Utah. Of course.

Now, I might be Mormon, and I might have a best friend over at BYU, but I've been getting annoyed with Utah lately since it's been singles and GLBT persecution, and I don't like to hear that from my church. I started paying attention when I found out that GSAs were now allowed in public schools. Which blew my head. I wish I had read more into that too.

But I'm talking about a recent bill today.This is a link to an article. Forget the subtle persecution. This bill, strike that, TWO bills would basically double-team gays in the ass. HB270 is the first one, which says that any publicly funded event is required to be family oriented, and calls "marriage with children the desired norm." Now here's the subtle double team HB182 says that any arrangement that goes against public policy (like a will, or hopital visit and the such) is negligible.

Now, I mean, I can understand the family part. The LDS Church has a basis in marriage (one part of their history involving something they'd rather not talk about), and it's believed that to go to the highest level of heaven, you have to have a temple marriage. That's the marriage that is legally binding even after death, and it can only take place in the temple, meaning both bride and groom must be a member of the Church with a "temple recommend" card that allows them access to the building. Sooooo don't expect any gay couples or transgender folk in the highest level of heaven. (It'd be cool, but I'm fine with it.)

This bill is a whip lash. It extends not only to GLBT peeps, but also single people (yeah, I know, right?), childless couples (even if they are unable to have children), and some were claiming re-married parents as well, which I found ridiculous, but it wouldn't surprise me.

The worst is that the people who have had wills that give to their spouse, whom does not follow HB207 currently will be void, and should they die before getting this fixed or moving out of state, their spouse receives nothing.

I particularly didn't like the part where childless couples were considered not an important part of society. Pregnancy is obviously an issue with me, and if I were to see a couple with either spouse finding themselves unable to conceive, I wouldn't believe them to be a couple that goes against God's law. I believe that finding out your spouse is unable to conceive is legal grounds for divorce in the church, which is discriminatory since it's aimed toward sterile women (which would be sex discrimination, if it existed in Utah) because I believe (don't quote me on this since I don't have my scriptures handy) that having a child in vitro from a donor is allowed while surrogate mothers are not. But this is beside the point (while still relevant).

Overall, I'm disappointed. Not because Utah holds the capitol for my religion and that that state is now doing this, but that this was conceived at all. While the bill is only still being prepared for review by the House of Reps, I'm still disappointed that a human being could thing of considering people who are not following a nuclear family is a good idea. Well, so much for seperation of Church and state.