Gay rights bills in Utah

[Jeff Lebowski]

In case you haven't been following the story, during the prop 8 debate the LDS church said it "...does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional right of churches." However, repeated attempts by minority Utah legislators to pass bills ensuring such rights have gone nowhere. Several bills last year never made it out of committee. Utah is widely viewed as having an abysmal gay rights climate.

In a brilliant strategic move, gay rights advocates jumped on the church's statement and basically said "Great. Let's forget the topic of marriage for a bit. How about if you put your money where your mouth is and support gay rights bills in Utah support the very rights listed in your statement?" It will be fascinating to watch this story develop.

Here is an update on the first bill resulting from the effort. Note the reaction by the Eagle Forum.

http://www.heraldextra.com/index.php...ternoon_update

Church hasn't said anything yet. Advocates were hoping for a better response:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1...263822,00.html

[CardiacCoug]

The Church "does not object" to such rights for gays. But it doesn't support those rights, either. No surprise there.

[Clark Addison]

In case you haven't been following the story, during the prop 8 debate the LDS church said it "...does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional right of churches." However, repeated attempts by minority Utah legislators to pass bills ensuring such rights have gone nowhere. Several bills last year never made it out of committee. Utah is widely viewed as having an abysmal gay rights climate.

In a brilliant strategic move, gay rights advocates jumped on the church's statement and basically said "Great. Let's forget the topic of marriage for a bit. How about if you put your money where your mouth is and support gay rights bills in Utah support the very rights listed in your statement?" It will be fascinating to watch this story develop.

Here is an update on the first bill resulting from the effort. Note the reaction by the Eagle Forum.

http://www.heraldextra.com/index.php...ternoon_update

Church hasn't said anything yet. Advocates were hoping for a better response:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1...263822,00.html

Just guessing here, but I think that the Church would interpret the phrase after "so long as" a little more broadly than the Gay Rights Advocates.

[LiveCoug]

Talking to my dad the other day, he claimed that all the church meant by that statement was that they weren't opposed to a homosexual to visit his partner in the hospital. That's all. I just gave him a blank stare.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Just guessing here, but I think that the Church would interpret the phrase after "so long as" a little more broadly than the Gay Rights Advocates.

Following your logic, wouldn't that essentially nullify the point of the statement?

[CardiacCoug]

If you think gay marriage "infringes on the integrity of the traditional family" is it really much of a stretch to think that other gay rights also infringe on the integrity of traditional families?

There is no more logic behind opposition to gay marriage than behind opposition to other rights for gays. Don't all laws protecting the rights of gays lead to the normalization of homosexuality that the Church opposes? Aren't all laws protecting the rights of gays really a slippery slope ultimately leading to gay marriage?

[Clark Addison]

Following your logic, wouldn't that essentially nullify the point of the statement?

Yes, it would. Maybe I am being cynical, but I think the Church put that statement in so that they can have an "out" whenever they need it.

[myboynoah]

Why would anyone expect The Church to support such a measure?

[CardiacCoug]

Why would anyone expect The Church to support such a measure?

Do you think the Church was "lying for the Lord" in its statement? Or do you think the distinction really is the difference between "does not object" and "supports."