The Irony of Proposition 8

November 10, 2008
By

I hope you can stand at least one more post on Proposition 8 and its aftermath.

I decided to bag the post I had planned because this issue or at least the reaction to the passing of Proposition 8 in California seems to have some longer range consequences. As a California native who lived the great majority of my life there (until I moved to Colorado 5 years ago), I am interested.

1. There has been a strong and sometimes violent reaction to the passing on Proposition 8 by the opponents similar to, but not on the same scale as those during the civil rights struggles. Not riots, but strong protests, mainly at religious institutions and mostly at Mormon Temple sites, Los Angeles, Oakland and San Diego. I have not heard nor seen any reports on widespread protests at LDS chapels on Sunday. ( CORRECTION: here’s one in Seattle) There was also a large protest at Saddleback Church (Pastor Rick Warren’s Church) in Lake Forest, Ca. Anti-8 folks are angry and frustrated that they did not get what they wanted and are now demonstrating it toward those they feel are responsible for their loss.

The fact is that while these folks certainly had no love for the Mormon Church prior to the vote, or were at least ambivalent toward it, they were probably like most people in their knowledge of the Church.  So their reaction to the well coordinated efforts by its members at the urging of its leaders is probably one of sheer frustration rather than any vendetta that they might personally hold against the Church itself. So, it was, up until now.

It has been pointed out that the Church was one of many involved in the campaign, but again, the most organized of the bunch, it appears.  Mormons only represent 2 percent of Californians, so, if all voted for Prop 8, could only be blamed for 2% of the 52% majority. Of course, as we know, not all agreed with the pro 8 position and many church members are too young to vote.

The irony here is that had prop 8 lost, you would not see the kind of protests from the frustrated pro 8 folks.

2.       There is also an irony involved as you watch the videos that Andrew referenced in his post as the protesters shout “Stop the Hate.”  There are hateful references to the Church, Christians in general and others who supported Prop 8 because of their belief in traditional marriage but not unkind feelings toward gay people.

Certainly, there are those in religious organizations that “hate” gay people or their lifestyle, but certainly the prop. 8 campaign did not appear to be “hate-filled” but only addressed the issue itself.  There were no untoward ads that mocked gay people or spoke of extreme dire consequences of the defeat of prop 8 against a backdrop of sinister music and visuals.  I suppose some might argue that some references to the potential acceptance and teaching of the Gay lifestyle in schools and the influence on children might be construed that way, but from my point of view, it was handled respectfully. The anti 8 campaign seemed to be quite the opposite especially at the end. Granted, I don’t live in California any longer so I can’t say that I saw all the ads, but I did see a number of them on YouTube and on the California newspaper websites, which I look at every day.

So, who needs to “Stop the Hate?”

3.       The final irony for me is the fact that the polling data seems to indicate that African Americans and Hispanics were the deciding voters who pushed Prop 8 over the top to passage. So, apparently, they did not see this as a civil rights issue. According to the Sacramento Bee, 70% of those identifying their race as Black voted for the proposition while 53% Hispanic/Latino against 49% White and Asian. In spite of the talk to the contrary, it appears to be a morality/societal question, not a question of civil rights.

So, I hope we can all get passed this episode and come to some place where all sides can be satisfied. Perhaps that is not possible, I hope it is. The trend seems to indicate that in a few years, voters will be willing to allow gay marriage, if the demographics are correct as older, more conservative voters are eliminated from the voting rolls and younger, more accepting voters replace them.   Of course, it is harder to overturn a constitutional amendment than it is to pass one.  And, we don’t know what the courts will do.

So, stand by, this is not over.

Tags:

  • Cicero

    Additionally the idea that younger voters will overturn Prop 8 eventually is based on the assumption that people’s political views never change.

    In all probability as younger voters get married they are likely to become more conservative.

  • Mark N.

    certainly the prop. 8 campaign did not appear to be “hate-filled” but only addressed the issue itself.

    Now that the campaign is over, it has been widely remarked in the media how the “yes on 8″ campaign took the issue beyond the basic “right to marry” subject of the wording of the amendment into the “but what about our kids and schools” area that the “no on 8″ people supposedly didn’t expect it to go.

    There were no untoward ads that mocked gay people or spoke of extreme dire consequences of the defeat of prop 8 against a backdrop of sinister music and visuals.

    Nothing openly mocked gay people (but the idea that a certain group of people should have rights taken away that the courts had finally recognized might be viewed as not just mocking, but somewhat denigrating); the “children and schools” meme along with the “will your church be forced into doing things that it doesn’t want to do?” question seemed to be dire enough consequences for most of the “yes” voters.

    The Governator has now openly stated that he hopes the CA Supreme Court will toss out Prop 8 under the legal challenges that have already been mounted against it, so the idea that a constitutional amendment is harder to overturn than so other aspect of the legal code doesn’t seem to be getting much play or respect in the Governor’s office.

  • prairie chuck

    I don’t see how this can ever be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction. We have to admit that a large percentage of our society has deeply held beliefs–moral, religious or other–that homosexuality at some level is wrong. There is nothing more sacred than a person’s personal beliefs. There is no tyranny more evil than coercion of beliefs. The only change you can hope for is a natural change in those beliefs and that won’t come through force of law.

    I doubt this would have been the inflamed issue it is today if the pro-gay-marriage side had not tried to force the issue through the courts. They threw the first punch, they drew the first line in the sand, they were the first to threaten people’s beliefs through the force of law. Now that it has backfired, what is left to do? Raise the stakes? Fan the flames? Or back away and try a different, more moderate approach? It seems to me the ball is squarely in their court.

  • Mark N.

    We have to admit that a large percentage of our society has deeply held beliefs–moral, religious or other–that homosexuality at some level is wrong.

    The legal system will not — and can not — say that homosexuality is “wrong” because the laws against sodomy have pretty much (if not completely) been done away with. It’s certainly not going to consider it a crime against God (and how can one commit a crime with an omnipotent being as the victim?).

    The LDS were forced to give in to the government on the polygamy question a century ago. Why should we believe that the government is going to be ruling in favor of religion in general on this question now?

    So far as the non-LDS religions go, this may turn out to be their “I didn’t stand up for the polygamists back then, so there’s nobody left to stand up for me now” kind of thing.

  • John Nilsson

    Cicero,

    I’ve heard this before. The thing is, just as with worldviews being dynamic, so are marriage ages and marriage rates. People in the U.S. are marrying later and at lower rates than in the past, straight and gay.

    And there are many, like me, for whom marriage and childrearing launches a liberal trajectory. As I began to care about the world my son would inherit, I skewed more left on the U.S. political spectrum. Of course, that’s very easy to do under Bush’s administration. All you have to do is be opposed to torture and you’re practically a Trotskyite.

  • http://captainmelody.blogspot.com captainmelody

    prarie chick,

    It amazes me that you see homosexuals taking legal steps to enable them to marry as throwing the first punch. The first punch was thrown during the centuries of discrimination they suffered and continue to suffer from religious ignorance and misunderstanding.

    Also, how in the world are homosexuals (who are going to be gay no matter what the courts decide) threatening anyone’s beliefs by fighting for the right to be married? To me, this is what is wrong with the entire argument against gay marriage. Can you answer this simple question -

    How will allowing homosexual marriage affect you? How will it ruin the sanctity of marriage?

  • http://radiobeloved.wordpress.com/ Neal Davis

    This may be the most level-headed post I’ve seen so far on the aftermath of Prop 8′s passage. Good work, Jeff. You’ve put into words a lot of the frustration I’ve been feeling at the No on 8′s reaction.

  • Douglas Hunter

    This is one of the more confused posts I’ve read in the aftermath of Prop 8′s passage.

  • Jeff Spector

    Douglas #8,

    “This is one of the more confused posts I’ve read in the aftermath of Prop 8’s passage.’

    Why do you say that?

  • prairie chuck

    #4 yes, sodomy laws have been done away with, a credit to the majority of people who, while believing homosexuality is wrong, tolerate it nonetheless.

    The issue is marriage. Not the rights or privileges afforded married couples. It’s been proposed that states offer “gay unions” which would afford gay all spousal rights–right of survivor, insurance, etc. But that’s not good enough for gays. They see that as a 2nd class marriage. And they’re right, it is. Because MARRIAGE combines a religious rite with societal approbation, and that is something that the majority of people just cannot abide. Go ahead and have sex with the same gender, that’s fine. The majority of society may not think it’s right, may not approve, but they won’t stop you. Go ahead and form a family if you want. The majority of society may not approve, they may think it’s wrong but they won’t stop you. They’ll even afford you all the privileges of said family through legally recognized “gay unions”. That’s what we call tolerance.

    But the gay community is not satisfied with tolerance. They want the religious and societal approbation that comes with the word (and rite) MARRIAGE. And that is where the majority of the people draw the line. They’re willing to overlook or tolerate private gay behavior but when you force it into the public arena, when you demand that they give it the same stature and prestige as heterosexual unions, this goes against their deeply held beliefs.

    And (#6) that is where the first punch was thrown: when the gays forced gay marriage onto the majority through the CA Supreme Court. It was one thing for gays to dress up in tuxedos or white dresses and have their version of a gay marriage party, an entirely different one when they forced those who disapprove to acknowledge that marriage by force of law.

    The bottom line is, you have two groups of people with two disparate sets of beliefs. One thinks homosexuality is just fine and everyone should accept it. The other thinks it’s wrong and though they will be tolerant, they will NOT say it is a good thing. What are you going to do? Force one set of beliefs over another? I believe tyranny over conscience is evil. So is there a third way?

  • “No on 8″ Side has the “Pinnochio Nose”

    The anti-Prop 8, pro gay marriage groups ran ads charging this whole idea that public schools will teach gay marriage is just a “lie.”

    The same groups now charging it’s a lie public schools will teach about gay marriage whether parents like it or not — were just in court in Massachusetts filing amicus briefs arguing parents don’t have any right to opt their children out of the pro-gay marriage curriculum.

    From the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Amicus Curiae Brief:
    “In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where the right of same-sex couples to marry is protected under the state constitution, it is particularly important to teach children about families with gay parents.” [p 5]

    From the Human Rights Campaign Amicus Curiae Brief:
    “There is no constitutional principle grounded in either the First Amendment’s free exercise clause or the right to direct the upbringing of one’s children, which requires defendants to either remove the books now in issue – or to treat them as suspect by imposing an opt-out system.” [pp1-2]

    From the ACLU Amicus Curiae Brief:
    “Specifically, the parents in this case do not have a constitutional right to override the professional pedagogical judgment of the school with respect to the inclusion within the curriculum of the age-appropriate children’s book…King and King.” [p 9]

    Which side is really telling the truth here about its aims? It seems to me that the “No on 8″ side was the side with the Pinnochio nose.

  • Why Californis Passed Proposition 8

    WHY CALIFORNIA PASSED PROPOSITION 8

    Marriage is the legal, social, economic and spiritual union of a man and a woman. One man and one woman are necessary for a valid marriage. If that definition is radically altered then anything is possible. There is no logical reason for not letting several people marry, or for eliminating other requirements, such as minimum age, blood relative status or even the limitation of the relationship to human beings. Those who are trying to radically redefine California’s marriage laws for their own purposes are the ones who are trying to impose their values on the rest of the population. Those citizens opposed to any change in California’s marriage statutes are merely defending the basic morality that has sustained the culture for everyone against a radical attack.

    When same-sex couples seek California’s approval and all the benefits that the state reserves for married couples, they impose the law on everyone. According non-marital relationships the same status as marriage would mean that millions of people would be disenfranchised by their own governments. The state would be telling them that their beliefs are no longer valid, and would turn the civil rights laws into a battering ram against them.

    Law is not a suggestion, as George Washington observed, “it is force”. An official state sanction of same-sex relationships as “marriage” would bring the full apparatus of the state against those who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. This has already happened in Massachusetts (CatholicCharities and Lexington Public Schools), New Jersey (Methodist Church lost its tax exemption), etc. The Protect Marriage Coalition views this as outlawing traditional morality.

    Eliminating one entire sex from an institution defined as the union of the two sexes is a quantum leap from eliminating racial discrimination, which did not alter the fundamental character of marriage. Marriage reflects the natural moral and social law evidenced the world over. As the late British social anthropologist Joseph Daniel Unwin noted in his study of world civilizations, any society that devalued the nuclear family soon lost what he called “expansive energy,” which might best be summarized as society’s will to make things better for the next generation. In fact, no society that has loosened sexual morality outside of man-woman marriage has survived.
    Analyzing studies of cultures spanning several thousands of years on several continents, Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin found that virtually all political revolutions that brought about societal collapse were preceded by a sexual revolution in which marriage and family were devalued by the culture’s acceptance of homosexuality.

    When marriage loses its unique status, women and children most frequently are the direct victims. Giving same-sex relationships or out-of-wedlock heterosexual couples the same special status and benefits as the marital bond would not be the expansion of a right but the destruction of a principle. . If the one-man/one-woman definition of marriage is broken, there is no logical stopping point for continuing the assault on marriage.

    If feelings are the key requirement, then why not let three people marry, or two adults and a child, or consenting blood relatives of any age? . Marriage-based kinship is essential to stability and continuity in our state. Child abuse is much more prevalent when a living arrangement is not based on kinship. Kinship imparts family names, heritage, and property, secures the identity and commitment of fathers for the sake of the children, and entails mutual obligations to the community.

    The US Supreme Court declared in 1885 that states’ marriage laws must be based on “the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization, the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.”

  • mcarp

    Jeff,
    The irony of the Prop. 8 issue, to me, is that 120 years ago, the church leaders were insisting that the government has no right to specify how a marriage should be defined (in light of polygamy), but now the church is all for having the government specify the definition of marriage for others.

    And, if you want some HATE, go read some of Brigham Young’s words about people who were against polygamy, including the US government.

    I’d like to take this opportunity to give a shout-out to all former Foothill Ward members from the San Jose Stake. Like Jeff.

  • James

    This sentence probably sums up everything Mormon’s don’t understand. You financed over 70% of this proposition that went from 17 points behind in the polls to winning by 2 points.
    “Certainly, there are those in religious organizations that “hate” gay people or their lifestyle, but certainly the prop. 8 campaign did not appear to be “hate-filled” but only addressed the issue itself.”

    That would be like someone showing up at your doorstep and calmly proclaiming that they were there to tear up your marriage license or remove your children … nothing person … just acting on the whim of the majority.

    Once Mormon’s understand that that is exactly what the did by funding prop H8, then you may be on the path to truly being part of the American Tapestry. Otherwise, I hear Iran and Saudi Arabia have great theocracies going, might want to check them out.

    The Pro-8 groups lied and blackmailed to get that slim majority. They lied when they said gay marriage would be taught in schools. There are laws on the books that prevent that. They lied when they said churches would lose their tax exempt status (The actual court ruling allowing gay marriage states that no church or representative of any church shall be compelled to perform any marriage that is against their own beliefs). This is already patently obvious. Roman Catholics, Buddhists, and Jews, etc can’t get married in a Mormon temple no matter how bad they want to without changing their religion. California law gives all parents the right to opt out when ever family, sexuality, or religion are taught in schools. It also protects any person from civil suits based on race, gender, national origin, religion, or sexuality. The blackmail letter that went out had http://www.scribd.com/doc/7506721/Proposition-8-Blackmail-Letter has Mark Jansson’s, the Mormon representative on the Yes on 8 board’s signature on it.

    You are right this is far from over, and I wouldn’t be surprised if many Sundays go by without a well deserved protests in front of every Mormon meeting house in California until this vile Prop is overturned. I also fully expect every Mormon to whine and complain about how unfair it is for them to be called out for supporting hate. When one of you loses you civil rights to a popular vote, get’s your family torn apart in the ballot box, or has a loved one die or commit suicide because of rampant homophobia in our society, you’ll have my shoulder to cry on. Until then, man-up and take some responsibility

  • Jeff Spector

    Mike,

    “The irony of the Prop. 8 issue, to me, is that 120 years ago, the church leaders were insisting that the government has no right to specify how a marriage should be defined (in light of polygamy), but now the church is all for having the government specify the definition of marriage for others.”

    I guess I should have added that one as well.

    thanks

  • Bruce Nielson

    “The irony of the Prop. 8 issue, to me, is that 120 years ago, the church leaders were insisting that the government has no right to specify how a marriage should be defined (in light of polygamy), but now the church is all for having the government specify the definition of marriage for others.””

    Not true. Mormons never tried to take their private intimacy practices and attempt to require legal nor public recognition of them. The only thing Mormons back in the 19th century asked for was that they be allowed to determine their own actions in their private bedroom without government intrusion. And they asked for this on grounds of religious freedom, an actual right guaranteed explicitly in the constitution.

    The government’s response was not only open intrusion into their personal lives via the Edmunds act but — because the government couldn’t find juries or witnesses to get convictions — they change the rules of evidence and how juries were selected to illegally get the convictions they craved.

    For example, since you can’t get anyone to admit that so-and-so was married to multiple spouses, you change the rules of evidence to convict them if he visits a birthday party of a woman not legally his husband.

    The juries were stuffed by disenfranchisement of, first, polygamists, then all women (Utah was one of the only states where women could vote), and then attempts to disenfranchise all Mormons even if monogamous. In other words, they assured that their juries had no sympathies to their Mormon neighbors as much as possible because if they allowed these people to be considered citizens there was no chance of a jury of their peers ever convicting any of them.

    Oh, and by the way, adultery was rare if ever prosecuted at the time and was quite common even amongst the anti-polygamous crowd. And no adulters were ever disenfranchized. (i.e. this means can’t vote or serve on juries, etc.)

    For today’s situation in Calfornia to be comparable to the 19th century Mormon situation we’d have to see enforcement of laws against homosexual intimacy, actual throwing of people in jail for it, threats of legal violence if the two get together again, and changing of laws to catch “offenders” via changing the rules of evidence (for example, if you see one man visit another man’s house, that would be deemed sufficient evidence for a conviction of homosexuality), and a movement to remove homosexual’s right to vote or juries (plus a move to disenfranchise anyone that wants to allow homosexuals to just be left alone by the law) so that these laws stick.

    Mormons in the 19th century would have celebrated for a century if they had just been left alone to decide their own intimacy practices — as all homosexuals in all states can today — to say nothing of having partial or, like in California, full legal recognition for their civil unions.

    Right, wrong, or indifferent, these are not comparables — at all. This is just uninformed rhetoric that’s been repeated so many times that people have started to believe it.

  • http://loydo38.blogspot.com the narrator

    Another post that fails to mention the all too important facts that the Church established quotas for each stake to raise, strongly pressured members to donate and volunteer (sometimes under threats to release callings and suspend temple recommends), privately asked affluent members to donate specific dollar amounts, and implicitly accused those who opposed with apostasy. This resulted in Church members being the primary $ donors, tithing money spent on the Church’s own efforts (preservingmarriage.org), and Mormons making up at least 80% of the volunteer load.

    Include those facts and things start to seem a little different.

  • Jeff Spector

    “Another post that fails to mention the all too important facts that the Church established quotas for each stake to raise, strongly pressured members to donate and volunteer (sometimes under threats to release callings and suspend temple recommends), privately asked affluent members to donate specific dollar amounts, and implicitly accused those who opposed with apostasy.”

    Just more propaganda to attempt to make the church look bad in this situation. I am certain there is no real first hand proof to substantiate it. And I am sure that Church Leaders in SLC would not condone threats against members.

    sorry, not buying it.

  • CarlosJC

    #17

    I don’t buy it either.

    Come up with some proof and then we can talk. But up to now you are just not seeing the truth -blacks and hispanics made the difference as exit polling data proves.

  • Don

    I know for a fact that one Bishop was pressured to give $2500 by a Stake President. He also said that the pressure in the San Diego stake was enormous.

  • Imperfection

    The point about blacks and hispanics is a diversion. The furor is about the church providing funding and resources, not votes. If the church is not comfortable with criticism in the public sphere it should stay out of it. Until it chooses that path its temples and other buildings are legitimate targets of peaceful, legal protest.

  • http://www.signingforsomething.org/blog Andrew Callahan

    #16 Bruce Nielsen wrote: “Mormons never tried to take their private intimacy practices and attempt to require legal nor public recognition of them.”

    Seems to me that the Mormons of the 19th Century would have been better off to follow Prairie Chuck’s advice, and just not call these “private intimacy practices” MARRIAGES, because the Mormon “community . . . . . want[ed] the religious and societal approbation that comes with the word (and rite) MARRIAGE. And that is where the majority of the people draw the line.”

    So, it really seems like an identical issue to me.

    Further, I think James makes an excellent point when he cautions us that we will rue the day when one of our fundamental rights is taken away from us because the majority thinks we are wrong about something.

    This was clearly a case of tyranny of the majority.

    And, the entire proposition that Mormons didn’t act out of proportion, because they were only two percent of the population is again an intentional deception. The Mormons did act out of proportion by donating 40 to 70 percent of the money that funded the lies. And, clearly, although Mormons probably would have supported the issue generally anyway, they would never, ever, have donated and volunteered, etc. in the numbers they did without specific direction, and sometimes coercive pressure and thinly veiled threats from church leaders.

    I think that is why people are upset with us. I think they have a right to be. I also think that many members of the church who had been members in name only for a long time, will use this as their impetus for finally resigning from the church.

  • TetonMike

    Was Helen Mars Kimball in a “Traditional Marriage”?

    …and the LDS Corp has the audacity to try and tell other Americans what a marriage should look like?

    I don’t think so…soon enough a California court will come through with a ruling again respecting the idea of “with Liberty and Justice for ALL.”

    Get used to it.

    -Mike

  • CarlosJC

    #21, Imperfection

    “If the church is not comfortable with criticism in the public sphere..”

    That’s something the church has never claimed. With thousands of young missionaries out in the world its hard to see how anyone can say or think that we aren’t comfortable in the pubic sphere, under criticism or praise!

    And note (again) that the funding provided by members of the lds church plus people of other faiths didn’t surpass nor equal that raised by the gay folk, according to wikipedia (which could be wrong)

    Wiki states that “The campaigns for and against Proposition 8 raised $35.8 million and $37.6 million, respectively”, so if the church had not become involved the gay folk would have out funded and out advertised the anti-SSM people by a significant amount.

    #22, TetonMike

    Although Helen Kimball was young it was neither illegal nor uncommon for 14 year olds to marry back in the mid 1800′s with parental consent, which she obviously had. Also there is no indication that it was a physical union since Joseph only had children from Emma Smith and no one else.

    #20 Don,

    Anecdotal evidence, sure. But can I trust in a faceless person over the web?

  • Marx was a No on 8-er Too

    I’ve read much on this back and forth. The Pinochio-nose comment hits it right on the head. This is a war to define culture that will eventually deny parents the ability to educate their children in basic ways. All evidence of where gay marriage is law points to inroads on denying basic fundamental rights of speech, assembly, and religion, REAL TRUE DEFINFED RIGHTS. This is part of the Communist conspiracy to destroy families and religion. Read Marx, read the memo that in 1962 a congressman read on the floor of the House that was captured from a Soviet spy. It spells it all out there. They couldn’t win on the battlefield, so they were going to do it through the culture.

    This is the sifting going on, that will bring upon the world the calamaties foretold in scripture. We can watch and see history unfold.

  • Rigel Hawthorne

    Thanks Bruce for #16. I sighed when I saw another post on Prop 8, but reading your comments made it worth it.

  • Marx was a No on 8-er Too

    Hey Mike, you think that is inevitable? What if you’re wrong, man? Guess what’s happening in Europe, the precious bastion of social family engineering – no kids. So they import Muslims, and the Sharia law that goes along with it. What about the Latins and Blacks that voted YES on 8 as well, becoming more of a stable voting bloc – religiously conservative and replacing the guilty white liberal at a clip through reproduction alone. That is your undoing. There is no Star Trek universe waiting around the corner. The American dominance is over, China and Latin America will probably rise out of our ash heap. Geo-politics alone do not guarantee socio-liberal inevitability.

    I will fight for your right to assemble, worship, speak, and have free agency to the death. Our demographic replacements in the Middle East aren’t so forgiving. If you are on of the altruistic true believers in the equality on marriage and after that, let’s kumbaya and move on with our enlightened society, then you are naive. Look at the rhetoric in Sweden alone, before gay marriage, marriage was supposed to be something equal and on par for everyone, after marriage equality, the rhetoric turned to the outdated notion of marriage, the government abandoned it as an institution to raise citizens. Now, of course, birth rates are tumbling, 70% of the country doesn’t marry.

    All this fight is about is ACCEPTANCE – and if gay marriage won’t do it, then by golly we’ll indoctrinate the youth against the parents, fine churches for using the term sodomy, and take away tax-exempt status for those holding out the notion that its still a sin.

    You’ve been listening to the media way too long! Newsweek, TIME, CNN, NY Times, etc. all parrot the notion that gays can’t change, vilify those that do, and fail to provide any concrete evidence other than a couple of ambiguous studies. Such is also the case with global warming. Science funded by politically-motivated institutes and granting mechanisms that force science to write abstracts that will go in line with their agendas. Science is a suspect as politics, relgion, and business, but yet the social liberals all worship at the alter of the media like sheep. I don’t get it. Where is the critical mind? Yet I’m the one who’s being led astray by a prophet and scriptures that have no underlying motivation other than to make me a better person? Follow the money man!

    I’m sorry for the diatribe. I’ll alm down now, but I need to vent.

  • http://velska.wordpress.com/ Velska

    “They lied when they said gay marriage would be taught in schools. There are laws on the books that prevent that.”

    There was a law on the books that prevented gay marriage, too… Isn’t this about the push to repeal all the laws that would give married folks with children some shelter from gay propaganda? I am using borrowed rhetoric to underline the bigger chasm.

  • http://loydo38.blogspot.com the narrator

    #18, #19

    I’ve been watching this with my own eyes here in California for the past two months. Where are you observing it from?

    Following the October State-wide broadcast, Pres. Dow of my Laverne Stake proudly announced that our stake had exceeded the $64,000 quota that the Church in Sale Lake had given him.

    Robert Rees is one of many who have been released from their callings and had their temple recommends taken away.

    I have watched with my very own eyes Church leaders strongly pressuring members to donate money or volunteer. I have been strongly pressured to do so. My Stake President and others have claimed that those who do not help are ‘tares’ who ‘refuse to follow the prophet’ and ‘are rejected God’s will.’

    It is well known that LDSaints donated well more than half of the funds (and possibly as high as 80%). I have heard time and time again from friends in my ward and other friends and Church leaders throughout california that we are making up nearly all of the manpower.

    I have had close friends tell me that they were pulled aside and asked to donate $2000.

    #23 This is my face http://picasaweb.google.com/loydo38

  • CarlosJC

    Narrator,

    Well you are convincing. Who’s Robert Rees? But if all you say is true then the church members, fortunately, funded all the ads for the ‘Yes’ vote. Luckily so since (still) the ‘No’ side raised more money, so mormons made it more of an even playing field and a fairer election I’d say.

    But I wonder what those numbers are for Arkansas or Arizona. And if people who blog here, like Hwkgrrl (AZ) and Jeff or even Ray were ‘pressured’ into giving thousands?

    (There are some good photos on that ‘public’ album but the ‘bobby speedo’? dude, please..)

  • Jeff Spector

    Narrator,

    I should clarify my unbelief in your statements. First, I do believe that the Stakes had quotas for amounts they were ASKED to raise. when Prop 22 was on the ballot, we had a similar thing in our Stake in NoCal. We were asked to donate. Some did, some did not. I never saw an retribution for those who did not. And I was in a position to know. There is an interpretation to the word “strongly.” Some folks feel pressure when someone looks at them, let alone asks them to do something. So, that is possible that some felt strong pressure. On the other hand, some can resist, no matter how it is asked. I am also sure the pressure was strong. the church felt very strongly about the matter and that was communicated to the Stakes. but, we all still have our agency.

    “Robert Rees is one of many who have been released from their callings and had their temple recommends taken away.”

    I know a Robert Rees in SoCal and would be interested in talking to this guy to see if it is the same person. Feel free to have him email me at jspector106@yahoo.com. I’d be interested in the circumstances. People are released from callings all the time.

    BTW, to answer Carlos’ question, here in Colorado, we were not asked to donate and it was never mentioned to my recollection except in a few lesson situations where I think I may have brought it up myself since many of our ward members used to live in California.

  • John Nilsson

    Marx,

    For someone who is so anti-science, I applaud your ability to turn on a computer and find your way onto the Internet. Bravo!

  • John Nilsson

    As regards those pressing for proof here, remember that you, to be consistent, are accepting the testimony of a man you never met, who relates a story of entering a grove of trees and seeing heavenly beings with a message for him. If you accept his story, on the principle of testimony you ought to accept much simpler stories which jive with common sense being reported to you here (the Church organized volunteers and fund-raising and admits it, those opposing these measures were pressured in subtle and not so subtle ways).

  • Hawkgrrrl

    CarlosJC #30 – I received no pressure regarding Prop 8, which I frankly never heard mentioned even once at church. AZ had its own ballot initiative, Prop 102. There was a Sunday combined RS/PH on it, which we missed due to travel. But I received no pressure with regard to donating time and/or money to this initiative. I can’t say whether that’s typical, but it was my experience.

  • Hawkgrrrl

    Just to clarify – I think Jeff Spector has a point, but I also believe what Narrator is saying. There are certainly some places where local leadership is very zealous and largely unchecked. And while Jeff Spector credits those with an ability to withstand pressure as having confidence in their own moral certitude, in my case at least it’s probably more related to my own obliviousness which has served me well.

  • Russell

    Here’s the grandest quirk of all for me…homosexual partners woke up on Nov. 5th with all the rights they had on Nov. 4th. This battle has literally been over the naming of things. Life will continue on for homosexuals precisely as it has. Domestic partnerships (which, according to the Cali. Family Code, are identical to marriage in terms of enjoyed rights) still carry equal degrees of legal clout.

    In this way, both Mormons and non-Mormons alike have utterly deluded themselves on what the issues of this question are. They’ve expanded a very small semantic issue into a battle royale of the kulturkampf. While I would have voted for Proposition 8, I would have voted for its sociocultural cultural, not its legal enforceability.

    It’s painful indeed to see people throw punches over a jot and tittle.

  • Bruce Nielson

    #26: Rigel, thank you for acknowledging the existence of my post. I really appreciate it.

    #22: “Seems to me that the Mormons of the 19th Century would have been better off to follow Prairie Chuck’s advice, and just not call these “private intimacy practices” MARRIAGES, because the Mormon “community . . . . . want[ed] the religious and societal approbation that comes with the word (and rite) MARRIAGE. And that is where the majority of the people draw the line.”

    Andrew, if you don’t see the difference between the current situation today and a 19th century group of people who were not trying to force legal recognition of their unions on everyone but privately called their unions “marriage” while hiding it in public to avoid presecution — even going so far as to publicly call it adultery in some cases in hopes of obtaining the same legal protections adulters were afforded — then I’m just not sure what to say next because facts clearly don’t matter to you so long as you get the political end you are after. Guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.

  • Russell

    Bruce,

    Would you mind providing some references to how LDS called it adultery? I’m not challenging you, but this line of argument has always been interesting to me. I would like to learn more about it.

    Is it in Daynes? Barringer-Gordon?

  • Bruce Nielson

    #38 – Kathleen Flake. Interestingly, near the end, monogamous Mormons were often intolerant of polygamous Mormons and the child of a polygamist might be called a certain word beginning with a B that means illegitimate child. So even amongst believing Mormons there was inconsistency on how this was viewed. The Church was thrown into a serious state of anomie by the US Government’s immoral and retroactive legal strategy. (Retroactive laws would be like seeing someone walking a dog and then passing a law against walking dogs and then arresting the guy who did it before it was illegal.)

    Of course my point was that adulters were afforded protections of not being disenfranchised, thrown in jain, etc. So a claim to being just an adulter was an attempted way around the illegal polygamy laws. But, of course, this didn’t work because the rules of evidence had been changed, but were only applied to Mormons and no one else.

  • Jeff Spector

    #36 Russell,

    The issue as I have seen it is not about whether Gays have the rights to a domestic partnership. They do with all the rights of a married couple. The issue is around whether there will be a requirement to teach the Gay lifestyle as a normal relationship in schools and whether Churches have to recognize the right of Gay couples to marry in the church, the same as hetero couples. That is part of the “slippery slope” theory. It has bore out to be true in Mass and California, so there is a precedent for that issue.

    I, like others, would accept a civil union of ALL couples that is recognized by the state and a Marriage ceremony performed and recognized by Religious organizations. The only problem then is what is taught in schools.

  • ben

    Its interesting to see the Monson crew so quickly derail the years of work by GB Hinckley. I don’t believe Hinckley would have ever been so aggressive, but that is merely speculation. He seemed much more subtle and considerate…

  • http://mormonmatters.org Nick Literski

    I really have trouble with these “slippery slope” arguments, Jeff. You may be aware that the U.S. Supreme Court, in deciding U.S. v. Reynolds, played this game, reasoning that if the LDS were allowed to practice their religion, then at some future time, the government would have to allow another church to practice (involuntary?) human sacrifice, according to their religion. Such an idea, of course, is ludicrous in the extreme, and was only used to excuse a political decision which the court had already reached, based on the perceived “will of the majority.”

    I don’t believe it’s the place of secular elementary or secondary schools to teach that any particular relationship form is “normal” or “abnormal.” But then, I’m one of those crazy liberals who resents the U.S. government’s immoral act of restricting Mormons from practicing plural (what was then called “celestial”) marriage.

    As for any right to be married in a particular church, it would be an absolute disgrace for any unit of government to require, for example, that the LDS church conduct a same-sex wedding in one of its temples, by the authority of its priesthood. Yes, you can quote me, the gay man, in saying that. If such a thing ever happened, I would expect LDS to take to the streets in protest AT LEAST as big as any Prop 8 protests now happening, and you know what? I’d likely walk WITH them on that one.

  • Annon.

    Who’s Robert Rees?

    The rees case is real. Former Bishop in Santa Monica, worked for UCLA. As I understand it he wrote something mildly critical of the Church’s position that ended up getting published. His TR was taken away, he was released from his calling, and he can not speak at church. They dropped the hammer on him. Also, The guy who started the signing for something website is about to get exed. Looking at comments at various blogs people are reporting having there TR taken away or being released from callings, for not supporting prop 8. THere appears to be a wide range of local responses to members who do not support prop 8.

  • Russell Stevenson

    Jeff:

    Actually, I agree that education is really the primary beef here…esp. given that Massachusetts has proven that the slippery slope is not a vain fear. I was pointing out that I found it odd that homosexual activists make themselves out to be the oppressed when they can’t point to a single right they lacked according to the domestic partnerships statutes.

    That said, the education code might still be amended to allow for the teaching of domestic partnerships. To me, Prop. 8 was first and foremost a cultural statement…not a legal one. It might prove to be the basis for legal action in the distant future, but for now, it’s simply a statement of the gold standard, as it were.

  • Ricercar

    With respect to the education issues, I wonder what people would like the education system to teach: The world as it exists (with same-sex couples in it) or the world as they would like to see it (without same-sex attraction)? I puzzle how the definition of marriage will play a role in all this. When I grew up in a town nicknamed “Little Rome” because of the dominance of the Catholic Church we had those ‘Life skills’ classes where we were taught how to make important decisions in life. Same-sex attraction was discussed, but that didn’t stop us from being crazy about the opposite sex or stop us from being homophobes. This was long before the recognition of same-sex marriage in Canada. When I go back home I am surprised that nothing has changed for the kids there. It must be a sticky spot on the slippery slope.

    I want my kids to handle the problems in the world by facing it head on and knowing what they face. I don’t know much, but I want them to know everything that I know about the world and then learn more. School is a good place to learn.

    Ignorance is bliss only until one is faced with their inability to cope with alternative points of view.

  • CarlosJC

    John Nilsson #33,

    “As regards those pressing for proof here, remember that you, to be consistent, are accepting the testimony of a man you never met, who relates a story of entering a grove of trees and seeing heavenly beings with a message for him. If you accept his story, on the principle of testimony you ought to accept much simpler stories which jive with common sense being reported to you here (the Church organized”

    Not quite! There’s an external, third person, phenomenon called the Holy Ghost, who moves one spiritually and then, after this, we say that we know the Joseph Smith story, and the other stories, to be true because its God saying that its true. In that sense we believe the Spirits’ words and confirmation, or that Spiritual phenomena for lack of a better word, more than the story from a man we never met etc

    These stories of retribution don’t carry that accompanying spiritual confirmation at first, they actually bring up feelings of doubt, until I see the explanation given here in #43 Anon. Then one says ‘Yes, that could be the case, if he went out publicly against the first presidency and in so doing publicly embarrassed the top echelon.

    Hawkgrrrl #34/35,

    Makes sense. I imagine that most wards and stakes where there were SSM props (I count FL, AK, AZ and CA) would have done almost the same, asking members to help out if they can, with the odd over zealous bishop/SP going too far. Maybe CA had the added pressure of been up against the Hollywood/San Fransisco gay-supporters cash, so the ‘Yes’ vote needed more help than usual.

    Nick Literski #42,

    I can go with that too, except the protesting bit at the end. If you lose you lose and you just move on.

    Now I think that’s twice so far in MM that I’ve agreed with you? Amazing! Maybe we can end up been friends after all!

  • Imperfection

    #41 I think Monson does not believe there is a future for the church in mainstream america the way Hinckley did, and he is probably correct. Monson also knows that the gay marriage war is a lost cause. Prop 8 appears to be an effort to steer the ship to the right, and signal to the right that they are coming. From the church’s perspective it really did not matter if 8 passed or not. This is about conservative cred.

  • Annon.

    “Then one says ‘Yes, that could be the case, if he went out publicly against the first presidency and in so doing publicly embarrassed the top echelon.”

    Read what the man wrote before you draw such conclusions:

    http://mormon-chronicles.blogspot.com/2008/07/robert-rees-church-should-let-people.html

    I find his editorial to be very mild, to think that some AA took away his TR for this is pretty amazing.

  • desert rat

    Maybe the campaign was about sending a message. It was great PR to demonstrate that we’re pro-family. A tempest in a teapot. I mean, civil marriages are a good thing and all, but they are not Temple marriages. I don’t think anyone was worried about Temples being forced to perform gay marriages. After all, how would they get a recommend?

  • http://mormonmatters.org Nick Literski

    I don’t think it was so much “conservative cred,” as it was “christian” cred. From the time Monson entered the first presidency as a counselor, he has engaged in strong efforts at ecumenicalism. This Prop 8 campaign was a chance to jump on to the evangellcal “christian” bandwagon, and prove to them that LDS were “christians,” just like them. The trouble is that evangelicals will continue to show their anti-LDS films to their congregants, and continue to fight against the LDS as a “non-christian cult.” Monson’s desparation to be accepted by evangelicals appears to have blinded him to the fact that as with any venemous serpent, taking evangelicals to the LDS breast will only result in poisonous bites.

  • Sara

    Thank you for supporting prop 8.

    It is a Godsend to our movement. You have let the tiger out of its cage. The eyes of the world are now upon us, and no single event in history has so advanced the cause of Gay Rights in America. No – not just America: the World.

    Change has come. This is our time.

    Yay!

  • Sara

    …actually, thank you whether you supported it or not.

    Either way,
    xoxo

  • CarlosJC

    Anon $48,

    Ah! Say what?

    I followed that link and read it all, and after reading it all I now fully agree with his TR been taken away. And he wrote this in the Sltrib!

    When one publishes things like this:

    “What seemed most objectionable to some members in 2002, and what some find so in the recent letter, is not the encouragement to be politically engaged in important issues, but rather the suggestion that they should vote in a particular way.”

    Well that’s the best way to get the church GA’s to start emailing local leaders to ‘take care of the situation’.

  • John Nilsson

    Carlos,

    Your epistemology is flawed. You now have corroboration that members have been punished for expressing their political opinions.

    You claim “These stories of retribution don’t carry that accompanying spiritual confirmation at first, they actually bring up feelings of doubt, until I see the explanation given here in #43 Anon”.

    I submit that your interpreting the stories of retribution as a negatively charged emotional event which puts the Church in a bad light is a normal reaction for one who thinks highly of Church leaders.

    Here we see the difficulty of relying on positive warm feelings as a substitute for truth. In your view of truth, one should have had warm, positive feelings about a situation which was negative. This can only happen in an emotionally damaged psyche. Hence, anything which reflects negatively on the church cannot be true because one did not have warm, positive feelings when thinking about it.

    You seem to accept the objective reality of the Robert Rees case now. Why did you not have warm, positive feelings when you thought about the claims posters have been making about church harassment and intimidation?

  • Annon.

    Carlos #53

    It is amazing to me that you think someone should have their TR taken away for saying that! Lets be clear in my ward and others stake leaders said we had to vote yes on prop. 8. Even people in my ward who were for prop 8 found this a disturbing development. What situation do you think GA’s see in a comment like that, that would need taking care of?

  • CarlosJC

    John Nillsson #54; Anon #55

    “Here we see the difficulty of relying on positive warm feelings as a substitute for truth”

    Actually there is a lot more to it that just ‘warm feelings’. But you seem not to want to find it.

    Once again, if what is written about Robert Rees is all true, that is, what he wrote in Sltrib and his stance which is directly and publicly against the first presidency, then I’d expect him to at very least lose his TR, since one of the conditions to obtain it is that we adjudge ourselves as supporters of the brethren. Clearly he doesn’t support them here and says so publicly and therefore has broken one of the conditions to hold a recommend. Now many people break these conditions regularly by not paying tithing and so on, but its only when it becomes public that the moral police step in. Moral police being an AA or Bishop etc.

  • CarlosJC

    What happened to the link I put up yesterday? Admin?

    It was on that memo they leaked showing that Hinckley was campaigning against SSM back in ’97.

    I added the comment that if it is true then all you guys who want the church to change its view on SSM have a very long way to go to see that change, unless the prophet says he received a revelation on it. But now they seem to be against it and they seem to deliberately want members know what they think on this issue, choosing the more public battles to get the message out there.

  • CarlosJC

    The original report is on:

    http://www.abc4.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?articleID=88757

    Personal Message:
    link on leaked memo report

  • CarlosJC

    Or embedded:

    DayPortPlayer.newPlayer({articleID:”88757″,bannerAdConDefID:”15″,videoAdObjectID:”14″,videoAdConDefID:”6″,playVideoAds:”true”,autoPlay:”true”,accPos:”CCTVI.VIDEO.LOCAL”,accSite:”KTVX”,rootCategory:”0″,playerInstanceID:”27574A89-06D1-CD92-4444-22719C5099EC”,domain:”video.ktvx.com”});

  • Annon.

    Carlos,

    Rees’ editorial is not a statement that he does not support the brethren. The statement you quote is a statement of what some members find “objectionable.” That is a far cry from saying or implying that he does not support them as leaders. Your view is authoritarian in the very worst sense.

  • CarlosJC

    My last comment on this issue, which is getting boring now:

    While one can be concerned about being told how to vote, the main issue is a different one. It’s about love and full and complete happiness.

    One of hhe Prophets and apostles main job here is to tell us all how to reach that full love and complete happiness level. And they say that it is achieved by, and only, by reaching the highest level in the celestial kingdom, the level of exaltation. According to what was revealed to Joseph Smith, to reach that level one needs to be marriage to the opposite sex not the same sex. If you are in SSM they teach that you can’t reach that level under any possible variation, so therefore they need to oppose SSM to stand up for so called ‘traditional’ marriage, which at least is on the correct road to exaltation whereas same sex marriage is not.

    This is why they will always say that they stand for traditional marriage and by default against SSM. “

  • John Nilsson

    Carlos,

    Empirical evidence has shown, and church leaders now accept, that happiness will not accrue to a gay person who marries someone of the opposite sex. Misery, infidelity, and divorce usually do, on the other hand. Sexual orientation is largely determined by the roll of the genetic dice.

    So why don’t you accept what your church leaders do about the nature of “same sex attraction”?

  • Nate

    The reason people are lashing out at the mormon’s is because you went out of your way and spent so much money to make sure gays wouldn’t have the same rights that everyone else enjoy. This is funny to me coming from a church that for so many years practiced polygamy as the way into heaven. A religion based on some guy that looked into a hat with a rock in it to translate “golden tablets” from upstate New York. You all should be in straight jackets. I hope god forgives you for your hatred and intolerance. Keep casting those stones Mormons.

  • Douglas HUnter

    Nate,

    There were Mormons who gave time, resources and money to the Equality for All work against prop 8. There were also a good number of Mormons who did not take action to help prop 8 pass. I had many discussions with Mormons who were conflicted about prop 8, who thought that the Church’s involvement was wrong, etc. Some us also have tremendous respect and love for our gay family members, friends, coworkers, community leaders, etc and would never do anything to harm them or support a legal structure based on the idea of separate but equal.

  • Nate

    I have no stomach for religions that teach prejudice and intolerance. This is not what God intended. It is what humans have warped his message into for their own selfish desires. I was raised a Catholic and I want nothing to do with that religion either because they are some of the worst offenders. Islam is another prime example of a religion that preaches intolerance and look where they are today. God is for peace, love, and understanding. Trying to use God for anything other than that leads you on a twisted path to hell, no matter what your religous “leaders” tell you.

  • Victor E

    Nate,

    Since homosexuals have no chance of producing biological offspring with physical abnormalities, whould you also be in favor of supporting homosexual incestual marriages? Would you dare deny two brothers their civil rights to marry one another? Would you be so bigoted, hateful and intolerant of gay brothers that felt like their true love was each other that you wouldn’t want them to be married? Where should we draw the line regarding marriage? Wherever you chose to draw it, you will surely exclude someone, and you will be N8 the H8er, just like all other people supporting prop 8.

  • Mark N.

    One of hhe Prophets and apostles main job here is to tell us all how to reach that full love and complete happiness level. And they say that it is achieved by, and only, by reaching the highest level in the celestial kingdom… If you are in SSM they teach that you can’t reach that level under any possible variation…

    OK, now tell me what magic words I should say to your average non-member, possibly-non-Christian, gay person, so that they will suddenly be converted to the Church’s view of the doctrine of marriage and have a real understanding as to why, in their viewpoint, this justifies me in taking away rights that the Supreme Court of California has declared that they posess?

    You’re preaching to the choir. Now try preaching to the gays.

  • http://www.xanga.com/n8ma N8Ma

    Anyone else read the play “A Man for All Seasons?”

    I live in New York, and work at a very liberal liberal arts college. Fortunately we’ve dodged the bullet with SSM here, and there was no letter read in our meetings telling us to give money, vote, etc. (contrary to Dan Savage’s statements on Anderson Cooper). I would probably have voted Yes on Prop 8, for the reasons articulated above (gays already have the same rights, legally, in CA, but that’s not good enough, need to enact social engineering to make sure that, culturally, no one is allowed to think homosexuality is a “sin”). But that would have been a difficult decision for me to make, in part because of the large number of gay and lesbian co-workers, bosses (including the Dean of the College), and genuine friends. But I would have done so with a bad taste in my mouth, wondering if there weren’t some other compromise, some other way, to resolve our differences.

    But then I’ve read about the angry protests. And I recall the reaction of the students here in 2004 when Kerry lost (“f-ing Jesus freaks!” “stupid flyover country” “hillbillies, one and all!!!”) and the angry protest that followed the next day. What were these students protesting? The right of people in OH and FL to vote as they wish? I’m a lifelong democrat and I voted for Kerry, but I couldn’t figure out the whole rage thing.

    I’m someone who could have been persuaded to vote against something like Prop 8. I’m extremely liberal on economic and social policies, and moderate on social ones. But the vitriol, the graffiti, the interruption of temple services, the mobocracy, that just really turns me off. What would Barry do? How would President Obama deal with a setback like this? And if the proposition had failed, would it then have been appropriate for Mormons to picket gay marriages, changing the “go back to Utah” signs to “go back to Sodom”? The God Hates You signs, is that really the way to accomplish what you want politically?

    Mormons are not bomb-throwers, rhetorically or literally. We don’t stalk abortion doctors. We don’t defend gay-bashing (rhetorical or literal). But now we’re just total haters, all because the other side didn’t reach out to enough blacks and latinos.

    So again, my original point–I feel like Thomas More. It’s not enough that I keep to myself, and, while refusing to go along with what’s happening in my country, society, culture, don’t actively work to defeat the plans of Henry VIII. But that’s not enough. Henry MUST have my public allegiance. I must give in. I must say it’s not a sin, it’s OK to teach about Kings marrying Kings, there is zero difference between straight and gay, it’s just like PC or Mac, Coke or Pepsi. It’s OK to live in a future where someone can have a husband for a few years, get divorced, then have a wife, then another wife, then why not another husband. And I’m not allowed to vote any other way in the privacy of my ballot box. Otherwise, I must suffer the fate not of Thomas More but of Scott Eckern, who was just forced to resign his post as a musical theater director because of his donation to support Prop 8.

    OK gay people, you don’t want to know what Jesus would do. But what would Barack do? How would he handle this? Shouting and cursing at Mormons?

  • Jeff Spector

    OK, I am shutting this down because, as usual, we are way off topic.

    Thanks to those who responded to what I actually posted.