Jackie Biskupski responds to LDS Church policy on children of same-sex couples

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

FILE: Jackie Biskupski

SALT LAKE CITY — Jackie Biskupski, presumed winner of the race to be Salt Lake City Mayor, released a statement Friday responding to a policy change from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that prohibits children of same-sex couples from joining the LDS Church unless they are of legal age, have moved out of their parents’ home and have disavowed the practice of same-sex relationships.

Biskupski is a lesbian, and her statement reflected her personal connection to the controversial issue. Should the final vote tally confirm Biskupski’s victory, she would be the first openly-gay mayor of Salt Lake City.

The full statement is reproduced below:

“The conversations I have had over the past 24 hours, regarding the LDS Church policy to exclude children living in same-sex households from membership, have been with people of all walks of life, both Mormon and non-Mormon. The common theme is both shock and concern for children—not just those directly impacted—but all children in our community who are witnessing a form of injustice that no child should experience.

As a faith community, the LDS Church has done so much good in promoting the strength of the family, that it is hard for many of us to accept a policy that would tell a child who wishes to seek spiritual guidance from the Church, that they should look elsewhere simply because of their parents. Our community has also come so far in the last year to bridge the gaps between us, that this new policy feels confusing to many.

The LDS Church is entitled to live in its doctrine and to make policy decisions that reflect the teachings of their faith, but I hold onto hope that a move in this direction will not last long. As a mother of a young son—who will grow up in this community—I want him to feel welcome wherever he goes and judged based on the content of his character, not on his mother’s sexual orientation. My son will make many important decisions in his life and if he chose to become a member of the LDS Church, I would support his choice, and I would hope he could find acceptance in his faith community.”

Related story: LDS Church responds after policy change on same-sex couples, their children prompts strong reactions


  • ItsNotANewPolicy

    With a few differences this policy is the exact same they have for polyg families.

    The church is stating unequivically as it has always done, practicing the homosexual lifestyle is a sin. Not shocking at all. It’s exactly the same thing thats been said by Christian religions forever and by this church forever. Why people are in shock is beyond me. Same church difference day.

    • bob

      They are not excluding the CHILDREN of g a y s. That has NEVER been the policy before. G a y marriage has been legal in many places for many years, and the Church has never excluding the children of those couples from membership.

      So riddle me this: Was God not paying attention before, or did he suddenly change his mind? It has to be one or the other.

    • art lloyd

      I find it ironic that the church claims that its policy is consistent, because “God” is consistent. This was the same argument that the church made when it was trying to defend plural marriage over a hundred years ago. When the church leaders realized that the church corporation was about to become dissolved, suddenly “God” changed his mind and plural marriage became a “sin”..what hypocrites..Art

    • art lloyd

      Bob, You should study the church history. The church has changed and modified its determination on what is “sin” and what is not, multiple times. The early settlers in St George were encouraged to grow tobacco and grapes were made into wine..The church didn’t officially “enforce” the word of wisdom until the whole country adopted prohibition, The leaders of the church are no more “inspired” by God than the leaders of any other business corporation.

  • bob

    But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. Unless their parents are g a y.

  • From the Basin

    I want to see Jackie demand that the LDS church admit polyglets. This won’t happen – her issue isn’t whether or not children are judged on the content of their character – she just wants the church to quit opposing homosexual marriages. I am sure she doesn’t support polygamous marriage.


    • bob

      I’m opposed to g a y marriage and always have been, because it’s none of the government’s business.

      This new “policy” is not about g a y marriage. It’s ab out punishing the CHILDREN for the sins of their parents. And it’ll be reversed soon. Guaranteed. All the rhetoric and sophistry in the world can’t explain away what this really is.

      KSL published the specific new sections from the Bishop’s Handbook, with the changes and additions highlighted. It actually reads worse than it sounds.

  • 8ch

    Ms. Biskupski if you read these comments, this one is for you and your learning.

    1 We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.

    2 We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.

    3 We believe that all governments necessarily require civil officers and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same; and that such as will administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people if a republic, or the will of the sovereign.

    4 We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.

    5 We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.

    6 We believe that every man should be honored in his station, rulers and magistrates as such, being placed for the protection of the innocent and the punishment of the guilty; and that to the laws all men owe respect and deference, as without them peace and harmony would be supplanted by anarchy and terror; human laws being instituted for the express purpose of regulating our interests as individuals and nations, between man and man; and divine laws given of heaven, prescribing rules on spiritual concerns, for faith and worship, both to be answered by man to his Maker.

    7 We believe that rulers, states, and governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the free exercise of their religious belief; but we do not believe that they have a right in justice to deprive citizens of this privilege, or proscribe them in their opinions, so long as a regard and reverence are shown to the laws and such religious opinions do not justify sedition nor conspiracy.

    8 We believe that the commission of crime should be punished according to the nature of the offense; that murder, treason, robbery, theft, and the breach of the general peace, in all respects, should be punished according to their criminality and their tendency to evil among men, by the laws of that government in which the offense is committed; and for the public peace and tranquility all men should step forward and use their ability in bringing offenders against good laws to punishment.

    9 We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

    10 We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.

    11 We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same; but we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded.

    12 We believe it just to preach the gospel to the nations of the earth, and warn the righteous to save themselves from the corruption of the world; but we do not believe it right to interfere with bond-servants, neither preach the gospel to, nor baptize them contrary to the will and wish of their masters, nor to meddle with or influence them in the least to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life, thereby jeopardizing the lives of men; such interference we believe to be unlawful and unjust, and dangerous to the peace of every government allowing human beings to be held in servitude.

  • Karen Anderson

    This policy IS punishing the children!!!! The whole concept, that children are NOT punished for their parents’ “sins”..(trust me, I am NOT calling a loving relationship a “sin”)..is completely being gone against. The LDS Church believes that homosexuality is a “sin”. They also believe children are not to be punished for their parents sins. Seems they stepped in it on this conundrum.


      Exodus 20: 5 Karen
      “for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me”.

Comments are closed.

Notice: you are using an outdated browser. Microsoft does not recommend using IE as your default browser. Some features on this website, like video and images, might not work properly. For the best experience, please upgrade your browser.