Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mormon Group Shows Its Support In Salt Lake City Gay Parade
YahooNews ^ | June 03, 2012 | Jennifer Dobner

Posted on 06/03/2012 9:53:12 PM PDT by Steelfish

Mormon Group Shows Its Support In Salt Lake City Gay Parade By Jennifer Dobner

SALT LAKE CITY (Reuters) - Nearly 300 Mormons marched in a gay pride parade on Sunday, holding signs that read "God Loves His Children" in a unique display of support from believers of a religious tradition that has long opposed homosexuality.

"When people hear that Mormons are marching with gay and lesbian people in Salt Lake City... I think that's going to be a surprise," said Dustin Lance Black, the Academy Award-winning screenwriter of the 2008 movie "Milk" about slain San Francisco gay activist Harvey Milk. Black, who is gay and was raised Mormon, was the parade's grand marshal.

"They are fostering a level of acceptance that hasn't traditionally been there," he said.

Erika Munson, 52, a devout Mormon and mother of five, founded the group Mormons Building Bridges and led it in the annual Utah Pride Parade in support of the gay community. She had grown uncomfortable with the image of their church as anti-gay.

"I feel like this is the time to speak up. I've always felt like I was supportive in my own way of the LGBT community but I've had to keep that and my commitment for the church separate," she said, using a common term for lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender people. Munson's group is not endorsed by or directly affiliated with Utah-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Utah
KEYWORDS: nytagenda; romney; romneyagenda; romneymarriage

1 posted on 06/03/2012 9:53:18 PM PDT by Steelfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Well, mormons are severely and absolutely misguided on every other point of theology. Why would this be any different?

2 posted on 06/03/2012 9:57:22 PM PDT by LouAvul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Woot! I hit the trifecta of posting on the third thread I’ve seen on this today. Doesn’t bother me, but I expect some other Freeper to show up and yell at you. When they do, remember at least one Freeper is jumping up and down.

3 posted on 06/03/2012 10:00:55 PM PDT by pops88 (Standing with Breitbart for truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

“I expect some other Freeper to show up and yell at you. When they do, remember at least one Freeper is jumping up and down.”

Opps, didn’t come out right. Jumping for joy at the trifecta, not at you being yelled at.

4 posted on 06/03/2012 10:04:33 PM PDT by pops88 (Standing with Breitbart for truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pops88

In New Mexico voters have a republican Senatorial choice between RINO Heather Wilson, the ‘next’ Olympia Snowe, a non-mormon, or a mormon.... The mormon is named Greg Sowards and I like him.

5 posted on 06/03/2012 10:20:46 PM PDT by Carthego delenda est
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

I never get these one-liners.

“God Loves His Children”, for example. Yes, He does love us all. But He does not condone sinful behavior. He does not condone everything people do, just to prove how liberal He is. He does not bend over backwards for pressure groups pushing politically correct causes. Yet He still loves us and loves them.

That God can love them, but not condone their behavior, is apparently a nuance lost on the liberals in cases such as this.

6 posted on 06/03/2012 10:23:15 PM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carthego delenda est

I’m a Christian, and I just find “Mormonism” a non-issue when it comes to voting. I want to know a person’s stand on issues and the constitution. But then I’m married to an ex-Mormon who’s family settled the South West. As far as I can tell, all of them were decent folk, even if I think misguided spiritually.

7 posted on 06/03/2012 10:33:41 PM PDT by pops88 (Standing with Breitbart for truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

I would expect Mormonism to be violently opposed to homosexuality. How do Mormons participate in a gay pride parade? And how does such a parade happen in Salt Lake City? Has this nation come uncorked over homosexuality? This is very troubling to me.

8 posted on 06/03/2012 11:18:32 PM PDT by jonrick46 (Countdown to 11-06-2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

“...Erika Munson, 52, a devout Mormon” No Erika, you are not. You are going directly against the church’s belief on marriage in the Proclamation to the Family.

9 posted on 06/04/2012 3:23:37 AM PDT by republicanbred (...and when I die I'll be republican dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Gay kobol alien sex... who knew?


10 posted on 06/04/2012 5:12:37 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (Don't Tread On Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego
I never get these one-liners. “God Loves His Children”, for example.

Yep, bugs me too. This one in particular is often used as cover for sinful behavior.

The fact is, we are all God's creation and thus deserve a level of respect for that, but we are not all God's children.

John 1:12 New International Version (NIV)

12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God —

11 posted on 06/04/2012 5:29:33 AM PDT by tbpiper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
Mmmm, lets see now, who is more eeeevil and despicable of these 2?

capt.photo_1245188299465-1-0 Mitt-Romney-2756


Following are 10 excuses Obama has given through the years for voting “present” and “no” on the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act, or BAIPA.

10. Babies who survive abortions are not protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

Obama, the sole opponent ever to speak against BAIPA, stated on the Illinois Senate floor on March 30, 2001:

I just want to suggest … that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.

Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – child, a 9-month-old – child that was delivered to term. …

I mean, it – it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.

9. A ban to stop aborted babies from being shelved to die would be burdensome to mothers.

Before voting “no” for a second time in the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 5, 2002, Obama stated:

What we are doing here is to create one more burden on women, and I can’t support that.

8. Aborting babies alive and letting them die is a doctor’s prerogative.

An Obama spokesman told the Chicago Tribune in August 2004 that Obama voted against BAIPA because it included provisions that “would have taken away from doctors their professional judgment when a fetus is viable.”

7. Anyway, doctors don’t do that.

Obama told the Chicago Sun-Times in October 2004 he opposed BAIPA because “physicians are already required to use life-saving measures when fetuses are born alive during abortions.”

6. Obama apparently read medical charts and saw no proof.

Also, during a speech at Benedictine University in October 2004, Obama said “there was no documentation that hospitals were actually doing what was alleged in testimony presented before him in committee,” according to the Illinois Leader.

5. Aborting babies alive and letting them die is a religious issue.

During his U.S. Senate contest against Obama, Alan Keyes famously said:

Christ would not stand idly by while an infant child in that situation died. … Christ would not vote for Barack Obama, because Barack Obama has voted to behave in a way that it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved.

Obama has always mischaracterized Keyes’ condemnation as a blanket statement against Obama’s pro-abortion position, which is untrue. Keyes was pointedly discussing infanticide.

Nevertheless, induced labor abortion, the procedure that sometimes results in babies being aborted alive, must be included as one Obama condones. Obama responded first to Keyes as he recounted in a July 10, 2006, USA Today op ed:

… [W]e live in a pluralistic society, and … I can’t impose my religious views on another.

4. Aborting babies alive and letting them die violates no universal principle.

In that USA Today piece, Obama said he reflected on that first answer, decided it was a “typically liberal response,” and revised it:

But my opponent’s accusations nagged at me. … If I am opposed to abortion for religious reasons but seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

3. Introducing legislation to stop live aborted babies from being shelved to die was a political maneuver.

During the Benedictine University speech, Obama said, “The bill was unnecessary in Illinois and was introduced for political reasons,” according to the Illinois Leader.

2. Sinking Born Alive was about outmaneuvering that political maneuver.

Obama has this quote on his website:

Pam Sutherland … of … Illinois Planned Parenthood … told ABC News, “We worked with him specifically on his strategy. The Republicans were in control of the Illinois Senate at the time. They loved to hold votes on ‘partial birth’ and ‘born alive.’ They put these bills out all the time … because they wanted to pigeonhole Democrats. …”

And the No. 1 reason Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act was:

1. Introducing Born Alive was a ploy to overturn Roe v. Wade.

During a debate against Keyes in October 2004, Obama stated:

Now, the bill that was put forward was essentially a way of getting around Roe vs. Wade. … At the federal level, there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe vs. Wade. I would have voted for that bill.

This was a lie on two points.

First, there was no such amendment.

Second, both definitions of “born alive” were always identical. The concluding paragraph changed in the federal version. But Obama, as chairman of the committee that vetted Illinois’ version in 2003, refused to allow an amendment rendering both concluding paragraphs identical. He also refused to call the bill and killed it.

The federal paragraph (c) actually weakened the pro-abortion position by opening the possibility of giving legal status to preborn children, the opposite of Obama’s contention:

Illinois’ paragraph (c): A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.

Federal paragraph (c): Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

At any rate, so what if stopping hospitals and abortion clinics from aborting babies alive and leaving them to die did theoretically “encroach on Roe v. Wade”?

Obama was admitting he supported infanticide if that were true.


12 posted on 06/04/2012 7:05:48 AM PDT by Conservative Vermont Vet (l)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

It’s just politics.

13 posted on 06/04/2012 8:21:49 AM PDT by ILS21R (John Locke: When the social contract is broken, the people must revolt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson