Comments for: “Mormon Utopia?: Gov. Leavitt Tried To Make Utah Government ‘Holy And Just’”

“The governor launched a campaign to strengthen marriage and supported a ban on adoption by unmarried couples.”

Joseph Conn -

Does your above quote imply that AU endorses a ban on adoption by same sex couples? On heterosexual couples that aren’t married? On other persons not married wishing to adopt? Does it imply that AU believes that such a ban will “strengthen marriage?” (And what in blazes does “strengthen marriage” mean anyway?)

Here is a better way of putting it:

“The governor launched a campaign to prohibit some children from living with loving parents by supporting a ban on adoption by unmarried couples.”

Okay, going off on a totally different tangent here, but I was thinking about the article on the main page, about the nativity scene.
Wouldn’t removing it after putting it up, be endorsing a different religion, any religion that doesn’t believe in the birth of Christ?

“No endorsement of religion” means exactly that- No endorsement.

Dave C, if you read the Salt Lake Tribune article, you would have seen similar wording as in the AU article. The sentence demonstrated the impact of Leavitt’s LDS-oriented meetings on his policies. The “campaign to strengthen marriage” was Leavitt’s idea; the wording probably was his idea, too. I suspect it really meant an attack on homosexuals, lesbians and non-married couples of any kind.

I do like the alternate wording you’ve proposed, though. Behind Leavitt’s campaign, there is obviously the motive to bar anyone other than married couples from adoption.

Jael, Rick R is right. Removing a religious symbol that doesn’t belong on a government institution in the first place endorses no religion. Replacing it with a religious symbol from another faith would be endorsing another faith.

I’d remove the spin from both sides, resulting in:

“The governor supported a ban on adoption by unmarried couples.”

What puzzles me is the profound shortsightedness of so many Mormon politicians.

People like Senator Orrin Hatch, and the local government in Salt Lake City, seem extremely eager to completely tear away the protective wall between church and state.

Yet they are surely aware of how the LDS Church is utterly hated by about 95% of the theocratic movement — don’t these Mormon politicians realize that they are striving to give unlimited power to people who hate their guts??

That’s almost akin to minority Blacks in the old South trying to legalize lynching. It’s utterly stupid.

Check this out:
http://www.christianworldviewn.....Steve_Camp

Maybe they think that “States Rights” will protect them in Utah. To which I say, “don’t kid yourself.”

States Rights are only used by the RR when they want to take away freedoms at the state level that are protected at the federal level. Simply put, states’ rights are only cited when the effect would to to take away freedoms.

When the situation is reversed, and states assert freedoms that the FEDS don’t like, the RR falls in love with big central government faster than you can say Nikita Khruschev.

SLight refinement:

“Simply put, states’ rights are only cited when the effect would be to establish their religion and/or take away freedoms.”

What’s so wrong with banning unmarried couples to adopt? Common sense would state married couples have some stability.(Not all) There are plenty of married couples seeking adoption. Common sense would state a child’s upbringing would benefit from a 2 parent, heterosexual, married couple. Hello? People let’s get our heads out of the sand. I’m not a bible thumper just an average American sick of this downward spiral of common sense.

The screening and qualifications to become an adoptive are stringent enough that arbitrary bans on unmarried (or same-sex) couples are unnecessary.

If someone isn’t fit to adopt, they would likely be screened out based on other criteria.

David, excellent explanation. By Anthony’s standards, I should have my child taken away from me because I am an “ill equipped single parent.” But to the contrary, I find that my child is better behaved and has a better moral fiber than many children being raised in two parent homes where they are taught that they are superior and can bully and call other kids names, they can cheat on tests and use foul language on the bus, at after school activities, and the mall (a place my child never goes to without parental supervision). Though my child does have permission to express herself to me in whatever words are necessary. I could go on and on about why I am a better parent than many married–and financial more affluent–parents. So because they are married and they have twice the household income I have, they are therefore better parents?

Oh, and many of these kids also go to a Christian church and Sunday school every week. Mine on the other hand gets there when we can get there and it’s a Unitarian church. Oh, the horrors.

“What’s so wrong with banning unmarried couples to adopt? Common sense would state married couples have some stability.(Not all) There are plenty of married couples seeking adoption. Common sense would state a child’s upbringing would benefit from a 2 parent, heterosexual, married couple. Hello? People let’s get our heads out of the sand. I’m not a bible thumper just an average American sick of this downward spiral of common sense.”

One man’s common sense is another man’s bias. So it goes.