http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/05/10/22504 News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric Sun, 19 May 2013 14:07:11 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/05/10/22504/comment-page-1#comment-68235 cowboy Tue, 11 May 2010 14:54:08 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=22504#comment-68235 Because gay marriage has not been a campaign issue, I don’t think we are letting our guard down with whomever becomes the next Senator from Utah.    Perhaps some Utahns (Mormons in particular) are feeling bruised by all the negativity associated with their anti-gay marriage posture; they are trying to tone it down a bit.  That’s why they don’t want to mention anything about gay rights in their campaigning.  Plus, it’s a moot point.   It was said recently in a popular newspaper editorial that a roll of toilet paper could win an election in Utah if it has GOP’s name on it.  There is no need to bring in gay rights as a campaigning topic.   Of a more interesting development:  The Salt Lake City based Zions Bank (Zions Bancorp, owned by most Mormons and mostly by the LDS Church) had to incorporate protection to prohibit gay discrimination in their corporate policies.   This was after the Board of Directors didn’t think they needed such wording in their equal employment opportunity policy.  Some say it was pressure from a group of investors in NYC that forced the change in policy.     Personally, I’m thinking there was some sort of subtle but strong persuasion from the majority owner (the LDS Church) to change Zions Bancorp anti-discrimination policy.  Why?  Because of the potential harm from the all the negativity that would come from looking anti-gay.  Of course, I have no way of proving it.    But, the same mentality that pervades on the Board of Directors at Zions Bank where all 10 members voted against gay equality is probably the very same mentality with the two other GOP hopefuls for US Senate.      We need to stay wary.        Because gay marriage has not been a campaign issue, I don’t think we are letting our guard down with whomever becomes the next Senator from Utah. 
 
Perhaps some Utahns (Mormons in particular) are feeling bruised by all the negativity associated with their anti-gay marriage posture; they are trying to tone it down a bit.  That’s why they don’t want to mention anything about gay rights in their campaigning.  Plus, it’s a moot point.   It was said recently in a popular newspaper editorial that a roll of toilet paper could win an election in Utah if it has GOP’s name on it.  There is no need to bring in gay rights as a campaigning topic.
 
Of a more interesting development:  The Salt Lake City based Zions Bank (Zions Bancorp, owned by most Mormons and mostly by the LDS Church) had to incorporate protection to prohibit gay discrimination in their corporate policies.   This was after the Board of Directors didn’t think they needed such wording in their equal employment opportunity policy.  Some say it was pressure from a group of investors in NYC that forced the change in policy.  
 
Personally, I’m thinking there was some sort of subtle but strong persuasion from the majority owner (the LDS Church) to change Zions Bancorp anti-discrimination policy.  Why?  Because of the potential harm from the all the negativity that would come from looking anti-gay.  Of course, I have no way of proving it. 
 
But, the same mentality that pervades on the Board of Directors at Zions Bank where all 10 members voted against gay equality is probably the very same mentality with the two other GOP hopefuls for US Senate.   
 
We need to stay wary.     
 

]]> http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/05/10/22504/comment-page-1#comment-68219 John in the Bay Area Mon, 10 May 2010 23:44:37 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=22504#comment-68219 I have to wonder if there was something that Bennett did that displeased the Mormon Church. I find it interesting that in Utah, people are quick to mention the importance of the teabaggers in taking down a sitting senator, but no interest at all in how the Mormon Church viewed the various candidates in the race. I am guessing that a non-Mormon candidate would have no chance of winning. I have to wonder if there was something that Bennett did that displeased the Mormon Church. I find it interesting that in Utah, people are quick to mention the importance of the teabaggers in taking down a sitting senator, but no interest at all in how the Mormon Church viewed the various candidates in the race. I am guessing that a non-Mormon candidate would have no chance of winning.

]]>