Gary Glenn Responds to Regrettable Mormon Church Decision to Back ‘Gay Rights’ Laws

Below is an informative piece by my friend Gary Glenn of the American Family Association of Michigan about the awful decision by the LDS Church (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) to support legislation granting legal protections based on homosexuality. Gary of AFA-Michigan writes:

The LDS (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) Church now officially endorses so-called “gay rights” laws, specifically a Salt Lake City law prohibiting “discrimination” on the basis of “sexual orientation” (homosexual behavior) and “gender identity” (cross-dressing).

From the official LDS Church website: http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-supports-nondiscrimination-ordinances

DESERET NEWS: “Mormon church supports Salt Lake City’s protections for gay rights”

Astoundingly, both the Massachusetts and California supreme courts expressly and specifically cited their states’ identical “sexual orientation” laws regarding employment and housing as a legal justification for their rulings legalizing so-called homosexual “marriage.” That indisputable fact alone renders the Church spokesman’s claim that its endorsement of the “sexual orientation” ordinance poses no threat to marriage to be utter nonsense, especially since the Church’s new position will certainly boost homosexual activists’ ongoing efforts in the Utah Legislature to enact an identical state law.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Goodridge v. Mass. Dept. of Health: “Several amici suggest that prohibiting marriage by same-sex couples reflects community consensus that homosexual conduct is immoral. Yet Massachusetts has a strong affirmative policy of preventing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. See G.L. c. 151B (employment, housing, credit, services); G.L. c. 265, § 39 (hate crimes); G.L. c. 272, § 98 (public accommodation).” Page14 at: Goodridge

California Supreme Court, In Re: Marriage Cases: “See, for example, Civil Code section 51 (barring sexual orientation discrimination in the provision of services by any business establishment); Government Code sections 12920 (barring sexual orientation discrimination in employment), 12955 (barring sexual orientation discrimination in housing)… In light of this recognition, sections 1 and 7 of article I of the California Constitution cannot properly be interpreted to withhold from gay individuals the same basic civil right of personal autonomy and liberty — including the right to establish, with the person of one’s choice, an officially recognized and sanctioned family — that the California Constitution affords to heterosexual individuals.” pp 68-69 at: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov

U.S. House Republican Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, reaffirmed the threat such “sexual orientation” laws pose to marriage in commenting on the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), legislation which would add “sexual orientation” to federal civil rights laws regarding employment. If enacted, Boehner said, ENDA would “put activist judges in the position of imposing same-sex marriage and civil union laws on states. Simply by using ENDA as the basis of their decisions – just as state Supreme Courts have done with state-level ENDA laws in the past – liberal judges will be empowered under this legislation to single-handedly undermine state and federal marriage laws across the country. I’m disappointed that the Majority turned back a straightforward proposal offered by House Republicans to protect state and federal marriage laws from being overturned, modified, or restricted by activist judges as a result of this deeply flawed legislation.” RepublicanLeader.house.gov

Such laws have also been used to discriminate against and punish individuals and businesses who refuse to approve of homosexual behavior and cross-dressing.

It is difficult to believe that LDS officials could be so grossly ignorant of the demonstrably proven threat such laws pose to marriage and to the religious freedoms of the individual, special exemptions for “religious organizations” and the government notwithstanding. It’s further astounding that church officials would endorse a law banning “discrimination” based on “gender identity,” rendering it illegal for an employer to refuse to hire a man because he (1) dresses as and claims to believe he’s a woman; and (2) demands on that basis to use the women’s restroom at work.

It’s notable in contrast that the Catholic Church refuses to endorse forcing such “sexual orientation” laws on the rest of society just because homosexual activists are politically calculating enough to (at least temporarily) exempt churches. [Editor's Note: in certain areas such as Maine, Catholic bishops or leaders have endorsed homosexual activist laws against the teachings of their Church; such backing in heavily Catholic states usually makes the difference in passage of pro-homosexual legislation.]

From a Vatican directive instructing Catholic bishops to oppose so-called “sexual orientation” laws: “Where a matter of the common good is concerned, it is inappropriate for church authorities to endorse or remain neutral toward adverse legislation even if it grants exceptions to church organizations and institutions. The church has the responsibility to promote family life and the public morality of the entire civil society on the basis of fundamental moral values, not simply to protect herself from the application of harmful laws.” http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFHOMOL.htm

We deeply sympathize with the shock that will no doubt be felt by many members of the LDS Church who do understand the implications of so-called “sexual orientation” laws and have expended great effort to oppose them and to educate others.

Meridian Magazine / The Place Where Latter-day Saints Gather: “Of course, the problem here is that the term ’sexual orientation’ has no innate meaning (in contrast with ‘race’, which does) and no historic or community value (such as ‘religion’) and would require the Utah State Legislature to fabricate its definition. In other words, adding the term ’sexual orientation’ to Utah law, as demanded (by homosexual activists), would give lawyers standing to attack employers and property owners.” www.ldsmag.com

United Famlies International: “We adamantly oppose the UNHRC sexual orientation provisions for three reasons: 1. Attempts to legalize same sex marriage around the world would be substantially strengthened if homosexual behavior becomes an internationally recognized ‘human right.’” http://unitedfamilies.org

UFI brochure on “Sexual Orientation,” perhaps the best and most comprehensive single source on the subject we’ve ever seen… SexualOrientation

From the commentary: It’s further astounding that church officials would endorse a law banning “discrimination” based on “gender identity,” rendering it illegal for an employer to refuse to hire a man because he (1) dresses as and claims to believe he’s a woman; and (2) demands on that basis to use the women’s restroom at work.

From the commentary: We deeply sympathize with the shock that will no doubt be felt by many members of the LDS Church who do understand the implications of so-called “sexual orientation” laws and have expended great effort to oppose them and to educate others. For example…

Meridian Magazine / The Place Where Latter-day Saints Gather: “Of course, the problem here is that the term ’sexual orientation’ has no innate meaning (in contrast with ‘race’, which does) and no historic or community value (such as ‘religion’) and would require the Utah State Legislature to fabricate its definition. In other words, adding the term ’sexual orientation’ to Utah law, as demanded (by homosexual activists), would give lawyers standing to attack employers and property owners.” http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/090204six.html

United Famlies International: “We adamantly oppose the UNHRC sexual orientation provisions for three reasons: 1. Attempts to legalize same sex marriage around the world would be substantially strengthened if homosexual behavior becomes an internationally recognized ‘human right.’” http://meridianmagazine.com/familywatch/040319newsletter.html

Well, I read somewhere that the rteason the LDS were against same sex marriage was becasue if it was legal then the FLDS would want theuir deviant sex also, namely polygamy...

The LDS want polygamy to come out of their closets too of course...

but the LDS also hate/envy the FLDS who are the real mormons, about as equal as they love and want their polygamy...

Apparantly while the off shoot LDS want to do their polygamy out in the open once more...

they sure dont want them there original mormons, the FLDS to have it too...

So the perdicament about same sex marriage...

Dizzy...

Offical statement from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

Statement Given to Salt Lake City Council on Nondiscrimination Ordinances

SALT LAKE CITY 10 November 2009 The following statement representing the position of the Church’s leadership, was read by Michael Otterson, managing director of Church Public Affairs, as part of a public comment period discussing the ordinances at a Salt Lake City Council meeting 10 November 2009:

Good evening.

My name is Michael Otterson, and I am here tonight officially representing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The nondiscrimination ordinances being reviewed by the city council concern important questions for the people of this community.

Like most of America, our community in Salt Lake City is comprised of citizens of different faiths and values, different races and cultures, different political views and divergent demographics. Across America and around the world, diverse communities such as ours are wrestling with complex social and moral questions. People often feel strongly about such issues. Sometimes they feel so strongly that the ways in which they relate to one another seem to strain the fabric of our society, especially where the interests of one group seem to collide with the interests of another.

The issues before you tonight are the right of people to have a roof over their heads and the right to work without being discriminated against. But, importantly, the ordinances also attempt to balance vital issues of religious freedom. In essence, the Church agrees with the approach which Mayor Becker is taking on this matter.

In drafting these ordinances, the city has granted common-sense rights that should be available to everyone, while safeguarding the crucial rights of religious organizations, for example, in their hiring of people whose lives are in harmony with their tenets, or when providing housing for their university students and others that preserve religious requirements.

The Church supports these ordinances because they are fair and reasonable and do not do violence to the institution of marriage. They are also entirely consistent with the Church’s prior position on these matters. The Church remains unequivocally committed to defending the bedrock foundation of marriage between a man and a woman.

I represent a church that believes in human dignity, in treating others with respect even when we disagree – in fact, especially when we disagree. The Church’s past statements are on the public record for all to see. In these comments and in our actions, we try to follow what Jesus Christ taught. Our language will always be respectful and acknowledge those who differ, but will also be clear on matters that we feel are of great consequence to our society. Thank you.

Well, in this case he doesnt need to so call “trash” the LDS...

They trashed themselves...

BTW telling the truth about the LDS and their politically correct, liberal decision to back the gays is hardly trashing them...

Many LDS members are shocked and saddened by the decision, and rightly so...

There has even been dismay about the evident apostacy of the LDS leadership ....

Bigot ???

The LDS were bigots for 150 years...

have you ever addressed that ???

Many LDS members are shocked and saddened by the decision, and rightly so...

There has even been dismay about the evident apostacy of the LDS leadership ....

***

These statements would reveal one who follows their own will and not the will of the LORD!

A disciple of Jesus Christ strives to keep His commandments

Romans 12

16 Be of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits.

17 Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.

18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.

21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

John 3

23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

“Gary Glenn trashed LDS before this so what he is a consistent bigot!”

Once again, good ole Resty responds to any and all criticism of anything remotely connected to his Church by playing the tiresome, boring kneejerk “bigot” card.

The “before” he’s referring to, of course, was my outspoken criticism of Mitt Romney based on Mitt’s career-long promotion of abortion on demand and homosexual activists’ political agenda before suddenly reversing himself on those issues just in time to run for president. As the headline to one article said of my criticism, “Romney ‘not Mormon enough’ — since my criticism had nothing to do with his religion, but with a public policy record that was diametrically at odds with the pro-family, pro-life values of his faith.

But speaking of LDS candidates for public office...

Myron Jones, Rusty Barlow, Raymond Parks, Maurice Ellsworth, Bill Moore, Mike Sharp, Leon Swenson, Scott McKnight, Jerry Thorne, Rod Beck, and a couple dozen more...so many more I can’t name them off the top of my head.

Those of the names of the conservative, consistently pro-family and pro-life Mormons (unlike Romney) whose political campaigns I’ve either managed or consulted over the years, and most of them got elected.

This past summer, Resty, I spoke at the LDS funeral of the son of one of those candidates, sandwiched between his son and a former stake president, the latter of whom — after I spoke — said in his remarks to those in the chapel: “If I ever run for office, I want you to come manage my campaign.”

In my remarks during the funeral, I praised the LDS Church’s stand in support of retaining one-man, one-woman marriage. I also deeply appreciate the Church’s support for the Boy Scouts, including the Scouts’ universal policy prohibiting openly homosexual Scoutmasters (a policy which Romney, by the way, opposes).

When they’re right, I praise them. When they’re wrong, I say so. In this case, I’d like to think they’re wrong out of ignorance.

Resty makes no attempt to discuss the documented facts of the issue. As usual, he merely demonstrates his own bigotry and prejudice by immediately resorting to falsely accusing others of the same.

In my commentary, I cited and praised members of the LDS Church — specifically mentioning United Families International and Meridian magazine — who share my concerns about so-called “gay rights” and cross-dressing laws.

The Sutherland Institute of Salt Lake, which is staffed by LDS Church members, said this about the Church’s endorsement of the Salt Lake City “gay rights” law:

“As a policy statement, it is problematic. The approved ordinances before the Salt Lake City Council are unsound in principle, clarity, and effect. We have learned from California and other states that the meaning of marriage will die by a thousand cuts. Each new inclusion in the law of such vague terms as ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’ represents a mounting threat to the meaning of marriage.”

http://sutherlandinstitute.org/newsletter/newsletter.asp?n=152

Simple question, Resty? These critics are members of the Church.

Are they bigots too?

Excuse me there were many post here on FR I read where you have maligning the LDS.

Are you are saying you don’t feel that way now?

What ever happen to “abhor the sin but care for the sinner?”

The Church supports these ordinances because they are fair and reasonable and do not do violence to the institution of marriage. They are also entirely consistent with the Church’s *prior position on these matters. The Church remains unequivocally committed to defending the bedrock foundation of marriage between a man and a woman.

It is the same position the Church had in California

*The Divine Institution of Marriage
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage

One never knows if a child they have will be afflicted in this situation.

Acts 10

38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

Section 121
41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—

43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;

44 That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death.

45 Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven.

46 The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth; and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever.

“Excuse me there were many post here on FR I read where you have maligning the LDS.”

Resty, you either have memory problems, you’re confusing me with someone else, or you’re a liar.

One of us isn’t telling the truth. Since it’s impossible for me to produce copies of posts I never posted, the burden of proof falls on you.

Produce a copy of one or more of the messages you falsely accuse me of posting, or retract your false witness and apologize.

(Hint: posts in which I criticized Mitt Romney for his pro-abort, pro-homosexual record obviously do not qualify as being critical of the Church.)

“I notice you conveniently ran away from addressing the criticism by Church members of the Church’s support of “gay rights” legislation.”

http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/statement-given-to-salt-lake-city-council-on-nondiscrimination-ordinances

“I ask again, Resty: are members of the LDS Church who criticize the Church’s position also bigots?”

I know this might come as a surprise to you but we are all entitlted to our own opinions.

We are still one on our covenants!

“I know this might come as a surprise to you but we are all entitled to our own opinions.”

So if members of the Church in Salt Lake criticize the Church’s error, they’re “entitled to (their) own opinions.”

But if I’m critical, you allege “bigotry.”

So I ask again: do you consider members of the Church who criticize this error to be motivated by bigotry? (Let me make this easy for you: I’m gonna guess not, of course.)

And thus far, you’ve failed to either:

(1) produce any evidence of your false accusation that I’ve posted previous messages “maligning the LDS,” or

(2) have sufficient honesty and honor to retract the false accusation and apologize for it.

Failing one or the other, I have to wonder if you are motivated by some sort of bigotry.

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.