Welcome to The Senate Site

Saturday, November 08, 2008

Senator McCoy

In today's New York Times:
"I do not hate the L.D.S. church, nor any of its members and neither should you,” said one of the speakers, Senator Scott McCoy, Democrat of Utah, and one of three openly gay Utah legislators. “The way to deal with this problem is to love more, not hate."

| More


Blogger Obi wan liberali said...

Those comments from Sen. McCoy are reasonable and politically prudent. However those of us who are not elected to office cannot feel anything other than a genuine sense of despise, to religious leaders who wish to use their tax exempt funds to deprive taxpaying citizens of equal treatment under the law.

The LDS Church exposed their insidiious underbelly and I am not inclined to let them off the hook. Why these people should be exempt from income, property and sales taxes is a mystery to me. They will be exempted on the basis of the fact that those who run our government, just happen to raise their hands in religious ceremonies and claim" by the raising of the right hand, "I sustain these leaders as prophet seers and revelators."

When you use the apparatus of the state to promote your religious views, you've shown yourself for who you are. A promoter of tyranny. I've tried sincerely to mitigate my disbelief from Mormonism with a tolerance for their shaky dogma. However, I have to say the gloves are off. Scott McCoy may preach reconcilation, but I see no reason to appease religious tyranny.

11/09/2008 11:50 PM  
Anonymous Adam said...

You're right Obi Wan--it's entirely inappropriate for religious leaders to have political opinions. That would include Martin Luther King and Jeremiah Wright. It would also include the American Episcopalian church, which has been as outspoken for gay rights as the LDS church has been against it.

Obviously, freedom of speech was never meant to apply to those who believe in a supreme being.

11/10/2008 8:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well Adam, isn't that convenient. Since 99% of the world's population believe in a supreme being in one form or another, that would eliminate most of the world from being able to express their opinion. That would leave you, Adam, pretty much in charge, would'nt it? Sounds like tyranny to me....

11/10/2008 9:40 AM  
Anonymous Cali LDS said...

You are right Adam. I'm sorry ObiWan, but when did it become unacceptable to fight for what you believe in? When, in fact, that is EXACTLY what YOU are doing. I applaud Senator McCoy for trying to keep this fight civil. What I don't understand is that over 50% of California's population voted FOR Prop 8! Less than 10% of the population of CA is LDS.....so why is the LDS church being persecuted so heavily, when they are not the ONLY church/people to vote for prop 8? It boggles my mind. And again, if you believe that this fight is about fundamental rights, isn't the right to vote a fundamental right? CA passed this proposition TWICE now. THAT should say something.

11/10/2008 10:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I live in Saudi Arabia. I have to say it appears from over here that the "No on 8" crowd has gotten a bit confused on exactly what is a civil right and what is an "inalienable" natural right. If life is so intolerable in Cali now, they can come join us over here. The semantic difference between civil union and marriage might fade to insignificance.

11/10/2008 12:58 PM  
Anonymous mclb said...

Thank you, Senator McCoy.

11/10/2008 3:48 PM  
Blogger Steviejee said...

I agree, thank you, Senator McCoy. In our country we assume that the majority will make good decisions and though we may not always agree with that majority. We still need to show respect and agree to disagree for the time being. And important to note, if we feel good about who we are it is a lot easier to appreciate others for who they are. Attacking people only hurts the one who is attacking.

11/10/2008 11:52 PM  
Anonymous Dad said...

I've been thinking a lot about this. If one of my children came to me and said that they were gay or lesbian,I would want them to legally have the opportunity to pursue happiness.

I love them, no matter who they choose to love.

11/11/2008 7:51 PM  
Blogger Obi wan liberali said...

Adam, you've created a straw man out of my arguments. I never stated that religious leaders should have opinions. The comparisn to Martin Luther King jr. is particularly insidious as he fought for equal rights, while the LDS Church sought to suppress rights already granted to taxpaying citizens.

Sen. McCoy is a savvy politician and is good at what he does. But my role, isn't to run and obtain office, but to challenge deeply held, but poorly justified beliefs. I also am an "anti-authoritarian" which pits me against a religion which believes that their authority figires cn dictate to their hero-worshipping sheep how to think and how to vote.

Our founding fathers were worried about the "tyranny of the majority." The courts granted rights for equal protection under the laws of California, but the people decided that those rights only apply to people "more like us." The fact that a tax exempt religion used their power of the pulpit to goad their members into donating into that cause makes any reasonable individual wonder, "why should the LDS Church be tax exempt?" Why are they not considered a "hate group." The Catholic church as well.

I respect their rights to hold an opinion. But I think it is time that tax exemptions end for all religions, because they have shown an inability to appreciate that exemption and show respect for the rights of others. If you are using your priviledged position to impose your religious views on others and using a tax exemption to fund it, I have serious issues with you.

But unfortunately, religion and bigotry go hand in hand, since if you claim to represent good, there must be some evil out there, which usually represents those different from yourselves. In my view, the LDS Church showed themselves unworthy of their tax exempt status.

That's my position and I'm sticking to it.

11/11/2008 10:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


The Church hasn't changed its view of marriage, it is society. Society has changed and they want everyone else to accept it. Like Gavin Newsom said, "Whether you like it or not".
Society decides on what is good for society or not. In California motorcyclists are required to wear helmets. As citizens why should we care if someone doesn't wear a helmet? The reason we care is that if the motorcyclists gets injuried, many times society has to pay the tab.
So it goes with same-sex marrriage. The Church believes that a healthy family relationship with a father and mother is important for the rearing of families.

11/12/2008 1:20 PM  
Anonymous Adam said...


It's no straw man. Look at what you wrote: You said it's okay for one religious figure (MLK) to engage in politics--but only because he was on your side. Meanwhile, it's inappropriate for another (LDS leadership)--but only because it's not on your side.

And to anonymous at 9:40am: I think you missed the dripping sarcasm in my earlier comment.

11/13/2008 9:06 AM  
Blogger SLC Mama said...

The Mormons were against mixed race marriages at one time. Heck, they weren't too fond of one man, one woman marriages at yet a different time.

I have faith that humanity will continue to evolve and that Mormons a hundred years from now will have a hard time believing that their church once fought AGAINST equality for all people once upon a time.

11/13/2008 4:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Based upon what I've seen on the news about the backlash against Mormons, I'm wondering who is out there designing the next 'star of David' armbands that they are going to insist that 'Mormons' wear as they are sent to temporary ghettos before a bunch of trains take them away. I understand that persecution has raged through the ages, but I'm in awe of the vitriol spilling out of the anti-Mormons of late. Is it just me, or are the other members of the same ProtectMarriage coalition just content on sitting back and letting members of the LDS faith take the brunt of the abuse as a result of the election?

11/15/2008 11:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So it goes with same-sex marrriage. The Church believes that a healthy family relationship with a father and mother is important for the rearing of families.

When do you live? There are more single (divorced or otherwise) mothers in my small town. Mother AND Father making a family is gone. Not because of gay marriage.

If the family unit is so important, why is it no longer the norm?

11/17/2008 4:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The church has certainly changed its views on marriage over time, mostly as society has changed. Interracial marriage has already been mentioned. Also, women are no longer legally considered property of their husbands, as they were in the early days of Utah.

I fight against the Mormon church on this one, because I seek not for power, but to tear it down.

11/19/2008 9:32 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

    Senate Site Feed

Home | Profiles | Archive | Links | Official Information | About | Contact | Government 2.0 Lab | Back to Top
© 2008. All rights reserved. Designed by Jeremy Wright & His Brother-In-Law