applaud the CoLDS. I do not approve of their religious practices en general, but I appreciate the progressive input of their political leaders.

  • romeo

    FlopsyMopsy: you have to be kidding.

    Bot is a troll, and those studies are bogus. And, I suspect, so are you.

  • schlukitz

    @ No. 48 Bot:

    Let me see if I get what you are saying, correctly?

    If we allow same-sex couples to get married, that is destroying the institution of marriage.

    If we prevent two people of the same sex from getting married, however, that is protecting the institution of marriage.

    Now why couldn’t I see that for myself without needing to have you “explain” it to me? D’oh!

    Now, I have a question for you.

    With all of the furniture obviously on the ceiling in your house, how do you manage to navigate about without getting a concussion from banging your head on the kitchen table?

    Aha. I just answered my own question.

    Neeeeeeeeeever mind!

  • Bubba

    God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and SUSAN, JOAN, BECKY and AMY.

  • schlukitz

    With a hillbilly name like Bubba, plus your redneck homophobia, I cannot help but wonder what mismatched folks made you?

  • Robert, NYC

    Bubba, your comment is overwhelming evidence that you are one of the descendants of the incestuous family that Adam & Eve produced. Your type believe they were the first parents of the human race, though science has proved otherwise. They had numerous children, allegedly….so one only has to deduce that in order for this planet to have been populated 6,000 years ago (the world is billions of years old by the way), their children must have indulged in incest and probably with their parents too. No wonder there is so much retardedness in the world today, you’re a brilliant example of an inherently devolved brain passed down from that most notorious,incestuous family. Further, there is NO mention of an actual marriage ceremony in the old testament. Your sky pixie allegedly took a bone from Adam’s rib cage and created a female. There was no mention of a marriage ceremony, its a crock of shit. You have to be a real moron to believe in that nonsense, but retarded brains are incapable of any logical argument.

  • romeo

    Hey, guys, I think Bubba is making fun of morons not us. Look at his post. LOL Relax.

  • schlukitz

    Romeo, No. 62, that is a distinct possibility. However, since we do not have access to his facial expressions or body language, all we have to go on, are his words. A simple wink or *sarcasm font on* would have clued the rest of us in nicely as to whom his comments were directed.

    After all, the onus is not on the reader to interpret what anyone is saying. The onus is on the writer to make his intent clear so as to avoid this type of confusion or insult to anyone.

  • romeo

    Schlukitz: Read the post. He says “Adam and Susan, Joan, Becky, and Amy.” He’s making fun of mormon polygamy. Mind you, it’s a little disorienting to defend a guy named “Bubba” LOL

    And Mormon polygamy brings us to the subject of doing “violence” to the supposed traditional institution of marriage. LMAO !

    One thing about these jokers; they do have brass balls ! And they do like “clean” living. So did the Nazis. No difference.

    I hope Mitt does run in ’12. Looking forward to doing some trolling of my own.

  • schlukitz

    A tip of the hat to you, No. 64, Romeo. Obviously, you have a keener eye than I do. ;)

    And yes. I totally agree with you. The Mormons whining that same-sex marriage will do “violence” to the supposed traditional institution of marriage is laughable given their recent past history of polygamy.

    The pot calling the kettle black, as the old adage goes. LOL

    Thank you for calling me on my misinterpretation of Bubba’s comment. Had I read it more closely, I would have clearly discerned his meaning.

  • Brady

    I call on all queer folk to join me in demanding that this legislation in Salt Lake City be reversed. It is outrageous that the mormon church would use its influence to push a legislative agenda. Politcs and religion must remain separate, as so many of you have so eloquently argued. We must take a firm stand against church involvment in politics. We must not allow this action by the mormon church to go unchallenged.

  • Josh

    There are 13 Mormons in the 111th Congress. 100% are Anti-LGBT.

  • SoylentDIva

    They’re not doing this because they care about LGBT rights. Indeed they’ve fought every LGBT rights law that has come down the pike in Utah (and everywhere else possible for that matter). They’re doing this only because it’s in their best interest for some reason–for public relations or because somebody has their magic knickers in a vice. So we shouldn’t be celebrating. This is not a win for us in any way.

  • AxelDC

    I would be a lot more charitable in my assessment of the LDS Church’s motives in this if they hadn’t just spent millions supporting NOM in Maine.

    I would guess this is a PR move designed to avoid the political backlash that accompanied their anti-feminist political involvement in the ERA, and most importantly, their anti-black policies that they sustained until nearly the 1980s.

  • Steve

    #7 Andrew & #6 Bill make an awesome couple. I think they are SPOT ON!

  • Mirror


    People make fun of gay marriage and people make fun of plural marriage.

    Looks like there are enough bigots to go around. Let’s start being tolerant of each other’s beliefs.

    It is hard to ask for compassion or tolerance when you can’t be tolerant yourself.

  • Melanie

    @Steve: What a load of crap!!

Comments are closed.