Here it is folks, the place to tell us what you think. Speak up here about anything related to Mormon involvement in Proposition 8.
If you have the need to tell us why you donated and why you think everyone should vote for Prop 8, this is the place.
If you have the need to tell us why donating to Prop 8 is the worst thing anyone could do in this election, this is the place.
If you have a need to tell us we are not a neutral site and why, this is the place.
There are only a few rules:
1 - No profanity.
2 - No personal attacks on other commenters.
3 - Consider what your words would sound like if you were to speak them aloud or say them in person to your audience. What you write here will live on in electronic “print” far after the election is over and people reading what you say here, and once they’ve entered cyberspace you won’t be able to take them back.
385 comments ↓
I’m agnostic on the issue of Prop 8, but as far as this site is concerned, I’d say it just got even better.
Having spent the first 18 years of my life in Utah and now living in California for the past decade, I AM DISGUSTED BY THIS SITE AND WHAT IT REPRESENTS. I do not care what people do with their personal spirituality. Many of the people I love most dearly believe in the LDS doctrine. I’ve recognized that Utahn politics are a gross representation of Mormon philosophy because they are the (financial) majority of the state. But now they are insidiously pushing an agenda in California as well - where they are only 2% of the population? They are taking advantage of their sociopolitical position as one of the RICHEST, WHITEST and least (openly) gay groups in the country. Do they feel they are representing California, a state where poor, brown, gay and open-minded people come in an effort to flee the bigoted middle-america megachurch political agenda? Aren’t Mormons Republican? Don’t they support individual state’s rights? To the California Mormons who are afraid of their gay neighbors getting married I say, as I heard so often after complaining about the Church’s blatent involvement in Utah politics, “if you don’t like it here, get out!”
This is a neutral, informative site.
It is sad to me that a church that has undergone such a history of persecution is actively fighting to deny others of the right to live a life of their choosing *whether or not* there is scientific evidence of it being a “choice”.
I find it particularly ironic that this organized financial push is coming from a group who in the past fought to define marriage in a way that was not approved of by mainstream society.
I hope that there are members of the church that take offense to being asked to support a proposition that denies others of their right to choose their own path. I also hope that those members are strong enough to stand up and speak to their brothers and sisters about it.
In a society that has so much strife, I think that any formal union in love can only make this country/state a better place.
Wow. Not one individual has posted anything here that shows any understanding of the issue at hand with Prop 8. So, allow me to answer the comments that are already on this page.
Equality is not a true issue here. Equality and civil rights have been used as political tools by homosexual activists to gain political clout by asserting that gays are “born that way.” However, ALL scientific evidence says gays are NOT born gay. In the case of gay marriage, they are attempting to assert special rights for themselves with this argument. Currently, they have the same rights as everyone else: to marry one person of the opposite sex. Homosexuality is a CHOICE and, as such, society has no obligation to adjust laws for every lifestyle choice that arises, particularly when social scientists have LONG held that children need both a father and a mother in order to develop healthy, normal, well-adjusted lives.
The separation of church and state is yet another bogus argument. While the constitution does mention such a term, it is intended to keep any ONE religion from legislating and/or otherwise controlling government. “Separation of Church and State” does NOT mean that individual citizens can’t vote according to their religious beliefs.
Freedom of choice is still allowed for gays; they still have the freedom to be gay, and to have relationships. That choice will not be removed from them. However, the FORCED recognition of gay marriages upon society as being equal to heterosexual unions takes away the freedom of hundreds of millions MORE people, especially as it begins to be taught in public schools. Marriage was federally recognized to support the one union that has been proven by time and experience to most benefit humanity and promote the continuance of our society, and that is TRADITIONAL HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE!
Intolerance is a misused term. The issue of tolerance is summed up quite nicely by Evergreen International’s chairman Larry Richman:
“Those who favor homosexual marriage contend that ‘tolerance’ demands that they be given the same right to marry as heterosexual couples. But this appeal for ‘tolerance’ has a very different meaning and outcome than that word has meant throughout most of American history and a different meaning than is found in the gospel of Jesus Christ,” he said.
“Tolerance as a gospel principle means love and forgiveness of one another. In today’s secular world, the idea of tolerance has come to mean condoning or accepting something - even if it is contrary to your values or beliefs.”
To say that political activism in these types of issues is beginning to turn people away from churches only goes to show that churches today are more interested in incorporating the world into the church than bringing the church to the world. We don’t embrace sins just so sinners will come to church; we teach people how to overcome their sins, and then they stay because they have become closer to Christ.
The polygamy issue is interesting, because it is actually the case wherein the U.S. Supreme Court stated that:
“[C]ertainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth . . . than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of 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 guarantee of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.” (Murphy v. Ramsey, Page 114 U. S. 45)
While it might seem hypocritical to say that we should now define marriage as “one man and one woman,” it must be noted that the church has ALWAYS stated that marriage should be one man, one woman, even during polygamy days, because such relationships are only ever to be entered into under direct commandment from God. Very small numbers of the early Mormons practiced polygamy for this reason; it was never allowed for just anyone. Historically, and Biblically, it has been generally allowed for Prophets only, but always under special direction. This is analogous to the general commandment to all the world not to kill, which God made special exceptions for at certain times throughout the Bible. The people did not make these special exceptions; God did. When the people took it upon themselves, they were punished by God.
If you consider yourself a Mormon, there is only one way to vote on this issue: YES on Prop 8! The prophet has made that perfectly clear. It is only your *degree* of support that is a matter of conscience here. This issue has only two options: support the prophet or don’t. You can no longer sit on the fence.
For more information about these and other issues, go to prop8voterinfo[dot]blogspot[dot]com.
A little expose’ is also in order. There is a group of individuals who are seeking to undermine the pro-Prop 8 initiative by stirring up agitation between Mormons and Evangelicals. One message above attests to that.
Caveat Emptor.
Kearny’s arguments above are bogus:
1. Even Dallin Oaks recognizes the biological component of homosexuality. So, “born that way” seems to be Mormon Doctrine. I’ll take Oaks word over Kearny’s.
2. “Social scientists have LONG held that children need both a father and a mother in order to develop healthy, normal, well-adjusted lives.” Not true: Stanford University did a study in the mid-90s showing that adults who grew up in same-sex parent homes were equally well adjusted as those who grew up in traditional homes. The largest differences were whether there were 2 parents and whether the family ate meals together.
3. “Tolerance as a gospel principle means love and forgiveness of one another.” That’s as bad a definition of tolerance as I’ve ever heard. Effectively it means: You are wrong, but if you change, I’ll forgive you. Jesus didn’t teach that. A better definition is: If it doesn’t hurt people, then let it be. Spare me the follow up about how someone’s soul is endangered…I’ll leave that judgment to God.
4. We don’t embrace sins just so sinners will come to church; we teach people how to overcome their sins, and then they stay because they have become closer to Christ. — Pull that beam out of your eye, before you go looking for a mote.
5. If you consider yourself a Mormon, there is only one way to vote on this issue: YES on Prop 8! The prophet has made that perfectly clear. It is only your *degree* of support that is a matter of conscience here. This issue has only two options: support the prophet or don’t. You can no longer sit on the fence. —This is exactly the point. It isn’t really about gay marriage at all, it is about supporting the prophet…and thereby promoting yourself to get an invitation to God’s table after you die. So, by denying marriage, you get a ticket to heaven, regardless of the pain and suffering it causes here on earth. Jesus didn’t teach that.
For most Mormons, to question the prophet is to question one’s self and the foundation of one’s life. Still…it MUST be done. YOU are individually responsible for your own actions, behaviors and votes. Would you go push someone off a bridge if the prophet told you to? If so, donate and support. If not, then think through the carnage this campaign is causing in the lives of your fellow citizens. Its much much worse than pushing someone off a bridge.
How many of the planned one million ‘Yes on 8′ yard signs actually got planted this morning at 7:00 am.?
Any sightings?
My father, who is not Mormon now religious in any way, is a psychilogist of great renown in Southern California. He has practiced for decades, and he says that thing that he has noticed about gay males in his practice (and he has had 50-75 of them, he says) is that they all come from families where the mother wears the pants, is the winner in most disagreements, makes the important decisions. In thse families, the father is often detached, a loser of arguments, etc.
He said he has come to the conclusion that homosexuality, at least in males, is the result of poor fathering. He says that male children, even at a very young age, try to mimic the dominant parent. If it’s the mother, they try to become like the mother, and it causes huge sexual identity problems. He has also concluded that while he doesn’t think these males are born gay, he thinks it can start to develop at an early age. It can be reversed when children are young if both mother and father are involved and make some changes in their own relationship. He has seen it happen several times, but by the time the kids are 12 yares old, it’s usually too late.
Gosh, now that you mention it, I didn’t see one on my way to work, through my neighborhood. I’ll have to be sure to watch for them.
Also, I think most of the churches are worried about their ability to marry people and have the marriages they perform recognized by the state, as they now are. If gay marriage remains legal, what’s to stop gay couples from suing the churches that won’t perform marriages on their behalf? The state could easily decide not to recognize any marriages performed by the churches because they “discriminate”.
I have not seen a single sign. I drive past a couple of prominent empty lots where there are lots of political signs, but nary a “Yes on 8″ sign…mostly local city council, school board etc. signs
Its sad to me that people cannot privately donate to a cause, no matter which side they are on. If you want to show a mass percentage in mormon donations that is one thing; but are names and cities really necessary??
Having been baptized mormon as a child and having grown up mormon I had always believed that the doctrine of the LDS religion was “good for you”. The rules were there because gambling, alcohol, drugs, etc. were bad for a psyche and physically damaging to a body. I am ill just knowing that I was a part of this type of sexist, judgemental, finger-pointing political cult type of organization. I am a straight woman living in Colorado and will never, ever judge another man or woman in such a vile way. I may marry, and NOONE should be able to decide how I can be happy in a constitution such as marriage but myself.
Its not aout money. Which side has more money does not determine how the election will turn out. People will vote how they feel. Quit blaming the mormons and Vote how you feel you should vote.
Its not about which side has more money or not. This does not determine how the election will turn out. People will vote how they feel. Quit blaming the mormons and Vote how you feel you should vote.
Tim #11 -
Everyone who donated to ProtectMarriage was informed that donations totaling $100 or more would be public information. They were also informed that their donations were not tax deductible. Furthermore, they were informed that donations over $10,000 in a year have special Federal reporting requirements.
If you have questions about the reporting requirements, check the Blogroll for links to the California Secretary of State’s website.
#9 Sirius wrote:
“If gay marriage remains legal, what’s to stop gay couples from suing the churches that won’t perform marriages on their behalf?”
Has it happened yet in Massachusetts? No.
I see this line of argument as a transparent effort to frighten voters. It is as if you have no familiarity at all with the CA Supreme Court decision. Here’s a quote from the decision itself. Note, there is specific language in the decision that addresses your concern.
In re: Marriage Cases.
“Finally, affording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no
religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 4.)72″
Sometimes I wonder if people who continue to offer this argument are being deliberately dishonest, or are they simply repeating what someone in authority has told them?
For me, the issue really isn’t whether or not homosexuality is wrong. I’m not arrogant enough to believe that I have all the answers. I don’t like ANY religious organizations interfering with ANY political organizations. I believe that when I die I will stand before my creator and be judged for what I do. If I keep this in mind I find that I start minding my own business.
I live in SLC, UT and although no mormons actually live in the city anymore I’ll give the mormon opinion on the topic:
” We do not believe it just to amingle 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.”Doctrines & Conenants 134:9
Now if this really is the word of God, I think the church should back off on Proposas 8 and take care of their own backyard.
I do agree that homosexuality is more affliction than genetic. I don’t yet really have a strong opinion either way on same-sex marriage, but all the gay men that I know all had bad or uninterested fathers growing up. It’s almost common knowledge that homosexuality is the result of bad parenting on the part of the father. The two things go hand in hand. You can’t blame them for their sexuality.
Ken C:
Your post doesn’t cover the main question the other poster had. The notion that gay marriages would have to be performed by churches is irrelevant. The real question is whether pressure can be exerted to force the state not to recognize marriages by a church that discriminates against gays. A church wouldn’t be forced to perform gay marriages, but the state could decide not to recognize marriages by an organization that discriminates. A gay friend of mine says that is definitely the next step for the gay community once they come out on top in this election - to put together a movement to get the state to stop recognizing marriages performed by a discriminating organization.
George:
That’s a lie and you know it. I talked to someone from the Human Rights Campaign about this and we had a good laugh. She told me to tell you that the only “gay agenda” is to have equal rights and protections under the law. The same laws that would protect gay marriage would also protect yours. Truly, no one really gives a crap about the Mormon-invented celestial marriage or polygamy in heaven except Mormons. The LGBT community has better things to do with their time than dictate your rights and freedoms. Have whatever marriages you like, but leave other marriages alone.
“… to put together a movement to get the state to stop recognizing marriages performed by a discriminating organization.”
And this is not a bad thing. I think marriage should be a strictly CIVIL institution. After you get married by the state, then you can have the marriage solemnized in your church. This is how it should be - rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and all that…
George and Sirius, the argument that allowing gay marriage will then prohibit churches that do not perform gay marriages from performing any valid marriages is really quite fallacious. The issue at hand is whether or not to allow gay marriages. It might be true that gay advocates may try to challenge churches on their gay marriage stances after proposition 8 fails. That is an entirely different issue. It certainly isn’t the case that if the gays and their supporters defeat prop 8 that Mormons will necessarily be prohibited from performing valid marriages.
I am very much against proposition 8, in favor of equal marriage. However, if the issue that you try to distract us with were raised, then I would be adamantly against it.
George and Sirius,
I agree with the points made above. Also, the LDS religion currently does discriminate (and has in the past) as regards to who it will and will not marry. And yet it does not face a barrage of discrimination lawsuits. Why? Because in the US we have very strong protections having to do with the practice of one’s religion. In this country Muslims may marry, Jehovah’s Witnesses may marry, Atheists may marry, etc. and yet the LDS Church is not required to perform marriages for members of any of these groups in their Temples. And no serious person would suggest that they should. And, of course, no one is suggesting that the US government should stop recognizing LDS Temple marriages, or the marriages performed by LDS Bishops because of their current discrimination. Again, this is an absurd notion and no serious person would.
I’m a bit suspicious about the neutrality of this website because it seems a comment I posted under another post got lost. I’ve re posted there so we’ll see.
Also, the very need to single out mormons seems unnatural and leads me to believe this is as unbiased as fox news.
I think the anti-mormon-conspiracy sentiment of some of the posters is comical. As if this is a mormon only thing:
http://www.cacatholic.org/news/catholic-bishops-support-proposition-8.html
As if mormons are so well enfranchised in california as to make law on their own. If you’re against the church having been a member and now just have some axe to grind - just try to leave it alone and get on with your lives.
If you’re dealing with homosexuality first or second hand I can’t even imagine how difficult it is to find out where that should fit into society, but my first hand experience is that members of the LDS church are in support of this proposition because they believe it will allow for the greatest long-term happiness for people of all types.
I’m fine with listing the names, you can go to latimes.com for that in a very convenient format. But “admin” you are gathering non-public information - most likely from disgruntled lds church members - and publishing people’s religious preferences against people’s will.
If you’d like people’s religion to be required with political contributions (so that you can later discriminate against that religion and lump everybody together?) Get that changed as a matter of public policy, don’t take it upon yourself to violate people’s privacy.
I just finished reading the article by the BYU professor who does not agree with the 6 consequences of gay marriage. I found his comments interesting and while he is correct that some things could possibly happen regardless of the passage of gay marriage or not, I also noticed some things that he did not mention.
There will definitely be some consequences if this state votes to promote gay marriage. I will not look to Canada for my examples although that country is rife with lawsuits of gay couples demanding more and more “rights” that do not give any concern for the rights that others may have. Instead I will look to another state that has already decided to embrace gay marriage, Massachusetts.
When I started searching the law cases, I was interested to find that shortly after gay marriage was legalized there, a teacher decided that since gay marriage was legal she should read The KING and KING to her second grade class. In case you are not familiar with this book, it is not just a book that exposes children to different relationships. It is a children’s fairytale that tells of a prince who wants to get married but all the princesses he meets don’t meet his expectations. So finally he falls in love with another prince. They kiss at they end(lovely picture to illustrate) and then the queen sheds a tear of joy. This book was not intended to expose different points of view. It was intended to cause impressionable children to embrace a lifestyle that their parents religious views do not accept in any way shape or form. I completely understand that gay people want to live their lives without interference, but religious people also have a constitutional right to excercise their religions. Additionally, parents have a right to teach their children the values they want to teach without interference.
Everyone says, ” but here in California parents can opt out of this kind of instruction.” But that is what the parents in Massachusetts thought too. Then the teachers and superintendent decided that the KING and KING was not a sexual issue but a family issue. Therefore, since gay marriage was indeed legal in the state, it was just talking about weddings so parents did not have the right to be notified or opt out.
So to those people who say, that wouldn’t happen. We already have codes, etc. to protect against that…think again.
If you want to read more there is a writ of Certiorari presently being considered by the U.S. supreme court. The Parker and Wirthlin families are suing the school district for nothing but the right to be notified and to be able to opt out children in elementary schools when books or assemblies are held that discuss homosexual issues. They are being fought tooth and nail by the ACLU as well as other pro-homosexual groups. If all the homosexual community wants is to live and let live, why they big fuss about letting religious families decide what they want their young impressionable children exposed to.
I submit that they are not seeking tolerance they want to control our beliefs. They want everyone to “embrace” their sexual practices as being wholesome. The problem is, the constitution ensures the right to free exercise of religion. We can believe what we want and teach our children what we want.
As a gay man who was born and raised in a Mormon family, I can personally tell you that these tremendously cruel and divisive efforts destroy human beings totally and completely. This is a morally and spiritually bankrupt campaign. What ever happened to the supposed separation of church and state? Shame will forever mar the image of who and what a Mormon is by this very unfortunate effort that causes so much pain and destruction to so many individual human beings. The destruction of families that have gay members is another direct effect caused here too. SHAME SHAME SHAME!
Here’s a guest column I had published in the Salt Lake Tribune. I think it’s quite relevant to this site.
Feeling the Spirit of Political Rules
When The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recently announced it would jump into California politics by supporting a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, many Mormons - including myself - were appalled.
Some members were upset that their tithing donations would be used to support a political agenda with which they disagree. Others were disappointed to see the church once again veer from its hollow claim of “political neutrality.” And some found it laughable that the LDS church, which was founded by people with famously liberal marriage arrangements, is now taking a “one man, one woman” stance.
Isn’t that a little ironic?
Really, though, this isn’t just an issue about Mormons, gays and the California Constitution. Aside from the unpleasant thought of individual religious groups trying to force their doctrine upon all people through the enactment of civil law, there’s another reason churches should stay out of politics.
It’s all about the money.
You see, when churches decide to turn themselves into de facto political committees, they flout America’s campaign finance laws that are designed to keep the flow of political money transparent and limited in scope. While politically active churches may comply with the letter of the law, they definitely don’t comply with the spirit. That gives them an unfair advantage.
If I were to donate to a political action committee or 527 group, for example, there are three major drawbacks compared with giving to a church. One, my donation would not be tax-deductible. Two, my money would be precisely tracked - and made public - because of campaign reporting requirements. And three, the law limits how much money I’m allowed to give.
Churches, though, don’t have those limitations. When I give to a politically active church, I get a tax break. The money is also collected and spent in complete secrecy without any public tracking or accountability, and there’s no limit to how much I can donate.
That’s a little unfair, don’t you think?
That’s why whenever churches decide to play the political game - which I wish would never happen - they ought to at least abide by the same rules as everyone else. If they don’t, they turn themselves into a money-laundering operation whereby contributions are made completely anonymously, then spent in unknown ways to influence public policy.
No matter where you stand on the issue of marriage freedom, it’s wrong for any organization to flout America’s already lax campaign finance rules by operating in darkness.
Let’s hope the Mormon church sees the light. The church should either abide by the same restrictions as all political groups or - gasp! - let its members make up their own minds about which political issues to support.
—
* DEREK PRICE is a newspaper editor and lifelong Mormon living in Alabama.
I’m surprised that Derek Price, newspaper editor and lifelong Mormon actually thinks that tithes are used for politics. Any money that mormons are donating to this cause comes from their own pockets, is not tax deductible and is not counted towards their tithing. A Mormon has just as much of a right to donate to a political cause as anyone else. Sorry if that offends.
As a former Mormon who is a lesbian, I am appalled at this church’s arrogance and blatant disregard for their own so-called principles. With so much pain and suffering in the world and in our own nation, how can you possibly consider yourselves Christian as you funnel money into a hurtful proposition such as this one? Children are starving. People are losing their homes. Citizens of the world are dying every day in unjust wars and regimes of genocide, and still you’re terrified of my family, my child, having the same rights as yours? Please, repent, and put your energy into creating a more equitable, compassionate, loving world for all of God’s children.
I am completely disgusted that so many people who want to be seen as loving and non-judgmental are showing themselves to be such hypocrites. This church teaches that in the pre-existence there was a war in heaven and Christ won because Satan’s plan was to force all men to live the way he dictated, and Christ’s plan was that man would have Free Will.
Churches have no place in government. On top of that, donating to sway a political course is completely adverse to their 11th article of faith: We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
So please explain to me, why when the church keeps their own welfare rolls, and their own shrinks, and their own storehouses, are all these people wasting their time and money to actively destroy families, resources, and the mental stability of people they claim are to have the same privileges as they do? They obviously have a need for the programs that they put in place, why aren’t they requesting that kind of money for their own needy members?
And in another article of faith: We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. Aren’t some of the laws of this country related to not swaying your congregation to use their power to vote the church’s agenda? Are they teaching people to be loving and accepting only as long as someone is looking? This underhanded sneaky attack to make sure that there is some difference between us and them is contrary to the process for how we achieve harmony. The church had to fight for it’s own rights at one time, Mormons were killed for who they were. And now they have turned around and decided that they should act that way as wel
I think this is a great site because it exposes who is financially behind this initiative. The Mormon Church, while only about 2% of California’s population, has contributed at least 35% of the funding–including Mormons from outside the state (why do Utahns care about Calif?) A letter from church headquarters was read in wards across the state, instructing members to donate their money and time for this cause. Several years ago the Mormon Church was actively involved in the defeat of the ERA. Sonia Johnson, the leader of Mormons for the ERA, was excommunicated for exposing the church’s significant involvement (Equal rights for women??? Is there anyone you DON’T hate? Next you’re going to tell me Mormons have discriminated against African Americans…) This site and many others in the blogosphere are serving as virtual “Sonia Johnsons” and I applaud them. It sure was easier to target and punish dissent in the days before the Internet, eh?
What do I think of the site? It is a tremendous service! The public deserves to know who is contributing to political issues. Same goes for moral issues, if that’s how you like to describe ‘em. Thank you for shining the light. It is up to each of us to decide for ourselves whether the light of day exposes beauty or ugliness.
If you would really like to shed light on ugliness, try going to the CapitalXtra website. It is a pro-homosexual web site that tells what the homosexual agenda is now that gay marriage is legal in Canada. I have never seen such ugliness. I wanted to research this issue on my own and not rely on the standard talking points. Guess what I found? The Gay websites are full of more name calling and hate than any of the pro-8 websites. Visiting the anti-8 sites to find out their arguments was a real shock. There IS an agenda and if anyone tries to tell you otherwise, they are lying.
#11: “If you want to show a mass percentage in mormon donations that is one thing; but are names and cities really necessary??”
Absolutely! If not for this site, I wouldn’t know that a once-trusted friend, a man who expressed his SUPPORT for me when I came out of the closet, a man I always thought was fair-minded, accepting, tolerant and educated, chose to donate $1,000 to support Proposition 8. Perhaps I should take comfort in the fact that he donated quite a small sum in light of what he could have afforded to donate, so perhaps he simply bowed to local ecclesiastical pressure. In any case, I greatly appreciate the opportunity to see his true colors in action.
Further, this site provides wonderful entertainment! It’s a delight to see LDS gleefully boast that they’re making the bulk of contributions and legwork, only to cry “that’s religious bigotry!!” when opponents of Prop 8 use this same website’s data to show that the amendment is largely LDS-backed. The irony is enough to keep observers laughing for hours!
The statement on the home page “Many, if not most, Mormons have responded to the church leaders’ request for assistance on this matter by actively campaigning for and donating to protectmarriage.com.” has no basis in fact. Please prove me wrong by providing a source for this.
I would suggest: “Many Mormons have responded to church leaders’ request by actively campaigning for and donating to protectmarriage.com.”
My favorite of today’s headlines:
The Floundering Yes on 8 Campaign: One Million Missing Lawn Signs Found in China
http://www.calitics.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=7013
Pls read - it’s way too funny.
I read through a few of the discussions on CapitalXtra, but I didn’t find anything particularly shocking or ugly. Maybe I missed something. Every group will have a few fanatics on the fringes who are embarrassing to the whole, but should they be used to judge the whole? I wouldn’t want someone to judge all heterosexuals by what they found on a Playboy discussion board. Would you want someone to judge all Mormons by what they saw on the news of an FLDS polygamous cult? I know lots of gays and lesbians and none of them have ever hinted at what you describe. It’s fine to have a personal opinion on something. Feel free to never have a gay marriage yourself. Feel free to teach your children that being gay is wrong (poor kids if one happens to be gay). But your right to swing your fist ends where a gay citizen’s nose begins. If there is some sort of “agenda” out there that you feel threatens your LDS lifestyle, you have the same protections (for your collective noses) as well.
LOL!! All I can say is that if deity really wanted to see Prop 8 passed so badly, you’d think those signs would have arrived EARLY!
But wait! Maybe it’s all a conspiracy among the “godless communist” Chinese! Hehehe…..
Once you get to CapitalXrtra, do a search for garden of the provinces. Then click on the article that says “Teach Kids about Gay Sex.” That is number one on the agenda for the gay community in canada. As you said there are always people out their on the fringe, but those are the ones that continue to push until their fist hits me in the nose.
so if you don’t care if I teach my children my own beliefs, what do you have to say about the pro-homosexual groups fighting the parents in Massachusetts. These parents don’t want any books removed or topics taken out of the curriculum. They just want the right to opt out of certain discussions and the activists groups are fighting it. Don’t parents have the right to say, I’d rather not have my second grade child hear a story that romanticizes this topic? If other people want it, fine with me, just give me the opportunity to opt out.
by the way, the ugliness I was referring to was located in all the comments made on the various anti-8 websites. Anyone that dared voice an opinion that did not match the gay community opinion on the subject was immediately called every name in the book. while you may find a discussion of how religious people feel about this issue to be ugly, I have not found a single comment in the pro-8 websites where homosexuals were called names.
I have found this site to be a wonderful place to hear real voices.
My strongest opposition to this farce of legislation is this. Regardless of what anyone’s religious beliefs are, Marriage in any form does not in any way legally benefit religion. If you are not religious you are not prohibited from getting married (if you are straight). You are required to file for a license so that the state can keep their records. Most to make sure you are of legal age to marry, some to make sure that you are not too closely related to the person you are marrying. In some cases you may not marry someone if you are both on probation.
Legal records assist for state funding, census, and taxation.
Churches participate in none of these activities. They do not provide state and local funding, they do not take a census of the community and turn it over to the state and federal officials, and most importantly, since we emancipated ourselves from England, they do not collect taxes either.
When you are born in the United States you are issued a birth certificate, then you are issued a social security number, regardless of your gender, race, religious beliefs, or sexual orientation.
When you are 18 in the United States, you are entitled to vote. You may not be discriminated against regardless of gender, race, religious belief, or sexual orientation. You don’t even have to know the issues that you are voting for, and you don’t have to know how to read or write. You must provide identification. One of the acceptable forms of identification is your social security card.
When or if you become employed that social security number is recorded by your employer to file tax withholdings on your behalf with the city, state, and country, according to the laws governing the IRS. It is enforced law pretty much everywhere, that you may not be discriminated by employers according to your gender, race, religious beliefs, or sexual orientation.
The IRS doesn’t discriminate against you for your gender, race, religious beliefs or sexual orientation. If you work and make an income, it’s expected and accepted that we all have to pay taxes.
However, the IRS does have different rules for filing whether you are married or not. How do they know? You had to get a license, you had to show ID, they recorded your social security number, the state made a recording of your marriage, if they didn’t, it wasn’t legal. They didn’t even ask you if you had a religion.
You are not required to go to a church to get married. If you do, the church is required to turn the information over to the state. The state is not required to turn it’s records over to the church.
The church has no business whatsoever, nor do they have any benefit, in deciding whom can be eligible to wed. The state does, and based on the criteria and the reasons that they require licensing, it makes less sense that they would restrict in any way someone from being married based on what the church says. The person is of legal age, they can provide proper and legal identification, they are entering into a contract of marriage of their own free will, and they are going to pay taxes accordingly. The state will do their job and file the proper paperwork, allowing for the numbers to reflect their eligibility for continued and even increased funding. They don’t care what your religious beliefs are. They are not discriminating against you for them.
While I understand there are still laws in certain areas of this country that also can restrict the kinds of sex people will have, two consenting adults may engage in whatever form of intimacy that they desire so long as there are no laws broken.
This issue really isn’t about any legal reasons for people getting married, it’s the way for churches to maintain control over their sheep. Keeping them in the herd and bleating the same song. If they see that people are venturing out into the world, and finding it to be an open, accepting and non- threatening place, then how are they going to maintain control? How will their message have as much importance? How will it hold up? I think Christ was concerned about the church too, because when his apostles asked him what should they do, who should they follow? He replied “Love one another.”
JP (#24) - The reason so many of the comments on this site address the issue from a Mormon perspective, is because the site is called “mormonsfor8″ - if it were “catholicsfor8″ then things would be addressed from a catholic perspective. The same with “evangelicalsfor8″ or “protestantsfor8″ or anything else.
You cannot state, “I am taking this stand on this issue because of my religion,” and then expect that religion will not be part of the discussion.
WARNING—If you are LDS, do not be fooled into believing this site is for “informational” purposes only. You will notice that the links listed under the blogroll are almost entirely anti-prop 8. Only a handful of links are actual pro-8. If you decide to report yourself as mormon, that of course is your choice. However, please do not do as this site suggests and “anonymously” report the religious affiliation of other people. This site gives a nice neutral mission statement, but read through everything on this site before you do anything else. They clearly admit that this information can be used for anti-mormon purposes if a person cares to use it that way.
Susan-
If you will us some good pro-8 sites, we’ll be happy to link to them in the blogroll as well.
As for information being used for anti-mormon purposes, I’m sure you recognize that even things from http://www.lds.org can be used for anti-mormon purposes just as easily.
this website, and the debate that spawned its creation, is sad to me. I was born into the Church, raised in the Church, and was proud that *gasp* “a Mormon was running for US President.” But this is sad.
Why do you care how two committed people choose to spend their mortal, personal lives? How is it the business of the government? How is it your business? I often thought it wise that the Church stayed away from politics for the most part… Long gone are the days of “Negroes” being denied the priesthood, I thought.
It’s not as if gays are demanding to be sealed in the Temple.
We live in a democracy where one of the Supreme Court’s primary responsibilities is to protect a minority from the tyranny of the majority. And the CA Court did just that.
I’m ashamed of this church.
Admin–I came across a great source just today.
prop8voterinfo.blogspot.com
I will put together more to send you and if anyone else out there is aware of some good pro-8 sources please leave a comment.
I hope this doesn’t get buried at the bottom of the list like the other pro-8 sites.
Just saw my “loving” LDS sister was a donor. Here’s to LDS family values that turn siblings against each other.
nh- read post #26 and maybe that will help you understand why I care. When your rights begin to step on my toes, then we have a problem. And by the way, I would not be surprised in the least to hear that truly religious people in this country are in fact the minority. So maybe we need protection from the “secular fundamentalist majority” who want to force everyone to believe as they do. Like the “diversity” group that met with schools in Massachusetts to push homosexual posters for the classrooms and books like The King and King to read to elementary school children. All with the express purpose of eliminating the religious rights of parents. That’s why I care.
An Associated Press article cites mormonsfor8.com as being “a Web site set up by a church member.” I browsed through the site, and I didn’t happen to see any mention that this site was set up by a Mormon church member. If the story misrepresents mormonsfor8.com perhaps you should contact the AP so they can correct their story. If the AP is in error you may contact them at info@ap.org to let them know.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080924/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_religion;_ylt=Akj617ca6z.fLmYlxh8K7VFH2ocA
Quoth nh above:
“We live in a democracy where one of the Supreme Court’s primary responsibilities is to protect a minority from the tyranny of the majority. And the CA Court did just that.”
So, what kind of minorities will the Supreme Court protect? And where will it draw the line? Pedophiles like NMBLA? Polygamists like the FLDS? Racial groups like the KKK, La Raza, etc.? Satanists?
Methinks some minorities’ beliefs and practices should not be protected from the “tyranny” of the majority and homosexuality is one them.
Let the ranting begin.
Susan, the sidebar links are in alphabetical order. Your belief that the pro-8 links have been “buried” makes it seem like you have a persecution complex. Why assume malice when there is a much simpler explanation?
I think the issue of same-sex marriage will be one of the most devisive issues in the coming years. The animosity from gay rights activists toward Mormons and other religions that support Prop 8 is already palpable, and I think it will only increase if their agenda eventually triumphs and same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land.
It won’t be anything like the issue of abortion where most everyone agrees it’s an unfortunate and undesireable situation. Gay marriage is something its advocates want to celebrate, but it will be in the face of vast congregations of faithful who won’t acknowledge or accept it. The religious will be treated as pariah and lawsuits will be mounted to eliminate the tax-exempt status of their church. Hate-speech charges will be leveled at preachers who denounce same-sex marriage. I don’t think it’s unimaginable to predict violence and arson directed upon chapels and facilities that are deemed to be populated by “haters” and “bigots”.
You only have to read the anti-Mormon and anti-religion comments posted hear and anywhere else Prop 8 is discussed to realize how intolerant the folks who demand tolerance are.
admin–Here is a very interesting site by a catholic man who is also homosexual. He lives in Canada and has been very disturbed by what has happened there since gay marriage became legal. He tells the story with some very relevant quotes, statistics and case law. It is a warning to other countries that are considering legalizing homosexual marriage.
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/why_catholics_against_gay_marriage.htm
I agree with Jim Charles. Fighting against this is discrimination at its best. Currently its leagal for religious orgainizations to lobby agaist social issues. I think it should be changed so the goverment can tax them. Who are you to dictate how adults should live their lives when they aren’t causing any harm to anyone? Get off you high and mighty horse you rode in on!
Curious- You’re right, they are in alphabetical order. I guess I didn’t notice since I had to visit 7 sites before finding a Pro-8 one. Maybe someone should start a blog called “AAAn Awesome Reason to Vote Pro-8.”
I you don’t like same-sex marriage, don’t have one. I don’t demand that you (Mormons) follow my religious beliefs, or act in a way guided by the tenets of MY religion. It is unconscionable that one (or a group of) religions force non-believers to live their lives in a certain way just to satisfy their peccadilloes. What if the Muslims managed to enact a law here that the call to prayer be broadcasted nationwide, or if the Jews managed to get a law passed forbidding keeping meat and dairy in the same refrigerator. How would YOU feel? I would also like to state that I am a heterosexual male with a son, so I have no personal stake in this, and unless you are a homosexual, neither do you.
Sincerely,
While I am not a homosexual and do not believe that it is normal or right I also believe that in this country people have the right to live their life as they please, without the interference of the government.
Additionally, I do not believe in Mormonism but would never approve the government’s interference in your church. The US government has no right to legislate morality or how people act and what they believe.
Hum, The Mormon church is mounting a massive campaign to strip gays of their civil rights, and now some Mormons are complaining that gays aren’t celebrating being persecuted. Of my, being called bad names by such creatures, how vile!
Is this how I should sound like–
I will endeavor to endure without murmuring the righteous beatings I deserve, so I can get your approbation. Thank you for depriving me of my civil rights, I am not worthy of them.
suzanne- maybe you could just sound like you respect my rights as well as your own. I don’t care what you do. As someone else said–you wouldn’t like it if Muslims forced prayer on all, etc. Maybe religious folks don’t want to be forced to hear romanticized versions of homosexuality. I would be perfectly fine to take this to the true science level. Tell kids that everyone in the world has a mother (egg donor) and a father(sperm donor) whether they know who it is or not. Take heterosexual and homosexual completely out of the schools. I could live with that. But can the activist homosexual groups. I doubt it.
#44 Kassy. Yes you make my point I’m against the premise of this website singling out mormons and also violating the privacy of mormons with anonymous, uncredited sources and no way to verify it’s accuracy.
If it were truly unbiased there would have been “catholicsfor8″ “evangelicalsfor8″ and “protestantsfor8″ (which presumably would have included evangelicals) websites created - which there aren’t.
All the website founders and administrators are LDS, so no correction needed for the AP.
JP -
While it’s probably interesting and useful to know each donor’s religious affiliation, we’ve kind of got our hands full identifying the Mormon donors. And since the Mormons are well on their way to donating the lion’s share of the money, we’ll just keep plugging away and continue to let them identify themselves.
Perhaps somebody else (you, maybe, since it’s so important to you?) can set up similar sites for each religious group. Feel free to use data from here to help get the site(s) started, and we’d be happy to link to those sites so everyone can benefit. Once we eliminate all the Mormon donors for, there will be fewer folks to identify, so it should be a piece of cake.
admin–This is a great site. It tells what is happening in Massachussetts now that they have gay marriage. Perfect for everyone who insists that nothing will happen here in California if Prop 8 is defeated.
http://www.massresistance.org
Especially interesting are the articles on the Parkers and Wirthlins who are suing the school district for refusing to notify or allow elementary school children to opt out from discussions, books, assemblies, etc. that promote homosexuality. It is quite clear that homosexual groups are not just interested in live and let live. They want to oppress another group to achieve a greater agenda.
The disclaimer that this site is “informational” only is too bogus for words. Identifying individual donors religion is not information provided by the California Secretary of State. The “admin” on this site is relying on various people e-mailing her with information about the religion of each donor. And who knows about the accuracy of that information?
If the “admin” were at all honest she would admit that this is a blatant attempt to embarrass Mormon donors and the LDS church. I really don’t care who she names and I don’t think too many other donors care either but what is so laughable is that she doesn’t even have the guts to identify herself and to state her real agenda.
“Informational?” Right. You would have been right at home in Nauvoo or Missouri providing “information” about where they might find the the prophet. But you would probably be doing it with a mask over your face.
The legal consequences of gay marriage are real.
Tell me….WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO FREE-AGENCY?!?! How can you take someones basic right away to do as they wish, without your judgment or ridicule?
I think Christians need to take a good strong look at the HYPOCRISY they preach:
“THOU SHALT NOT KILL”–and yet support wars and leaders who engage in warfare?!?!
“FREE-AGENCY”–is everyone’s God given right and if you can’t understand that you have NO RIGHT to call your self a loving, worthy Christian!!!!
Wake up to your ignorances!!!!!!
The website is okay.
But Proposition 8 is just flat-out an abuse of the Constitution and obviously a discriminatory proposal. You’re working to deny gay people rights - that is inherently a discriminatory idea. You aren’t working in FAVOR of anything, you’re working AGAINST gay peoples’ fundamental right to self-determination.
To Susan: Yes, because we need teen pregnancies to go up and STD rates to rise by completely removing sex-ed and health classes to schools. That would be very productive. Just love teenagers who become HIV+ before they’re even 20 - and I’ve known some. This is what you’re advocating. And if kids are going to be gay (and they are, you and no one else in this country is going to stop a biological occurance) - they should be informed of how to have safe sex - even if it’s between their own sex - and, yes, in a public school.
Thankfully, the next generation isn’t so ignorant and anti-gay to wish teen pregnancies and STD rates to go up.
hey LDS! Seriously you guys/gals, it is TIME for all of you to read a book called “Peculiar People: Mormons and Same-Sex Orientation” by Ron Schow & Wayne Schow. I know that you all have someone gay or lesbian in your families, the support groups for G&L Mormons in the USA are vast!! Don’t forget, you learn line upon line, precept upon precept, and it is time you all realized the damage you are doing to your loved ones with this proposition. Please read this book, for the ones who will always be afraid to come out to you. They need your love and they are counting on you to open your hearts and minds. Thank you.
I find it ironic that the creators of Mormons For 8 guaranty the confidentiality of those who feel inclined to “out” Mormon contributors. The same rationale they have used to justify the private posting of public information could well be applied to these other “providers of information”. i.e. why should they be ashamed or embarrassed to identify themselves since they are motivated purely by conscience and goodwill?
John P if these donors are so proud about their donations, what is the problem? I thought being “a peculiar people” was a source of pride for LDS Mormons? Why would they be ashamed of their contributions?
Are you ashamed of their contributions?
john p- you are exactly right. Encouraging people to “anonymously” provide private information about other people and then proceed to announce that information to the world is a huge violation of an individual’s right to privacy that is implied in the first ammendant of the constitution. Just another attempt opress religious people’s rights.
People who donate acting out of “conscience and goodwill”? This is motivated by fear, hatred and intolerance and lack of understanding. Thank heavens we keep records as when it comes to judgement day then these records will be brought out. Shame.
Its like Germans claiming that they followed orders in hating Jews. It all started with little measures until one day there were none left.
Thank heavens we have a memory here of how hatred came to be legislated.
Adam-OK let’s teach it in the schools, but would it be alright with you and the activist homosexual groups if parents had the right to opt out…because right now homosexuals are fighting religious parents in Massachusetts. Are you for individual rights or not?
Brad- Mormons are proud of their participation in supporting this prop that does not mean you or anyone else has the right to put me or my family at risk for harrassment or retribution from ugly activism. I can’t wait for someone to decide to use the church directory infor (for private use only) and report my private information because then I will have standing to sue.
If I had been a voter back in 1844, evaluating the campaign platform that Joseph Smith was running on in his bid for the White House, I’m pretty sure I would’ve strongly supported its sixth and final point: to empower the federal government to protect the liberties of minorities from “mobocracy.”
I probably would’ve also appreciated any information that might help me understand how his campaign was being financed.
Voters concerned with preserving not only their own liberties but the liberty of all have always sought out as much information as they might find to inform their vote.
It has always been the “mobocrats” who rely on hyperbole (as opposed to information) to excuse their attempts to deny liberty to others.
Ken Spaulding asked, “Are you ashamed of their contributions?”
No, not in the least. I just think it is SO hypocritical that the creator of this website is afraid to post her own name and the names of those that are, like Brad Smith said, singling out the Mormon contributors.
I think most Mormons don’t care about whether or not homosexuals can marry - it’s a matter of free agency. Those that I talk to are worried about their rights being infringed upon. There are movements and consequences in Canada and Massachusetts that are real, but Prop 8 opponents on here are unwilling to entertain the thought of them because it takes away from their argument that this is just an oppressive group trying to take away their rights. It’s not so simple, and if you really looked at what some Mormons are fearful of, you would have to admit that there is some real basis for their fears.
John P., the creator of the website is named Nadine Hansen and lives in Cedar City, Utah. This has been reported in a number of news articles, like this one:
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10494347
I came across something interesting today. Some information that is actually pertinent. (Unlike the information of who is mormon and who is not.)
Some homosexual groups think if they “want” something it automatically follows that it is their “right”.
Well the US supreme court disagrees. Several years ago a homosexual group wanted to march in the St. Patricks day parade. The parade organizers said no.
Of course the group tried to push their message on everyone else and sued based on the fact that the parade was a public accomodation.
The supreme court voted 9-0 in favor of the parade organizer. The court found that the organizers right to free speech outweighed the homosexual groups desire to be in the parade.
But here is the kicker…the parade organizers lost 17 times in lower courts fighting for this right of free speech.
So, if we want to preserve our rights, now is the time to stand up for prop 8. Otherwise, we will find ourselves fighting it out in activist courts.(Like the Parkers and Wirthlins)
When the rights of two groups collide, consider who has the most to lose.
Homosexual groups will lose the right to use a word. No other tangible right will be lost. You can still be in committed unions, adopt children, etc.
Religious Parents,however, will lose the right to keep their children from being exposed to things that are in direct conflict with their religious convictions. They will lose the right to exercise their religion as it relates to teaching children correct principles. You know its true. That is why no one will directly address it.
The only argument I hear over and over again is you’re hurting my feelings or what a shameful church you belong to.
Show me that Massachusetts parents rights aren’t being trampled and then we can have a meaningful discussion.
It is sad to see an institution that calls itself a “church” professing and politcizing hate. A church is supposed to preach love and compassion for one’s neighbor. A church is supposed to be “God’s home”, a place for those who share a common faith and beliefs to gather and pray. As far as I’m concerned, God does not hate or discriminate against anyone. If he hated homosexuals he would not have made them. Perhaps you should be fighting God and asking why he brought homosexuals to this world? Why is it that you are so threatened by 2 people of the same sex being together in a committed relationship? Does it really bother you to see 2 strangers joining hands and sharing their happiness? Gay couples do not walk around professing their “gayness”. They don’t try to influence your children to be gay…you know why…because homosexuality is not learned or taught…it just is…we were all created by the same God. This website among many others have raised how much money to oppose this proposition 8? 17 million? You need to open your eyes to the “real problems” facing this country today! Healthcare, Education, Terrorism, the Economy, etc. If people like you used your “passion for hate” for something good perhaps we would get more accomplished in this country! How about raising 17 Million for Alzheimers research…or 17 million for Low-Income towns that can’t afford to pay qualified teacher. When your day comes, God will judge YOU for judging others!
it’s worth $17M+ to people to make sure that two people who they don’t know, who love each other can’t get married? Seriously? How is it any of the church’s business who gets married?
Thanks for posting a list of bigots!
The main reason why Proposition 8 should be opposed is because it is kowtowing to the whims of religious types who have yet to grasp the concept of progress, equality, kindness, fairness, and humanity.
Oh and as an avowed Atheist. Let me throw this in here as well. There is no God. Never was. It makes no sense, has no basis in fact and, as being proven here by some Mormons, and abroad by some Muslims, is harmful to an enlightened and intellectually honest society.
Susan. Why don’t you bring some statistics or fact or any sort of logical discourse to your claim that your rights are being trampled. All it seems like you want is the right to remain close-minded.
Susan, what do you have to say about parents who object to their children being taught about evolution in schools? Does it conflict with their right to keep their children from being exposed to things that are in direct conflict with their religious convictions? What solutions would you have for such parents?
History has taught us that separate is never equal. Civil unions may be better than nothing at all, but they are not equal. I would urge you to look back at the arguments against interacial marriage from 50 years ago. The arguments are almost exactly the same–children will be confused, civil society will go down the drain, some outdated texts may have to be changed at (gasp!) the taxpayers’ expense. This issue was especially troubling for the Mormon Church, since racial discrimination was doctrinal. Look up what Mark E. Peterson had to say about “What the Black Man Really Wants.” Church leaders have not always been right.
I am LDS but I refuse to donate my time or money to a cause that I believe is based in fear and hatred. I do donate my time and money to the causes I believe in and am not afraid to have my name show up on their public donor lists. The people who object to being identified here are just embarrassed by their own bigotry. Hopefully the church will realize what a disaster this effort has been for missionary efforts and other stated purposes of the church.
do not judge, lest ye be judged
I appreciate the site, I actually don’t feel comfortable with all the names listed but it is public record.
A common misunderstanding here in California is same sex couples do not have the same rights. This is not true
As of 2007, California affords domestic partnerships all of the same rights and responsibilities as marriages under state law (Cal. Fam. Code §297.5).
You may want to get this message out if you’re a blogger. After you get past that we can discuss religious liberties, what best for families/children, greedy California making money off gay marriage, etc….
I really cant belive some people. Dont most religions preach the concept of do on to others as you would want done on to you? have any of you ever stoped to look at how happy it makes these couples? Being given the right for the use of a word. Some of these comments said it already, all they would use is the use of a word. What if someone told you that you were no longer ‘legally married’ to your spouse? that what you are doing is ‘moraly and ethicaly wrong’? As far as im concerned what proposition 8 is doing borders on a hate crime. This is no better than that religious group that protested heath ledgers funeral because he played a homosexual person in a movie or those who protest J.K. Rowlings books because they ‘promote satanism.’ Its reasons such as these I think that the youth of today has no stock in religion.
It goes beyond hurt feelings. You are advocating depriving me of my civil rights. If you think my marriage deprived and evil, that’s your viewpoint. Think what you will. But don’t inflict your religion on those who do not subscribe to it.
I find it incredulous, that you justify stripping gays of their Civil rights because of your objection to view gays as social equals. Your arguments remind of those against Reconstruction. Oh, for the good old days of Cruikshank and Plessey v. Ferguson.
Where is all the donated money going? Has anyone seen a “Yes on 8″ TV ad yet? Any radio spots? Anything? I’d be glad to donate if I knew where the money was going.
[edited]
Thanks for your comments on the subject - they’ve been fascinating. Seeing as how we’ve got some other important and politically newsworthy events coming up in the next 24-36 hours, we’re going to take a break on comments for awhile and let everyone cool down and re-group.
Remember, if you haven’t registered to vote yet, you’ll need to do it by October 20th, and if you want to avoid the lines at the polls in California, the first day to apply for a vote-by-mail ballot (formerly called an absentee ballot) is October 6th. The last day to request a vote-by-mail ballot is October 28th. There’s no reason to wait until the last minute.
For information about voting in California, call 1-800-345-VOTE or surf on over to The California Secretary of State’s Office.
See you soon!
“Consequences . . . if Proposition 8 Fails”
Morris A. Thurston1
An anonymously‐authored document titled “Six Consequences the Coalition Has Identified if Proposition 8 Fails” is currently being distributed by a coalition of churches and other organizations in support of Proposition 8, an initiative on the November 2008 California ballot. The intent of Proposition 8 is to overturn the California Supreme Court’s ruling allowing homosexuals to marry.
Most of the arguments contained in “Six Consequences” are either untrue or misleading. The following commentary addresses those arguments and explains how they are based on misinterpretations of law and fact. My intent is to be of service in helping our Church avoid charges of using falsehoods to gain a political victory. Relying on deceptive arguments is not only contrary to gospel principles, but ultimately works against the very mission of the Church.
Consequences the Coalition [in Support of Proposition 8] Has Identified If Proposition 8 Fails
1. Children in public schools will have to be taught that same-sex marriage is just as good as
traditional marriage. The California Education Code already requires that health education classes instruct children about marriage. (#51890) Therefore, unless Proposition 8 passes, children will be taught that marriage is between any two adults regardless of gender. There will be serious clashes between the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children their own values and beliefs.
Response: This is untrue. California Education Code 51890 provides that “pupils will receive instruction to aid them in making decisions in matters of personal, family, and community health.” The focus is on health. The statute provides for community participation, including lectures by practicing professional health and safety personnel from the community. Things that are to be taught include, for example, drug use and misuse, nutrition, exercise, diseases and disorders, environmental health and safety, as well as “family health and child development, including the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.” Another section of the Education Code (51933) deals with comprehensive sexual health education and HIV/AIDS prevention. It provides that instruction shall be age appropriate and medically accurate, shall teach “respect for marriage and committed relationships,” and shall encourage a pupil to communicate with his or her parents about human sexuality. Therefore, no provision of the Education Code requires any teacher to teach that same‐sex marriage is “just as good” as traditional marriage. Teachers are to teach respect for marriage and committed relationships, and Proposition 8 will not change this law.
2. Churches may be sued over their tax exempt status if they refuse to allow same-sex marriage ceremonies in their religious buildings open to the public. Ask whether your pastor, priest, minister, bishop, or rabbi is ready to perform such marriages in your chapels
and sanctuaries.
Response: This false “consequence” is based on the misrepresentation of a case in New Jersey involving an association affiliated with the Methodist Church. In considering that case, it is important to remember that New Jersey does not permit gay marriage, so that case had nothing to do with Proposition 8. What was the New Jersey case about? The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association (OGCMA), a Methodist organization, had taken advantage of a New Jersey law granting a state property tax exemption for a pavilion in the seaside town of Ocean Grove that was dedicated for public use. Note that the case did not involve income tax exemptions and note that the purpose for giving the exemption in the first place was to reward organizations for opening their buildings and facilities for public use. The property in question was a boardwalk pavilion open to the public. “Bands play there. Children skateboard through it. Tourists enjoy the shade. It’s even been used for debates and Civil War re‐enactments.” It was also available to be reserved for marriage ceremonies by people of any faith. Nevertheless, the OGCMA wanted to prohibit a gay commitment ceremony (not a marriage ceremony) from being held in the pavilion. The New Jersey real estate commission ruled that if OGCMA intended to claim a property tax exemption for a building open to the public, they could not discriminate. Seen in this light, it was a sensible ruling. Implicit in the ruling is that the group could discriminate if they ceased to claim a property tax exemption for a public facility. It is important to note that this ruling pertained only to the pavilion, which constituted a mere one percent of the property the OGCMA owned. The total amount of additional tax assessed was $200. The OGCMA continues to receive a property tax exemption for the remaining 99% of its property. This case has nothing at all to do with any Mormon, Catholic or any other church’s chapel or sanctuary that is used for religious purposes. It has nothing to do with any church’s income tax exemption. To my knowledge, the Mormon Church has never sought to take advantage of a property tax exemption similar to the New Jersey exemption and likely never would. The California Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage cannot have any federal tax consequences, and the Court so noted explicitly in its decision. The Supreme Court also noted that its ruling would not require any priest, rabbi or minister to perform gay marriages, which should be self‐evident because of the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion.
3. Ministers who preach against same-sex marriages may be sued for hate speech and risk government fines. It already happened in Canada, a country that legalized gay marriage. A recent California court held that municipal employees my not say: “traditional marriage,” or “family values” because, after the same-sex marriage case, it is “hate speech.”
Response: Of course, anyone can be “sued” for anything, but no minister has been convicted of a crime in Canada or the United States for preaching against same‐sex marriages. The Owens case, on which this statement is based, was brought well before gay marriage was legal in Canada and did not involve a minister, but a private citizen. In that case, a man named Hugh Owens produced bumper stickers and took out an ad that depicted two stick figures holding hands, covered by a circle and a slash, along with a reference to a passage in Leviticus that says that a man engaging in homosexual activity “shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.” The lower court ruled that this amounted to hate speech, but the decision was overturned on review. The current Canadian law on hate propaganda excludes any speech if it is spoken during a private conversation or if the person uttering the speech “is attempting in good faith to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject.” Thus, even ministers who preach against same‐sex marriages in Canada have no risk of legal liability or government fines. This would never be an issue in the United States because we have far more liberal freedom of speech and religion laws than does Canada.11 There have been no hate speech lawsuits in Massachusetts, which has been a gay marriage state for four
years.
In summary, the arguments used in “Six Consequences … If Proposition 8 Fails” are
false, misleading, and based on faulty logic. Almost every legal case alluded to is
misrepresented. The passage or failure of Proposition 8 will not affect any of the
scenarios posed by this document; all of the so‐called “adverse consequences” are
illusory.
On a personal note, the disception and misrepresentation that the LDS church has promoted has given me much to think about. “By Their works ye shall know them”. After being born and raised LDS and being very active for 35years, I have decided to ask my name be removed from the records of the church as I can no longer be part of an organization that knowingly misleads or spins the truth to push a law that actually hurts families and children (Yes, many many same-sex couple have children). I have a greater love of Jesus Christ and his teachings and must answer to God and my own concious.
In response to one of the postings that said homosexuals are not born that way and they make the choice — YOU ARE WRONG. What so many people, including Mormons, don’t educate themselves about is that homosexuals are born that way. Check out a human anatomy book or a psychology book. They show the biological evidence that gay people have differences in their brains. Gay men and straight women have similar small amygdala neural connections, while in contrast straight men and lesbians have more nerve connections. THEY ARE BORN THAT WAY. Give them their right to marry who they want to marry. Seriously, wouldn’t you want everyone to be happy? Why take away someone’s rights when it doesn’t even affect you, but really just lets others be happy and marry who they love. You are being selfish if you vote for prop 8. It’s really cruel, I think.
George #18.
I had a great father. I’m gay.
I’m sorry, but for people who remember so clearly their own history of persecution when all you wanted to do was live your own lives by your own beliefs, you don’t seem to have learned to treat others with the same forbearance you expected from the community around you. (I’m not LDS but have good friends and family who are.) This is hypocrisy plain and simple.
Your only argument for becoming involved in this matter is that the mere existance of gay marriage is corrosive to the development of your young people and offends your OPINION of what God’s will is. Think a minute, Isn’t that exactly the viewpoint that drove the first Mormon communities out of state after state and in some cases entirely out of the country?
How can you do to others what you (rightly) condemn as having been done to you? Please do not let your growth in numbers and influence blind you to simple justice.
I know that you believe that your Prophet and senior Elders are divinely guided, but you also know that subsequent Revelations revised previous teachings. (Plural marriage, barring men of African descent from holding the Priesthood.)
I know that your beliefs are very important to you (others feel the same way about their beliefs, religious or otherwise) but you are not just Church members, you are people first and foremost. And as such, you are personally responsible for your own actions.
What you are doing, trying to force others to live their lives in accordance with YOUR beliefs is simply wrong.
God gave mankind free will. Not beleivers, nor Elders, nor a Prophet has greater authority.
Don’t do this. It is you who one day will be called to answer for your actions. And “They told me to do it.” will not be a sufficient answer.
I am a Mormon who is gay but I ain’t gonna get married to NO-ONE, thank-you-very-much.
But remember when Utah wanted to become a state, part of this grrrreat country of fereedom and oportunity for all? remember those days, the church said that they would drop polygamy in order to “conform with the laws of the country”, an Article of Faith isn’t it? So, if the state says its OK, its GOTTA be OK for Mormons, too, right? I mean, nobodies gonna force them to marry another of their same sex, are they? So why should they care? Especially why do some of these people care so much theyre willing to chuck in $50,000, even???? The mind boggles. Sounds sort of desperate to me. But back to my point. You as Mormons are OBLIGED, by the church doctrine, to obey the laws of the land, and I think that would include not interfering with the laws of the land, which is what seems to be going on here. But the website is, as someone above pointed out, simnply an information disperser, and so informative and useful. I saw a couple of names of some old grumps I used to know in my home town who have dug into their little purses to fight against something that really makes absolutely no difference in their lives. Happy wishful thinking, everyone!
How is it that a group of people who have historically fought for their rights to believe and live as they like, want to not only find fault, but try to barricade other’s desires to do the same? Funny what money and power will do to individuals and groups.
Homosexuals are not hurting you. And they are not hurting our landscape…anymore than the rest of us are.
If you are so concerned about doing God’s work, why don’t you put your money towards ending the killings of thousands of people around the world?
I find it hard to believe that a religious group that speaks so highly about love, acceptance and respect can’t find it in their hearts to feel the same towards those who are also God’s children…gay or not.
People are people. I would much rather live around those who simply want to love each other, than those who want to fight, maim and kill…or keep others from fulfilling their dreams of being a social, productive, caring and loving human being.
Much of this is why I’ve chosen not to remain a Mormon. I am too ashamed to be one…with all the hatred, meanness and hypocrisy.
Anyone have a mirror handy?
Wendy L. Smith
with the money you’re throwing to the prop 8 campaign you could be wiping out poverty. get your priorities straight !!!!
who cares if gay people want to get married. it doesn’t affect us at ALL. not one single bit. put money behind making people’s lives better instead of tearing peoples’ lives apart.
concerned.
For all those people out there prepared to vote no on this proposition, I must encourage you to broaden your views on the issue and ask yourself if this proposition is not too restrictive. I am an individual full of love. I happen to love people, lots of people. What if I want to marry, three men, and six women? Why can’t I do that? I also happen to love my family members. Can’t I marry them as well, my brothers, sister, parents and cousins? I also really love animals; dogs, cats, goats, horses. I want to marry them, all of them, I love them.
Should not the great state of California give the same equal recognition to my choice and hopes for marriage, as traditional heterosexual marriage, or same sex marriage?
So let me ask you, my fellow proponents who are prepared to vote no on prop 8. Do any of my views make you uncomfortable? Would you have a problem with public schools teaching your children that polyandry, polygyny, marriage of man and beast and marriage to family members is normal and equal in the eyes of the state? If my comments make you uncomfortable, then you are to narrow minded, insensitive, and intolerant. Why must the definition of marriage in California be numerically, sexually and specie restrictive. Let me remind you, people like me love people, animals and lots of other things; and I want, no demand the right to marry all of them. I ask you, my fellow Californians who are prepared to vote no on proposition 8, to respond and support truly unrestricted marriage in California. Will you, my fellow ‘no on 8′ voters pledge to support those of us who want to marry beast, cousin and multiple persons?
How can you say something like that? Prop 8 only allows the marriage between 2 people- not multiple people, animals, or family members. The fact that you proclaim this makes me think that you are seriously disturbed and will do and say anything to promote a disguised, hateful agenda.
I seriously think that your jargin and your thought pattern in this message has been fed to you and by no means should you ever connect these disturbing points to prop 8.
to susan #65
massresistance.org has been formally listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (along with the KKK and similar groups). Its not something I would tout to back up that supporting prop8 isn’t motivated out of fear and hatred.
as a massachusetts resident, that site is detested by liberals and conservatives alike for its gross misrepresentation of the gay community as well as other minority communities (including Mormons- if you scroll through the posts from Romney days).
as for the Parkers, they had their day in FEDERAL court (not to be confused with the Mass. court that legalized gay marriage) and their arguments were not supported. they appealed to the US Supreme Court. And they wouldn’t even take it. its not the gay community’s fault that their lawyers couldn’t produce a compelling case.
As a member of the church, I am disgusted by this site. Are we not told to love and tolerate everyone?
Gay marriage is harmful to no one. Two loving adults should be able to have the exact same rights as anyone else. And gay marriage is not the same thing as incest- incest can harm the couple’s children, but a homosexual relationship, if practiced safely, will hurt no one.
Furthermore, voting against something based purely on religious beliefs is ridiculous. Has anyone ever heard of separation of church and state?
I say, let someone love who they want to love. And as Latter-Day Saints, we shouldn’t be filled with hate and bigotry. Didn’t the same thing happen to us 150 years ago?
I don’t believe that ANYONE whether it be a person, organization or religious group has ANY business donating with the purpose of affecting a CALIFORNIA ballot proposition! THis issue is for the RESIDENTS and CITIZENS of California to decide how they would like THEIR government to run. UTAH has absolutely NO business whatsoever trying to interfere with a neighboring state’s government! Utah can do whatever they want with their own citizens inside their own borders but they need to BUTT OUT of issues that are for the people of CALIFORNIA.
I can’t believe people actually think homesexuality is a choice. I have two great parents, both had equal position when it came to big decisions, agruements, etc. I’ve liked boys for as long as I can remember, so please don’t try to feed me a line of crap as many of you have regarding the “Choice” or being “Born” gay. It’s very sad that we all can’t stop and put ourseleves into the others persons shoes.
Pat Chris,
If, as you say, you’re interested in marrying either
1.) a close relative
2.) more than one person
3.) or an animal
I invite you to formulate the arguments for why we should accept any of these propositions and then offer these arguments to us. I’m sure you would agree that we shouldn’t accept just anything that comes down the pike, so what have you got? Gays and Lesbians have already made compelling arguments for their inclusion in the civil institution of marriage and every day more of their fellow citizens are finding the arguments persuasive. For a sampler of these arguments, Take a look here:
http://stream.cile.edu/stcl/movies/IsGayMarriageConservative/PresenterDaleCarpenter.wmv
and you can review the legal arguments in the recent CA case here:
http://www.lambdalegal.org/our-work/in-court/cases/in-re-marriage-cases.html
So, for instance, if you’re really contemplating a romantic relationship with an animal, why don’t you convince us that the multi-dimensional, consensual, human relationships gays and lesbians have, are in any way equivalent to the romantic relationship you might contemplate with an animal. Some would argue that an animal, not being capable of informed consent, could not actually enter into a marriage with you. Or do you see no difference between your spouse and your dog?
NO on Proposition 8…it will only take our choice away to marry who we love.
And….I am so disappointed in the religion I once truly believed in my whole life, but it has become apart of a movement to take my choice away.
Marriage between a Man and a Woman is a contract. Pure and simple it guarantees to each marriage partner legal rights to property and protection. When the contract is in place it eliminates the need for a legal contract covering each and every thing that happens.
What is the big WOOP in denying this right to others who love other human beings in the same way (or better ways) than women/men unions. Gay couples have kids, live prosperous lives, work, volunteer, play sports and every other thing heteros do. What about the marriage contract makes it only valid between people of the opposite sex? What about opposite sex marriages that are entered into for illegal reasons like getting green cards? What about the marriages that are forced on young people because they are pregnant?
Anyone who has tried to get out of a marriage contract is sorely aware of the implications of saying “I Do” amidst the excitement of anticipation of good sex and ?? the unknown. That’s it…the unknown. No one knows if there will be a 50 year union with many beautiful children…or a hellish marriage filled with abuses, both physical and psychological, to both the involved parties and any children they produce. Is it really a RIGHT that should only be extended to those who are born hetero? What about the heteros who can’t conceive? should they be forced to turn in their marriage certificates because they did not fulfill the contracts? What about adulterers? What about abusers?
Why deny people who are devoted to each other…many times more than hetero couples are…the right to an adult existance that allows them a union recognized by laws. The contract of marriage allows adults to speak for each other, share benefits, be protected, share assets. Really, when it gets down to the contract marriage represents, shouldn’t people be allowed the same privileges regardless of who they want to link their lives to? same sex or opposite sex?
It baffles me that people cry out in the name of religion that this contract should be denied one group because it is against “G-d” what sort of G-d would create Gays and then deny them, in his name, of any rights to a life as an adult?
Maybe G-d has created Gays to be an example of his original commandments: Love Thy Neighbor As Thyself.
Pretty simple instruction. Sure doesn’t sound like he meant Love Thy Neighbor As Thyself….but only if thy neighbor is exactly like thyself.
Get over the hate you dumb Mormons. Quit listening to the lessons handed out by your OLD, Decrepit, White Male Leaders who look like they have ZERO touch with the teachings of G-d.
Every one has a right to their own opinions. But when a group of people use their opinions to pass laws that support their opinions, that’s when the line gets crossed.
I don’t have a problem with a church saying who can or can’t marry in their church, but this is statewide and it affects more than just Mormons in California.
I grew up in California and now live in Utah. Utah has already shown it’s conformist side and banned same-sex marriage. Don’t do this to California (or any other state, for that matter). Keep your beliefs between your own members and out of the general public.
I will not be surprised if a challenge to the LDS church’s tax exempt status comes up due to their heavy participation in this, even if they are doing their best to walk the line and play it safe.
I am an openly gay man, living in Portland, Oregon, and when I heard about the LDS Church’s involvement in supporting Prop. 8, I was disgusted. First of all, is it any one man’s right to judge any other, or to take away their civil liberties based on religious doctrine? This is wrong.
Also, from reading through some of the comments, I felt compelled to respond. My father was the provider in the family, he was Republican, he paid his taxes, and he love every single member of his family. I was raised with sound moral values, and I am gay. My father was a responsible man who taught me well, yet somehow, I still turned out gay… I wonder how? I mean, if all gay people choose to be so as a result of poor fathering, then I must just be an anomyly. Strange.
My advice to everyone is to mind your own business. Concentrate on your own family’s salvation. Please, do not assume that you have the authority to impose on my rights as a human being, simply because your church leader tells you that I am wrong and you are right. Do you see gay people trying to pass legislation to take away straight marriage? Absolutely not.
Nobody deserves to be discriminated against. Wake up, people. It’s time that this issue be laid to rest.
You have spent $8.4 million dollars to support Proposition 8. This makes me very excited that there are so many willing people to donate to this cause. I mean really $8.4 million!! That money could have fed sooo many hungry children in this world, that have just died since reading this post. That could have built sooo many homes for the homeless. So again thank you all for using your brains and donating to such a worthy cause!! Donators-go get an education, and stop being ignorant!!!!
#110- Martymankins
Your logic doesn’t work here. You stated: “when a group of people use their opinions to pass laws that support their opinions, that’s when the line gets crossed.” How do you suppose that gay marriage became legal in California to begin with? —A group of people used their opinions to pass a law that supported thier opinions. Those that oppose prop. 8, generally use this same hypocritical argument.
Here’s the issue: Nothing in any law in California or any other state that I know of says that you can’t live with any other person that you want to. Prohibiting same sex marriage does not prohibit two or more people from loving or living with each other. Religious groups and even the Mormon church do not want to take away individual God given rights to love or live with whom you may.
God given rights of freedom can not be taken from you by churches or governments. Marriage is not a God given right. In fact, it’s a government issued certificate.
Marriage is between a man and a women. It always has been, even form the beginning. Who’s trying to change what???
We are not fighting against gays!!!! We are fighting to PROTECT the traditional family that is continually being attacked. Live your life, do what you wish, with whom you wish, love whom you will - But please don’t use the same argument you claim we use and try to force your beliefs on us- Those who do value traditional family values.
This country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. Who’s trying to force what on whom here?
Is marriage a right? How so? I don’t remember it ever being so listed in the Constitution of the United States as a right. I am not trying to be argumentative, I am sincerely asking. I do know that marriage is ordained of God and central to His plan for His children here upon the earth. I know that morality dictates laws. With reading and studying the Book of Mormon, I have learned that when the leaders of a government and the people under those governments choose to live in such a manor that went against the laws of God that the people as a whole suffered. Remember that I am looking at this as one who believes the Book of Mormon to be the word of God and the doctrine of the church true and correct. Regardless, I know that other religions believe that marriage is to be between one man and one woman also. This is not a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint run idea. It is a Christian ideal. Again, I know that morality dictates laws. What is your morality?
My morality tells me that I should support this proposition because same sex marriage goes against the laws of God. Should I as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints not stand for what I believe to be right and good because others disagree with the doctrine of the church or my morality? Could you go against what you felt to be right? If I don’t agree with same sex marriage, I am intolerant? Really? Aren’t those that don’t agree with my stand intolerant?
I believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman. Because I believe that, I am wrong? Who decides which side is right or wrong? We can all argue about that until we’re blue in the face. Let us all vote our conscience. The church is getting out the word that this proposition is on the ballet in the upcoming election. No ones hand is being forced to say yes or no just because they are a member of the church or being informed by the church. Each member of the church and society will vote their conscience. If the church is wrong for helping to get the word out that this proposition is on the ballet then the opposition is just as wrong for soliciting what they believe also. Right?
As a nonmember who has relatives who are members of the LDS Church, I must observe that the LDS Church is improperly involving itself in a purely secular matter when they get involved in the issue of gay marriage. The word, “marriage” covers a lot of territory. Marriage in church is a sacrament. Civil marriage is a legally binding contract. The church should decide on who gets the sacrament and who does not and to limit marriage to opposite sex couples just denies the reality of a changing society in a modern world. To hear LDS members tell the story, you would think that if Prop 8 fails, there are going to be sealing ceremonies for same sex couples in the Salt Lake temple! The definition of marriage is not changed - it will always mean the union of a man and a woman. However, the definition is expanded to include all people.
I must admit however, in looking over the donor list, that it sobering to think that people feel so threatened that they are willing to part with a much as $100,000 at one pop in order to mkae the point that they believe they are better than someone else. SHAME ON YOU!
Wonder why people are voting for prop 8?
This video will explain what many people above are denying. Denying what has happened and denying what will happen.
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1352578267?bctid=1784521903
Who’s trying to force what on whom?
The effort by out of state religious fanatics to take away equal marriage rights from Californians is vile and disgusting. If LDS is allowed to sway public opinion and therfore elections through financial means, then they should pay taxes like the rest of us. Remember the “revelation” in the late 70’s that black members were “suddenly equal”? It was a calculated move to retain tax-exempt status. Like polygamy, LDS is constantly behind contemporary society’s progression. It’s one of the reasons that the rest of the world is passing America by.
The video referred to by The Voice has several problems, many of which are addressed at this site:
http://mormonsformarriage.com/?p=44
Also, the US Supreme Court this week refused to hear the Parkers’ appeal.
Sadly you dont understand a few things about marriage. The Church of Jesus Christ will never accept sam-sex marriage no matter what society they live in. And the suddenly rumor that “black people became equal” is just a jab to attempt make the Mormons some highly new stylish religion. While I’m not here to discuss those issues, Propostion 8 is the most important case that has come up in a while and will be for the next few years and this will define what course society will take the next few years, for the better or for the worse. Proposition 8 is a aim to help families and if you are intrested in tearing that instituion apart also, then be my guest and take your picket sign with the No to the otherside.
Gay advocates say we are using as “scare tactics” but it’s happening and this video proves it. Your stating that the U.S. Supreme court refused to hear the appeal is exactly what were talking about here. The minority is trampling on the majority and forcing their views, beliefs on the rest of us. It has nothing to do with hatred or not wanting people to live together. It’s not really about gay marriage, it’s about the gay movement- and while we are fine with you living with whomever you want to live with, DON’T FORCE IT ON US OR OUR KIDS! Would you have a problem with us (straights) telling your kids that gay marriage is wrong in the schools? Of course you would. We’re asking for the same thing.
What a ride it is to read these comments. It’s amazing to me that people who live on the same planet can feel so opposed to each other. It reaffirms to me that there really is opposition in all things! It seems simple until peoples experiences and emotions come into play. As I was reading though, I came across someone’s words that made perfect sense. I couldn’t have said it better myself….so I’m just going to quote her. Thanks Susan…you have a way with logic, kindness and directness. Quote: “When the rights of two groups collide, consider who has the most to lose.
Homosexual groups will lose the right to use a word. No other tangible right will be lost. You can still be in committed unions, adopt children, etc.
Religious Parents,however, will lose the right to keep their children from being exposed to things that are in direct conflict with their religious convictions. They will lose the right to exercise their religion as it relates to teaching children correct principles. You know its true. That is why no one will directly address it.
The only argument I hear over and over again is you’re hurting my feelings or what a shameful church you belong to.”
This site is misleading and biased. If there were a website that listed the names and cities of all homosexual couples in the state of CA, it would cause a huge outrage, be labelled as hate speech, and ordered to be shut down.
This is a shameful attempt to intimidate members of the LDS Church who donate to the cause of Prop. 8.
The Church is perfectly within its legal rights to get involved on issues. They are not endorsing any particular politician or candidate. They are focusing on an issue. It will not affect their tax-exempt status. It is not wrong.
There are many, many other groups working for Prop. 8, not just the LDS Church. For those who preach “tolerance,” there seems to be an awful lot of intolerance of religious people’s rights to get involved politically.
Isn’t it odd that a church which supported polygamy for so long is suddenly on the one man/one woman train? Is it that history that makes you all so sensitive on the marriage subject?
Once again, as Californians, we find our lives being affected by a ridiculously liberal decision of the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, this is not a decision having to do with illegal aliens or car insurance; it is about the institution of marriage. This question up for debate is not about Gay couples in love. If that were really the focus, this proposition would not even be on the ballot.
Most Californians, to include Christians respect the rights of people to live the lifestyle they choose as long as it does not affect them. Californians have tolerated Gay lifestyle even to the point of not blocking efforts to give homosexuals the same rights. What the Gay activists are not stating in their arguments is the fact that California’s laws, already provide legal rights to gay couples that are provided to traditional married people.
The California Supreme Court’s ruling regurgitated another flawed perspective, but this time on same-sex marriage, and it defies all logic and judicial prudence.
The court, totally disregarding the will of the people moved same-sex marriage to a protected class.
So what does that mean to you? Well, I am not an attorney but based on what I have witnessed in history, it means that if you oppose homosexuality on moral or religious grounds and teach your children that homosexuality is a sin, it will hurt their feelings and somehow interfere with the rights of same-sex couples, and guess what? I do not have to tell you how skewed the Supreme Court is in this state, it surely does not take a rocket scientist to figure out how the court will respond. Invariably those Judges who are full of misplaced compassion will side with same-sex couples because of their protected class status.
As Californians, we have already become a silent majority because expressing a view in opposition to same-sex marriage often exposes people to personal attacks, exclusion, and even threats of loss of employment for standing for what they believe about marriage.
Try working at Disneyland, Google, or PG&E and express openly your views on traditional marriage, and see how popular you become. Look up the law suits going on right now in California over people losing thier Jobs becasue they have different opinions about homosexuality.
So, the question many of you are asking yourselves is; how did we get here, who is to blame? The answer…We all are to blame!
Our spirit to stand up for what is right has been eroded by political correctness and fears that as a people we might be accused of being thought of as intolerant or branded bigots. Over the years, we have stood by and allowed the Courts and legislature to pass laws that are contributing to the decay of our culture established by our Forefathers, and is creating a society of self-indulgent individuals that care nothing for the laws of decency and the real freedoms our Country represents.
Amazingly, the proponents of this new society have accomplished this by perverting the meaning of these freedoms to include the acceptance of unnatural and deviant sexual behavior and they have done it all in the name of the Constitution of the United States.
I can hear you screaming at your computer screen right now, I was trying to be tolerant, and certainly, nothing could be wrong with protecting the so-called rights of a fellow Human Being, could it?
As Americans, we thought we were removing the Government from our bedrooms but unfortunately, that is not where it stopped. Gays with a newfound sense of freedom and acceptance could not leave well enough alone, they had to rub our heterosexual noses in their lifestyle and take what should have stayed in the bedroom to the streets.
It was not good enough for them that we were tolerating something that deep down most of us felt was disgusting and corruptive behavior. They demanded that we accepted homosexuality as normal and even teach our children it was ok to be Gay.
We now see the consequences of tolerating something that should have never have been tolerated in the first place. This is a perfect example of “giving an inch and losing a mile”.
Probably the most disturbing consequence to allowing this madness to continue is what will happen to our children and grand children. California law provides for the teaching of children about marriage. If you do not know this, ask a teacher. Under the current ruling, our children would have to sit in class and be taught that there is no distinction between same-sex marriage and traditional marriage. Furthermore, it would be discriminatory to view the two marriages in any other way but the same.
Ask yourself, would you as a parent have the right to teach your own child the true meaning of marriage? You already know the answer to that question. This is exactly the case in Massachusetts, just ask the Parker family, the Father was arrested for trying to teach his son’s the true meaning of marriage and refusing to allow them to attend school when homosexuality was being taught.
I am not just pulling this stuff out of thin air here folks, do your own research. Another such instance was a teacher taught a second-grade class using a book, which told the story of a prince marrying another prince. Is this the kind of stories you want your children to learn?
This is indoctrination and propaganda in its worst form. I can only imagine that all the dead communists and socialists in history are probably celebrating because the tactics being used in this battle are the same if not worse and would even amuse Mussolini.
I read a column by a Catholic Bishop yesterday and he profoundly outlined all the pitfalls for condoning same-sex marriage and homosexuality. I am not Catholic but l was appalled at reading the mean and hateful comments to his expression of ideas from the Gay side of the issue. This is disturbing to think that rather than debate the question these people must resort to slinging mud. It reminds me of a small child that does not get his or her way.
Nevertheless, upon closer investigation of the claims made by Gay lifestyle promoters it seems clear now that they are not aware of what is happening even in their own movement. It is already becoming a hate crime in Massachusetts, for voicing opinions against homosexuality. The Gay and Lesbian blogs are full of denials that they would ever file lawsuits against Churches or demand that schools teach homosexuality; this is just not true.
The message that this Catholic Bishop is talking about is becoming fact in both states that allow Homosexuals to marry and if you dig even further you will discover that freedom of speech in some European countries is non-existent when it comes to Homosexual issues.
It appears our Gay friends think that tolerance is a door that swings only one way, and it must be in their direction. The fact of the matter is this, tolerance does not mean acceptance. For that to take place, all Christians would have to accept homosexuality as normal and you might as well ask them to condone abortions. I know a number of Catholics, I know Lutherans, Baptists, Born Again’s, and even a few Mormons, and they will always believe homosexuality is abnormal behavior until kingdom come.
Nevertheless, they have always accepted the fact that people make choices and have the freedom to do so with their lives every day. They will even love those people that make the wrong choices, as did Jesus Christ but, to demand that they become advocates of those choices, it just will not happen.
Gays have all the legal rights that a traditional married couple have in this State; no one is going to take them away. Moreover, they do not deserve to elevate their choice of such behavior to a protected class, no more than any other individual or group that makes choices. If we as Christians must be tolerant of Gay lifestyle, then they must be tolerant of ours.
And by the way, I couldn’t find a page on Catholics for Proposition 8. You’re probably working on that one!
Despite all the multimillion s wasted by the LDS church and their ever so obedient followers, the progress of civil rights will not be denied. Chalk up Connecticut, to proclaim gay people are not less than straights and allow them their full civil rights.
I would also like to say gays and lesbians are just like the straights, with all manners of lifestyles. I submit, my lifestyle is no different than my temple officiating parents. I guess that makes my folks scary monsters, who innocent children must be protected against.
Conservatives complain that all these court decisions in favor of gay marriage are made by liberal activist judges which is something you desperately want to believe but simply is not true. The California Supreme Court has seven justices sitting on it currently. Six of the seven justices are Republican appointees. In Massachusetts the same situation holds true - 6 out of seven justices on their supreme court are Republican appointees as well. Today, the Connecticutt Supreme Court has ruled in favor of gay marriage and I suspect that a majority of their supreme court justices are also Republicans. While Connecticut is generally a Democrat state, ironically Connecticut has not had a Democratic govenor for quite some time.
What really is at issue here for the Gay Community which no one is talking about is that the Gay Community will never acccept the premise or implication that their relationships are more or less important than heterosexual relationships. They will not accept that opposite sex relationships are more important than homosexual relationships to the point that they deserve to be put in a special category and be labeled with a special word called, “marriage”. The Yes on Prop 8 people are insulted that homosexuals want to be included in the word, “marriage” and opposite sex couples do not want to share this word with with same sex couples. Opposite sex couples feel threatened and are offended that same sex couples would dare to propose that their relationships constitute a, “marriage” and dare to imply that their relationships are on a par with heterosexual realtionships. This comes accross as arrogant to the Gay Community and they will have none of it!
First let me upfront and direct on this. I am NOT against traditional marriage and I do not feel that it is being threatened by proposition 8 at all. We do not need a piece of paper to dictate to us what we have known for centuries. To me, Proposition 8 is not about marriage at all. It is about having free agency to do what others do legally as well. On this world becoming like Sodom and Gomorrah, we’re so there already, this is not anything worth worrying about. This in fact is as tame as polygamy. It is a choice of lifestyle, that while I may not decide to take on for myself, works fine for others. They also have the right to make their own decisions.
When Lucifer provided his plan to God, it was with the full intention to force or mandate people to do the right and we would all go to heaven. We would be able to make ZERO decisions for ourselves, but we all go back to our heavenly father’s presence. Lucifer’s goofs were plenty. He took away free agency AND wanted all the credit and glory in this choice.
When Christ provided his plan to God, he understood that while his choice provided free agency to us all, not everyone would return, in fact, it is possible that a very small percentage return. BUT, people would return of their own free will. They would not do so coerced or forced to do what is right. Christ also gave the glory to God and thought naught of himself.
If proposition 8 is placed into law, we have essentially FORCED gay people into a situation where they are forced to obey what is right. They may be Christian or they may NOT be, but either way, they are being forced by a plan that Christ didn’t even come up with, Lucifer did, to force all people to do what is right. Gay people are being forced or mandated to do what is right because of religions that they do not even follow or believe.
The Proclamation of the Family STILL stands, it will NOT be taken down or disrupted by a small minority of people who are gay and decide to get married.
My life would not change, if this law is not approved. Gay people have been together for years and this will do nothing to change that. They deserve the same free agency to make their own decisions as we all do. It doesn’t mean that I feel the need to support gay marriage, it means that I feel that they deserve the same free agency that God gave me to make my own decisions, right or wrong.
Let’s face it. There are interesting sides to this as well. I am not condoning this, but for argument sake, the marriage penalty for gay men will be pretty strong unless they adopt a child or have a surrogate mother to help them out. Women will also face challenges as well. There will be gay divorces and the like. They will realize what they have received. If they make the bed, they will sleep in it. They will see that marriage is good, but because it is legal, does NOT mean that God condones it. It does NOT mean that we condone it either. Proposition 8 means that we afforded people the free agency to marry and all that goes along with it, both good and bad.
With Rights comes responsibility, with actions comes accountability.
This to me is a non-issue. If you don’t agree with marriage equality, don’t marry someone of the same sex! As a school teacher, I don’t ever recall reading/citing the words…”with liberty and justice for ALL” and seeing the word, “except”. Separate but equal does not, has not and should not work. We can not “eenie meenie miney moe” through our neighborhoods and point to who is allowed marriage or not. As a christian and American, I am for equality, love, and acceptance to all human life. God bless, Stephanie
What do I think of Prop 8? I think anyone who wants to deny two consenting adults the right to marry, regardless of gender and sexual orientation, is not serving God. Call me crazy, but I always had this idea of God as a loving God who loves everyone - gays not excluded.
Love is love. Who are you - who are any of us? - to tell two people that, because they’re both men or both women, they can’t spend the rest of their lives with someone they love? God doesn’t bless people who say that. God doesn’t bless people who persecute others.
Until God comes down from the sky and tells me I’ve got it all wrong, I’ll stick with the friendly God.
So what do I think of this website? Guess.
For over 30 years, I was a devout Mormon, but then about four years ago I started having some doubts about certain aspects of LDS doctrine, policy, and history. My research only proved that Mormonism cannot withstand careful, objective scrutiny. Still, I was appreciative of some of the things I had gained from Mormonism and my close ties with my LDS family. For many people who believe, the church is a force for positive and good, and so in that respect I think it has some value.
But for some reason, this whole Prop 8 thing has really brought back all those negative feelings again about the church and its power over its adherents. Looking at the amount of time, effort and money that they’ve decided to throw at this one issue makes me think that church leaders have decided that this is where they are going to stake their claim and make their name–to let it be known to the world that Mormons “do” traditional marriages and nuclear families better than anyone else–that Mormons will be the ones who swoop in to protect marriage in these “last days.” This will not be the last time we see the gay community fighting for their civil rights (regardless of how Prop 8 comes out), so the Mormon hierarchy is going to have to keep rearing its ugly head and pulling out its wallet and rhetoric of intolerance every time the issue comes up. Look at the gay blogs and chat groups… they are asking who are these Mormons with all this money and political influence and why do they hate us so much? What’d we ever do to them? I just really hate for this to become the defining feature of Mormonism–the people who once were hated for trumpeting polygamy now turn around and lead the charge against gay marriage. This won’t be good for Mormons, it won’t be good for gay people, it won’t be good for anybody. Pick a new PR campaign strategy–this one is a bomb.
P.S. I don’t know about you, but I don’t remember my school teachers ever saying a damn word about heterosexual marriage. Is there some new educational subject that has escaped me called “Heterosexual Marriage/1 Man-1 Woman 101″? Most teachers are already aware that many of their students are raised in non-nuclear family households. They probably already avoid language that would make children in single-parent households etc. feel badly about their situation. I think this is just a scare tactic. And if teachers change the word “husband” or “wife” to just “spouse,” who really cares? As for the idea that gay marriage might be considered equal to straight marriage? Um, yeah, that’s kind of the point. What would you say to someone 50 years ago who argued, “I don’t want your interracial marriage to be viewed as ‘just as good’ as my same-race marriage. That’s outrageous!” As for some of the other outrageous claims made that we need to draw the line somewhere–what if people want to marry dogs, cats, trees… how very insulting to your fellow gay citizens. You equate their love with something non-human and bizarre. Before you try to take away the rights of an entire group of people, I urge you, please, get to know one gay married couple. Spend some time with them before you go to place a vote that will have an enormous impact on their lives, yet little to none on yours. At least have an informed opinion on the matter other than the one your leaders have spoonfed to you.
I’m sort of curious as to what people think “traditional marriage” is. We had a saying at the college I went to that something became “tradition” after it had been around for a couple of years, because by that time, what was happening seemed like it had happened forever.
In the early history of Christianity, marriage was often considered a civil affair: the church didn’t even get involved. Some people had their relationships solemnized, but for the most part the church didn’t get involved in marriage (or divorce, for that matter.)
As a matter of fact, in the early days of Christianity, there are examples of some churches that solemnized same-sex relationships with ceremonies that were substantially similar to the ceremonies used to solemnize opposite-sex relationships. It’s hard to say whether or not the people going to those ceremonies thought of them as “weddings” though, because the church really didn’t get that involved.
Something that’s a little bit more well known is that historically, women were often treated essentially as property in a marriage relationship. Marriage, from the civil law point of view, was a transfer of a woman from her father’s property to her new husband’s property. While this is a simplification of the matter, that’s essentially what the legal definition of it was.
These days, many people take issue with the idea that a wife must be completely subordinate to her husband. I’m not Mormon, but I understand that many traditionalist Mormons actually believe this, so I’ll ask my first question of this post: would you use the law to legally force this interpretation on others?
One could also argue that arranged marriages are part of traditional marriage; they’re certainly the tradition in many parts of the world. Would people advocate the law forcing children to get married if their parents had arranged a marriage?
It turns out that some religions don’t view marriage so restrictively that it’s confined to different-sex partners. Why are those religions prevented from allowing their definitions of marriage from being recognized by civil law?
I’ll concede the point that one of the convincing arguments for marriage is that it strengthens families. But it provides the same sorts of strength to families headed by same-sex partners as opposite-sex partners. Studies in scientifically peer reviewed journals show that children from same-sex parents are virtually indistinguishable from children raised by opposite-sex parents. The difference that shows up is that the kids are more accepting of same-sex couples. In spite of this, they’re no more likely to be gay than kids brought up by straight parents. (If this isn’t pretty strong evidence that it’s not a “choice”, I don’t know what is.)
Refusing to allow same sex couples the right to marry *forces* their families to not have the same sort of strong foundation from which to build that a straight couple can have. The number of same sex couples with children is substantial. Campaigns to prevent families with same sex parents from having the same rights as other families only serve to harm children, in very measurable ways.
And for those who believe that civil unions or contracts can serve to replace the rights and treatment that marriage is given, I would advise looking into the Langbehn case that is currently being heard in Florida, where children were denied the right to see their mother in the hospital as she lay dying in spite of such contracts. This bigotry is harmful to children, and the civil legal system should play no part in perpetuating it.
Wow, this site is ridiculous. The mormon Church should just stay out of political issues. Honestly, if two guys, or two girls married each other, does it really hurt your relationship with your husband/wife, and family? And look at all the money that has been donated! Look at all the other problems in the world! There are starving families in Africa and other places of the world, there is a war going on, there is diseases that aren’t being cured, there are so many other problems in the world and the Mormon church is so focused on gay marriage. I am 18, grew up mormon in Utah, and am gay. I have wanted to kill myself at times because of how the Mormon church treats gays. And if this was a choice to be gay, then why would I choose it when I know I would loose my family, friends, and basically kicked out of my religion. IT IS NOT A CHOICE!! Get that through your thick skulls! But, I am gay, and I have come to accept it, and I hope to marry my significant other one day and enjoy the benefits that straight couples get. Also, notice how Utah’s suicide rate is so high? Why are young boys and girls killing them selves at such a high rate?? The church just needs to back off and stay out of other state political issues.
When the brakes are squealing real bad, remove them! Put new brakes in it’s place. I have a jeep and that is what I did to the brakes.
There is a community (gay) that is not just squealing but screaming, we need to shut them up/remove them/replace them!
I would be HONORED to see my name on this list. Unfortunately my financial status won’t allow me to donate $1000 right now. And yes, it’s plain to see a lot more hate and intolerance from the ‘no’ side.
To Shelly (#115) marriage IS a right. Please read (or at least Google) the US Supreme Court decision of Loving v. Virginia. This is the decision which invalidated the state laws prohibiting (indeed criminalizing) inter-racial marriage. Many of the arguments against the legal rights of gays to marry hold strong echoes of the arguments offered in defense of miscegenation laws. (Harms society, offends the sense of right and wrong of the larger community). Also check out Griswald v. Connecticut, the STARTof the line of cases in support of keeping the law and other peoples’ opinons of morality out of the private sexual relationships of consenting adults.
And Pat (#100) before you go off again about recognizing as a marriage sexual relationships with multiple partiners, close relatives, children and animals, “consenting” means that animals are not in the picture and both “consenting” and “adult” excludes chidren. And who is it that is forcing 15 year olds to marry their uncles (who already have three other wives)? Why it’s the (Fundamentalist) LDS church! You may disavow them now, but you are the ones who started that ball rolling and now it’s you guys leading the charge to prevent two consenting adults from marrying becaues you don’t approve of the gender disribution of the couple! Pure Loving v. VA reasoning moving from one ground of discrimination (race) to another (sexual orientation).
If you can’t manage the humility to stop assuming that you MUST be right because you have surrounded yourself with people who agree with you and never hear a dissenting viewpoint except from people who you have been raised to believe are going to be wrong before they open their mouths, and if a sense of fairness, or compassion or just a live-and-let-live attitude can’t pierce your shell of (self) righteousness, then at least try to be open to the irony of it all.
And not that it matters, but just so you know, I am a hetrosexual white woman who has been married to a hetrosexual white man for 33 years, in a first (and only!) marriage for both of us and both of our children are straight.
I object to racial discrimination (starting in the 60’s, as soon as I became aware of it) and I object to discrimination against gays and lesbians not because I was the victim or even in a close relationship with some one who was a victim but because it is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG to try to restrict the rights, freedom and happiness of someone because they are different from you. It hurts them civilly and it hurts YOU morally. Morality is not a set of rules you follow. It is an attitude of loving kindness and fair dealing with others. And it starts with not harming others, moves to defending others who are being abused and lands on minding your own business beyond that.
Love your souls, kiddos; am appalled at your actions.
I love this website! Read about it on the Wall Street Journal. This morning on NPR they mentioned how Mormons are the biggest contributors.
Don’t any of you ever get tired of being in a church that prides itself at being on the lagging edge of social justice. Blacks, women, gays…you name it….the church is way behind the times.
There’s lots of good things about the church…it’s friendly, Mormons make excellent neighbors,etc., but the leaders are not prophets — they are laggards.
Oy vey!
Why is it the people who claim they don’t want somebody else’s morality forced upon them seek to force their own on others? Society must live by a standard. Either gay marriage is condoned by the laws of the society or it is not. How is this morality to be chosen by the society, especially when it affects the liberty and property of others? Shouldn’t people be able to have their say and then the process determined by the group be used to determine these rules?
I read the responses to the six consequences article and here are some responses.
1. What GLSEN handing out graphic how-to books in Mass. age appropriate? How about the sex surveys to middle school kids? There is not guarantee that things will be anywhere near what the average person considers age appropriate?
2. What about the Knights of Columbus in Canada who were sued? Courts are increasingly looking to international law if they don’t like our own.
3. Why should federal and state funds be limited to those who are politically correct? Why are they even there at all? Isn’t this an admission of prejudice by the government against those with religious belief?
5. How costly is it to defend against these lawsuits? It obviously discourages free speech.
6. If problems are already occurring in places where gay marriage is not yet legalized, won’t it be worse once it is? Canada is a great example, and things have gotten worse.
In the GDR you could be whatever religion you wanted to be but if it wasn’t politically correct you had no chance of making a decent living. You were penalized for your beliefs. I hope that does not occur here.
Here’s an observation nobody else seems to have made. Where is THOMAS S. MONSON’s name on this list of donors? Why hasn’t MONSON put any of his own cash on the line, after directing all LDS members to do so? In fact, you can’t find any of the LDS First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve listed as donors, whether for or against Proposition 8. The Los Angeles Times has provided a helpful search engine, including not only large donations, but small ones down to $100. Here’s a link to that search engine: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-metro-prop-8,0,2463893.htmlstory
Try it for yourself! To make it simple, run a search by just entering “UT” in the state field, and you’ll get a full listing of donors from Utah, both for and against Proposition 8. Not one member of the LDS First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve appear. If your money needs to be sacrificed, why not theirs? It’s not as if they’re trying to avoid appearing to take a particular side on the issue.
Wow. Not one individual has posted anything here that shows any understanding of the issue at hand with Prop 8. So, allow me to answer the comments that are already on this page.
Equality is not a true issue here. Equality and civil rights have been used as political tools by Mormon activists to gain political clout by asserting that Mormons are “born that way.”
However, ALL scientific evidence says Mormons are NOT born that way.
In the case of Temple marriage, they are attempting to assert special rights for themselves with this argument.
Currently, they have the same rights as everyone else: to marry one person.
Mormonism is a CHOICE and, as such, society has no obligation to adjust laws for every lifestyle choice that arises.
The separation of church and state is yet another bogus argument. While the constitution does mention such a term, it is intended to keep any ONE religion from legislating and/or otherwise controlling government. Like in Utah which is run by Mormons.
Freedom of choice is still allowed for Mormons; they still have the freedom to be Mormon, and to have relationships. That choice will not be removed from them. However, the FORCED recognition of Temple marriages upon society as being superior to Catholic unions takes away the freedom of hundreds of millions MORE people, especially as it begins to be taught in public schools.20
Marriage was federally recognized to support the one union that has been proven by time and experience to most benefit humanity and promote the continuance of our society, and that is TRADITIONAL HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE! Not Polygamist Temple Marriage.
Also a Harvard study shows that gay couples make better parents.
Intolerance is a misused term. The issue of tolerance is summed up quite nicely by Alwaysgreen International’s chairman Harry Richland:
“Those who favor Temple marriage contend that ‘tolerance’ demands that they be given the right to marry more than one wife. But this appeal for ‘tolerance’ has a very different meaning and outcome than that word has meant throughout most of American history and a different meaning than is found in the gospel of Jesus Christ,” he said.
“Tolerance as a gospel principle means love and forgiveness of one another.”
Which of course is not used in the Mormon church. Anyone living in a Mormon community knows “If you’re not a Mormon you are judged and looked down on.” You are not viewed as being different you are viewed as being lesser than, or inferior to the Mormon.
In today’s secular world, the idea of tolerance has come to mean condoning or accepting something - even if it is contrary to your values or beliefs.”
To say that political activism in these20types of issues is beginning to turn people away from churches only goes to show that churches today are more interested in incorporating good people into the church than bringing the church to the world. We don’t embrace Mormons just so Mormons will come to church; we teach people how to overcome their sins, and then they stay because they have become closer to Christ.
The polygamy issue is interesting,
Now a days any Mormon MAN can get married in the temple more than once so as to create a polygamist heaven. If a mans wife dies he can get married in the temple to another woman for time and all eternity. That woman dies and he can remarry again in the temple which will of course guarantee him more than one wife in the next life. Yes Mormons are polygamists.
If you consider yourself better than everyone else and you want to force your views down everyone’s throat, there is only one way to vote on this issue: YES on Prop 8! The prophet has made that perfectly clear. It is only your *degree* of support that is a matter of conscience here.
This issue has only two options: support the prophet or don’t. You can no longer sit on the fence.
For more information about these and other issues, go to Imgoingtoshovemymormonismdownyourthroat.com.
A little expose’ is also in order. There is a group of individuals who are20seeking to undermine the pro-Prop 8 initiative by telling the truth. One message above attests to that.
Caveat Emptor.
When the brakes are squealing real bad, remove them! Put new brakes in it’s place. I have a jeep and that is what I did to the brakes.
There is a community (Mormon) that is not just squealing but screaming, we need to shut them up/remove them/replace them!
This website sickens me.
The American Psychological Association has done a lot of research on the subject of homosexuality. Take a look at this. When asked, “What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation,” the APA responded with this:
“There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.”
MOST PEOPLE EXPERIENCE LITTLE OR NO SENSE OF CHOICE ABOUT THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION. Does anyone understand this? At all?
Again, this website sickens me. I’ll marry who I damn well please.
HA HA HA!! Vic, I love your posts–copying the most ignorant posts here and tweaking them a bit to show Mormons the hypocrisy of their own logic. They won’t get it of course. They are not able to step outside the Mormon lens even for a second to see how the same logic might be applied to them as well. After all, they do own the Truth(tm), and everyone else has been deceived by Satan. Don’t worry, 50 years from now, Mormons will be so embarrassed by this moment in their history that they’ll deny they ever did it.
Well, I finally must post a message to my fellow LDS church members supporting Prop 8. I’m a heterosexual, card-holding, lifelong LDS church member that is disheartened by the approach of our church and many you. Despite your personal convictions (which I believe are misguided, but are nevertheless your entitlement), AS A CHURCH we should not be supporting this issue. I want to pose several questions for my fellow “saints”:
1) Which is a worse sin - to marry another consenting adult of the same sex OR to marry multiple girls under the consenting age of 18 without the consent of your current wife?
Joseph Smith married several girls under 18, some as young as 14 (possibly even 13)! He did this without Emma’s knowledge. He married (or at least began sexual relations) with Fanny Alger four years before receiving the sealing authority necessary for a celestial marriage, the key to polygamy. (So don’t argue that it was a command from God. I think He would know if He had given Joseph the authority to seal a Celestial wife before telling him to take one/many! BTW, Emma and Oliver Cowdery caught Joseph having sex with Fanny in the hayshed! Yes, it’s true! Emma even pushed the teenage Eliza Snow down the stairs of the Mansion House years later upon catching her with her husband Joseph, which caused Eliza to abort what was presumably Joseph’s baby.) Also, remember that girls developed much later in the early 1800’s. Having sex with a 14 year old in 1832 is much more pedophilic than it would be today due to the younger menstrual cycling of females today. This list could go on, including other leaders, but I will stop. Do your own research.
2) Which is a worse sin – to marry another consenting adult of the same sex OR to marry interracially?
Despite what we teach ourselves in church, official church doctrine asserts that blacks were disobedient spirits in the pre-existence, born with the mark of Cain. While we lifted the priesthood ban in 1978, we’ve never repealed the doctrine! Let me illustrate some quotes on how the LDS church leadership viewed blacks and interracial marriages.
a. Portion of July 17, 1947 letter written by the First Presidency to LDS member and scholar Dr. Lowry Nelson:
“Your knowledge of the Gospel will indicate to you that [racial equality] is contrary to the very fundamentals of God’s dealings with Israel dating from the time of His promise to Abraham regarding Abraham’s seed and their position vis-à-vis God Himself. Indeed, some of God’s children were assigned to superior positions before the world was formed.
“We are aware that some Higher Critics do not accept this, but the Church does. Your position seems to lose sight of the revelations of the Lord touching the pre-existence of our spirits, the rebellion in heaven, and the doctrines that our birth into this life and the advantages under which we may be born, have a religionship in the life heretofore.
“From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith even until now, it is has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel.
“Furthermore, your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and White races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient patriarchs till now. God’s rule for Israel, His Chosen People, has been endogamous [meaning 'marriage within a specific tribe or similar social unit']. Modern Israel has been similarly directed.
“We are not unmindful of the fact that there is a growing tendency, particularly among some educators, as it manifests itself in this are, toward the breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between whites and blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine.
“Faithfully yours,
[signed]
George Albert Smith J. Reuben Clark, Jr. David O. McKay
The First Presidency”
b. Juvenile Instructor Comments (an LDS journal out-of-publication):
“We will first inquire into the results of the approbation or displeasure of God upon a people, starting with the belief that a black skin is a mark of the curse of heaven placed upon some portions of mankind. Some, however, will argue that a black skin is not a curse, nor a white skin a blessing. In fact, some have been so foolish as to believe and say that a black skin is a blessing, and that the negro is the finest type of a perfect man that exists on the earth; but to us such teachings are foolishness. We understand that when God made man in his own image and pronounced him very good, that he made him white. We have no record of any of God’s favored servants being of a black race . . . .”
- The Juvenile Instructor, Vol. 3, page 157
“Their skin is quite black, their hair woolly and black, their intelligence stunted, and they appear never to have arisen from the most savage state of barbarism.”
- Juvenile Instructor, Vol. 3, page 157
c. Prophetic Opinions:
“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the Law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 10, page 110)
“And after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham’s wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? because it was necessary that the Devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God;…”
(John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 22, page 304)
“I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the negro is after. He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn’t just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn’t that he just desires to go to the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the negro seeks absorbtion with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feeling to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, ‘First we pity, then endure, then embrace.’”
(Mark E. Peterson, Talk at BYU, 1954)
(Now, don’t respond that these were simply opinions because they were given in official settings and pronounced to be the “doctrine of the church.” Numerous additional quotes exist that are equally repugnant and claim to be doctrine. Even so, that would simply prove that our church leaders can give advice under the guise of doctrine that merely turns out to be opinion! I’ll believe that is what they are doing today. Furthermore, any talk of further revelation to end our bigotry is misguided. WE BOWED TO SOCIAL PRESSURE! Say it, it’s liberating! Please don’t make me post a detailed list of prophetic utterances about when blacks would receive the priesthood and what would happen to the church if we pre-emptively did so.)
3) If men are not allowed to be bound together, what was the purpose of the temple ceremony known as “adoption” performed from the mid 1800’s into the 1930’s?
Heber J. Grant officially ended this temple ceremony (yes, it did exist). However, until President Grant removed this ceremony, it was taught that sealing a man to another man in the temple was a higher, more sacred ceremony than sealing a woman to a man. I make no assertion that sexual relationships were involved, but the issue of same-sex marriage is not about sex either! (And as to our doctrine - even if you believe it says that Jesus won’t let gays have eternal increase through posterity, where has He said that they can’t stay eternally married as a couple according to their choice, attaining whatever glory they have attained? Think about it!)
4) Is your monogamous temple marriage really the pinnacle of marriage that will exalt you?
Let’s review what Brigham Young taught about polygamy:
a. “Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned; and I will go still further and say, take this revelation, or any other revelation that the Lord has given, and deny it in your feelings, and I promise that you will be damned.”
- Journal of Discourses 3:266 (July 14, 1855)
b. “I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us. It may be hard for many, and especially for the ladies, yet it is no harder for them than it is for the gentlemen. It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the [p.269] blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: “We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,” - the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. THE ONLY MEN WHO BECOME GODS, EVEN THE SONS OF GOD, ARE THOSE WHO ENTER INTO POLYGAMY. (Emphasis added). Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.” - Journal of Discourses 11:268-269 (Aug 9, 1866)
5) Is homosexuality really a choice?
If it is, then so is heterosexuality. That means that every heterosexual relationship was merely a choice. Try this for a week – choose to not be heterosexual, but rather choose to want to have sex people of the same sex so you can empathize with homosexuals. (Please, do not act on your urges – that would be a sin!) You’ll quickly see the humor in this exercise and find that you definitely are heterosexual whether you like it or not. No matter of choosing will make you like someone of the same sex. That is how homosexuals feel! (However, if you do actually find attraction to men: (1) don’t blame me, and (2) get some help to figure your situation out quickly!)
I could go on . . . and on . . . and on . . . and on, but I won’t. (BTW, all of my information is from LDS sources. I refused to use sources that you would naturally reject.) We are in error to support this AS A CHURCH for many doctrinal, social, political, and moral (yes, moral) reasons. The church is too good to get bogged down in another embarrasing issue that we will have to reveal our way out of after-the-fact.
Thank you Vic. I hope others get it.
I think Vikash Prakash (#134) neatly encapsulates the underlying thought process here. “WE” should “shut THEM up/remove THEM/replace THEM.”
There is a “WE” and a “THEM”.
WE have rights. THEY don’t. In fact WE have the right to control THEM. If THEY don’t shut up when WE tell THEM to, WE have the right (nay the responsibility?) to REMOVE or REPLACE THEM.
Really? Hitler couldn’t have said it better. (I know 10 demerits for mentioning Hitler.) And who qualifies as a WE? (All LDS and only LDS? Say it isn’t so!) And who decides?
Vikash, do you have a team of assistants to aid you in sorting the 6+ billion people on this planet into the WEs who have the right to control the THEMs? How do you ever get any rest? People are probably dying before you have chance to categorize them and being born so fast you will never catch up.
Oh, and who told you that you were a WE? Did you just decide that for yourself? Maybe somebody else thinks you are a THEM. Your name sounds ethnic. Are you sure you want to start this? I know people who … Well, you get the point. (I hope.) No one is free unless everyone is free. No one has rights unless everyone has rights. Behave yourself!
The existance of people who are different, who live differently, who practice customs you disapprove of does NOT impinge upon or destroy the way you live your own lives or undermine your own customs and institutions.
The legal recognition of same sex marriage will not destroy the institution of cross sex marriage. What is your theory? That same sex marriage will prove to be so much more attractive than cross sex marriage that everyone will abandon the one for the other?
You worry that someone will tell your children something you don’t agree with. I guarantee you that will happen anyway. And you should be glad of it. How will your children develop critical minds, determine to adhere to the faith of their fathers of their own volition if they are never exposed to a contrary idea?
Or is that the problem? Do you have so little belief in the power of your faith that you don’t think the children you raise in its bosom can withstand a scintilla of contradiction in word or deed?
This is a problem of your internal theory of who you are as a faith and how you can maintain yourselves within it in a society which includes multiple other groups. You are scared. And you should be. If the continuation of your faith requires the suppression (removal/replacement) of everyone else, you are doomed no matter what happens with Proposition 8.
Who we choose to have sexual relationships is indeed a choice, straight or not. I don’t how many Latter Day Saints believe otherwise. I wonder how many people here have been attracted to someone and they chose not to pursue a relationship with that person. Was that not a choice?
The real discussion is not about sexual relationships being a choice because all consensual relationships are a choice. This issue is marriage and whether or not same-gender couples should be allowed to marry.
I don’t think its much of a discussion that we choose who we have sex with. I don’t believe that physical attraction is a requirement for marriage so I guess I really really don’t see why I should allow same-gender couples to be married. I don’t agree marriage is a result of love either. I guess what I’m saying in general is that I see no reason at all that same-gender couples should be allowed to marry at all.
Oh and I too am a “card carrying” member of the LDS Church and I don’t see any real church doctrine that mr Disappointed cited. He did quote LDS sources(as in the individuals quoted are members and even leaders of the Church), but unfortunately none of it is real LDS doctrine today. I think its pretty deceptive to present it as such too. The Journal of Discourses are not Church doctrine and it would be respectful to present that information for those who aren’t aware.
I note that this site has posted a document called “Commentary on the Document ‘Six Consequences…if Proposition 8 Fails.’” If anyone is inclined to be persuaded by the “Commentary” that failure of Prop. 8 will NOT cause serious negative consequences, I recommend that they go here to read a point-by-point rebuttal:
http://sayyestoprop8.blogspot.com/2008/10/rebuttal-to-thurstons.html
Norcal T, you don’t think physical attraction or love are necessary components for marriage? I guess there probably are lots of love-less unions and married couples who aren’t even attracted to each other out there, but still… how very sad. I feel sorry for your spouse if you have one. It’s true that many marriages will not stand the test of time, but I think that most people DO desire to have a fulfilling, long-term, committed relationship with a person to whom they are physically attracted and honestly LOVE without contingencies! Gay or straight–it’s something most of us greatly desire. Church officials now at least finally admit that having same-sex attraction is not a choice for most gay people. But the answer for these people, according to church guidance, is to either force themselves into a proper, heterosexual marriage or to remain forever celibate and never foster homosexual desires… to forever suppress that desire for a lifetime companion… to die alone. And the reward for this great sacrifice in life? God will wave his magic wand in the afterlife and turn you into a decent straight person. Even when I was a “card-carrying” Mormon, I found it difficult to accept these harsh solutions. I was embarrassed to explain them to my non-Mormon friends–it rang so false in my own ears even as I tried to explain it (hoping that the Spirit would touch them as it certainly wasn’t convincing me).
And while it’s true the Journal of Discourses is not considered part of current church doctrine, don’t you think that church members at the time these speeches were given considered them to be straight from God? Maybe it’s not doctrine now to contemporary Mormons but it certainly was doctrine to Mormons at the time, just as the current rhetoric is considered doctrine as revealed by God’s living prophet on earth. Church leaders today even discourage people from going directly to the JOD for information–it is simply a minefield of testimony-shattering information. They do cherry-pick quotes from it when it’s convenient and helps drive home a point. For a church member who has been brought up to believe that the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ as revealed to Joseph Smith is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow–God is unchanging, etc., etc., the best advice is to stay far, far away from ANYTHING outside of current church-approved texts and General Conference proceedings from the past 20 years or so. Your testimony will remain strong as long as you keep on those Mormon lenses and read and listen to the things that are church approved. Anything else is quite obviously “Anti-Mormon” and comes directly from You-Know-Who. Quite possibly Satan even whispered this in my ear as I typed.
Norcal_T,
1) What did I say was current doctrine? I didn’t say any of the quotations were current doctrine. I simply said that we haven’t repealled any of the doctrines (yes, they WERE presented as IMMUTABLE doctrine) related to blacks. Show me were they have been repealed. Also, did I mistate any prior fact or doctrine? (I’ll admit that evidence supporting Emma pushing Eliza down the stairs is scarce and I’ve heard compelling arguments that it didn’t take place - but that’s a debateable fact, not a doctrinal issue.)
Everything was simply cited to demonstrate our prior doctrinal views and you got my point! (Bravo!) We constantly change our doctrine! What I’m trying to say is that if history has taught us anything, our doctrine changes with the issues. A generation from now, when gays have their right to marry (and they ultimately will), we will change our doctrine like as usual to accomodate them or to avoid persecution. I guess that’s the beauty of not having a concrete volume of doctrine. We can claim what the brethren say is doctrine unitl we don’t like it, then it becomes opinion or pre-empted but new, morphous doctrine. (For another example of changing doctrine, we taught that Native American Indians were Lamanites for a long time - Joseph Smith to Spencer Kimball. You couldn’t get a General Authority to preach that today, particularly given our DNA advancements! Has it been repealed? Oh, it was probably just opinion!)
2) In case you are confused, the Journal of Discourses WAS considered doctrine in it’s day! “I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 95). I’m constantly amazed how members believe in the complete infallibility of the current prophet, but toss much of what they say away as “opinion” the moment they die, even if it was given as an unqualified, eternal truth. I’ll tell you what, I’ll concede that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, etc., etc., etc. were merely speaking their opinions in all of their talks that they presented as “ETERNAL doctrine” (which we now reject) if you’ll concede that the modern prophets are merely citing their opinions as well.
3) You obviously disagree that biological impulses and attraction have anything to do with justifications for marriage, which is fine. This is the whole point of the argument though! Many people do believe that they are important factors relating to a Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right of equality and marriage. I notice you didn’t state what you think are legitimate marital justifications. No matter, I can guess what they are; and all they will amount to is 1 vote. Good on you!
As the Church still regards D&C 132 (the scriptures that proclaim polygamy as “The New and Everlasting Covenant” [v. 6]) as the word of God, and as also have prophets ever since in declaring such to be of imperative importance to both “…the salvation of mankind” (Joseph F. Smith; J. of D. Vol. 20, pp. 28-31) as well as our “exaltation” in “…becom(ing) Gods” (Brigham Young; J. of D., Vol. 11, page 269), I cannot but find it incredibly ironic, if not actually blasphemous, that the Church should work so diligently to perpetuate laws that would prohibit any possible restoration of God’s greater “Law of Celestial Marriage” (Brigham Young; Wilford Woodruff Journals) should He choose to do so via further revelation.
In case this has yet to be pointed out, Proposition 8 not only forbids homosexual unions but also forbids the very marital status that the Church (as well as God, Himself, btw) still regards as the true and ultimate form of “Celestial Marraige”: namely, a “plurality of wives” in eternity.
Now, while no one can say if God will re-instate polygamy in our lifetime. Yet, in so publicly fighting for yet MORE laws that would perpetuate the legal prohibition of polygamy, the Church is effectively tying God’s hands and thwarting any possible future plans for such a restoration by so zealously championing such an unreasonably broad law. For as long as such laws exist, God cannot restore polygamy should He wish to do so (which is exactly what forced the “official” abandonment of its practice in 1890).
Thus, in championing Proposition 8, the Church is also championing the very laws of man that would preclude and prohibit God from being able to restore His highest marital law, the “new and everlasting covenant”, again to the Earth.
Furthermore, has it not been prophecied by prophets since Isaiah that the LORD will not return until there has first occurred a full and complete restoration of all things? While many members might consider this one fulfilled by the restoration of the Church, yet Joseph Smith, Jr., most assuredly did not. As he declared AFTER the Church’s complete restoration, “The day is fast hastening on when the restoration of all things shall be fulfilled, which all the holy prophets have prophesied of…” (- Joseph Smith, Jr.; Teachings of the Presidents of the Church, pp. 248-260). And the “day” to which he is referring is the Second Coming and Millennium, thereafter. And as the true “Law of Celestial Marriage” (Brigham Young), namely polygamy, has still not been restored to the Earth, the Church treads on further dangerous doctrinal ground in championing so forcefully laws that would prohibit that “full restoration” declared by all prophets since Isaiah as necessary to the ushering in of the “Second Coming” and the Millennium.
This ought to be a very scary thought, indeed.
This rebuttal is so poorly reasoned as to be laughable! For example, the codes governing education are already in place and will not be effected by Prop 8. And there is a HUGE difference between tax exempt status as a charity versus that as a public facility. Of course a public facility can’t refuse to admit certain people!
I am so tired and depressed from listening to all of the lies from our leaders. Proposition 8 is about denying people basic human rights. I don’t know how we, with a history of persecution, can now turn and persecute others. It’s shameful, plain and simple, and a disgrace to our history. I’ll be voting NO on Proposition 8.
Stop spreading misinformation regarding the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints jeopardizing its tax-exempt status because of its involvement in the Yes on 8 campaign. The IRS regulations that prohibit political activity by 501(c)(3) organizations (like churches) apply to supporting or opposing a specific candidate. The regulations do not apply to support for or against propositions such as Prop 8. The regulation that does apply in that situation only kicks in when its lobbying activities (as measured by time, effort, expenditures and other relevant factors) constitute more than an “insubstantial” part of its total activities during a particular year.
See http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=281#q5 and following questions.
Mormons who contributed demonstrated the courage of their convictions by putting their names on public records. Why don’t you have the guts to identify yourself and your views on Proposition 8? If this were really a “Mormonsfor8″ website you would also explain the reasons why Mormons think Proposition 8 is important. If this were really a neutral Proposition 8 site you would provide an equivalent website for those organizations opposing Proposition 8. Unless I missed it, you don’t have the guts to do that either. The unknown sponsors of this website think newly invented same-sex-marriage is good for society and families. Why not just say it. Some of us don’t agree.
What a snarky web-site! Hm. Has “Mormons for 8″. Let’s see, must be about Mormons who are for Proposition 8. Gee, well maybe — it attempts to list Mormons who have donated to the ProtectMarriage.com group. Whoa! Really seems to be mostly a forum for Mormon-haters to spew their venom at straw men. What kind of arguments are those? Lame-O, big-time!
Your Yes on 8 campaign is an example how religion is the most divisive force in modern society. If you could only put your efforts into something worth while like finding a cure for diabetes then your efforts would actually have real value. To tell two loving human beings that they dont deserve the same rights as you is not something that will better society in any way. In fact, I believe it will only weaken and divide our country even more.
You have an obligation to society to put an end to discrimination like this yet you chose not to. You don’t see gays telling you how to pray. Why must you tell them how to live?
Jeffrey A -
We’ve got our hands full dealing with all the donors to support the proposition (it takes a lot of time to track down $20 million of donations). Since the LDS Church encouraged its members to donate to ProtectMarriage.com, that is where we chose to focus our efforts. Had the Church told its marriage to donate to EqualityforAllCA, we would be tracking those donations instead.
A quick visit to our FAQ page explains why the site exists. Our Blogroll links to several sites which share the reasoning about why Mormons are involved in the campaign, including the Church’s new website, preservingmarriage.org.
Anyone who’s been following the news about this site has seen some of the owners identified publicly in several newspapers, including the Salt Lake Tribune and the Wall Street Journal.
Bob - We can only publish the comments that come in to the site. If it makes you feel better, we’re only letting the nicest ones through.
Perhaps it’s time for a reminder of the comment policy here:
1 - No profanity.
2 - No personal attacks on other commenters.
3 - Consider what your words would sound like if you were to speak them aloud or say them in person to your audience. What you write here will live on in electronic “print” far after the election is over and people reading what you say here, and once they’ve entered cyberspace you won’t be able to take them back.
The irony of course is how Mormons have been treated, as second class citizens, is now reflected in how they want to treat another minority. Good job. It’s also a shame that people who allege faith are willing to lie about this proposition, which has nothing to do with tax status. You can be sure this has nothing to do with god.
This thread is very disturbing to me. All of your attacks against the Mormon Church are completely hypocritical. Your rage, hurtful lies and name calling are deplorable and make you no different than the gay bashers, bigots and racists in this world. This country allows for freedom of expression and the right to have an opinion. It doesn’t mean that my opinion or your opinion is right; it just means we have a right to have one. You, me, Mormons, homosexuals. We all have that right. So why has this become a Mormon issue? Because they have donated a lot of money to a cause they believe in? How ridiculous is that?! The coalition to protect traditional marriage is made up of Mormons, Catholics, Baptists, Jews, Muslims, etc. This has been a very organized and collaborative effort between people of many faiths to stand up for what we believe in. Yes the Mormon faithful may have donated the most money out of any one Christian denomination but 65-70% has come from other faiths that feel it is important to protect traditional marriage. So why has the Mormon Church been singled out? The reason is because those against prop 8 are losing ground and feel that stirring up controversy around the Mormons and some hidden agenda will scare supporters and fence sitters to their cause. Again, how does that make you any different from any other bigot out there? Why don’t you rise above it instead of being part of it? I am a Catholic by birth and have many Mormon friends as well as friends from other faiths, races and sexuality. Neither they nor I hate homosexuals. One of my most dear friends is gay! I love him dearly and we talk very openly about our points of view. Often times it can get heated. However, we agree to disagree. His sexuality does not change my feelings for him or how I view him just as my beliefs don’t change the way he feels about me. That’s what makes us American. Now on to the real issue. Prop 8 is NOT an equal rights issue! Homosexuals have equal rights under existing domestic partnership laws. As they should. I don’t believe that anyone should be discriminated against because of age, race, religion, ethnicity or sexuality! As a society we do however make clear distinctions with regard to gender. Is this right or is this wrong? Is this discrimination? No! Men and women are clearly different. Genetically, anatomically, etc. And because of those differences we call one sex male and the other female. That is why we separate men and women’s restrooms and showers. But according to your line of reasoning that is discrimination. So in order to allow all males and females equal rights we should just do away with gender separation all together since there are clearly large populations of gay, lesbian, transsexual, cross-dressing and even dual-sex individuals. So lets just all use the same restroom and shower. Let’s let the high school and college football players’ shower with the cheerleaders and girls soccer team. Why not? We separate gender for a reason and it has and always will be that way because we should not and will not change the definition of male and female. Marriage is the word to describe the union between a man and a woman. It has been since the beginning of civilized humanity. All prop 8 is trying to do is to preserve that definition. Heterosexual unions and homosexual unions are two VERY different things. So stop trying to say it’s the same. It’s as different as men and women. Like I said earlier. Homosexuals have all the same rights as heterosexuals under existing law. If you don’t like the term “domestic partnership” or “civil union” then come up with a better word. But “Marriage” is taken.
P.S I hope you took notice that I did not use religion in my reasoning. My reasoning is purely secular and sociological.
Public restrooms, locker rooms, etc. are divided by gender because the majority of the population is heterosexual. However, I find it poor logic to use that as justification for denying equal rights to a minority segment of the population. Maybe we should get rid of all the handicapped parking spaces and wheelchair ramps because the majority of people don’t need them? Why accommodate such a small segment of the population–surely they can get by without it. Many gay couples have told me that domestic partnerships are not equal to marriage for a multitude of reasons. I would tend to take their word for it over assurances from heterosexuals who are seeking to take away their hard-earned right to equality. If it’s really just the right to use a word that we’re fighting over, then why are you spending millions of dollars to keep it all to yourselves? That’s some valuable word!
There are so many false ideas being spread on this comment board. If you are interested in seeing why the 6 consequences are valid and why the people saying that they are just lies are actually the ones spreading half truths, go to http://www.truthaboutprop8.com
You will find a discussion of what is fiction and what the real facts are. Also take a look at http://www.whatisprop8.com It provides links to articles and actual relevant data about gay marriage and the very real consequences. Finally, if you really want to know who is actually supporting prop 8 go to http://www.unitedforprop8.com or http://www.mormonsforprop8.com Here you will learn that almost ALL religious leaders are calling for their members to support prop 8. It also gives articles showing that prominent democrats support traditional marriage as well as some prominent gays. It would seem that all the accusations that this is just a mormon issue or that anyone that supports prop 8 is just a hateful bigot may just be more of the lies coming from the “tolerant” anti-prop 8 folks.
The last few responses sound so much like what I hear in church each Sunday. “We’re persecuted, we’re persecuted!” I’m so tired of this overused persecution card everytime someone disagrees with us. People, this is criticism and disagreement, not persecution! Much of which is coming from within (like me). Read our history, much of our original persecution came in response to our actions. We brought much (not all) of the persecution on ourselves! Whatever the response to us may be, we’ve asked for it. The same goes to all organizations supporting Prop 8.
The argument that gays already have equal civil rights is false. Marriage is a civil right - a FUNDAMENTAL CIVIL RIGHT! I hear the argument, “they already have the right to marry - someone of the opposite sex.” Let’s reverse that. Let’s outlaw the LDS Church and the practice of Mormonism via the police power for the health and welfare of society. Your right to freedom of religion hasn’t been infringed. You’re free to practice any non-Mormon religion you like. You aren’t barred from being a Christian. Many other Christian churches exist for you to freely practice. Sure you are denied your idea of temple marriage, but YOU’VE established that the government doesn’t have to allow equal marriage, just a civil marriage between a man and a woman. [BTW, freedom of religion doesn't guarantee you the right to do whatever your religion dictates - never has, never will!] Hopefully you can see my point. The same logic you use to deny marriage equality can be used to deny religious equality. Research and find Justice Scalia’s (your greatest friend on the Supreme Court) favorite book. In it, the protagonist refuses to alter the law to supress the devil because the same law that grants the devil his freedom grants the same to us all!
Furthermore, if we are determined to legislate our view on morality, lets legislate and prohibit the the following sins from the Mormon perspective:
No U.S. citizen can:
1-Speak against the Mormon prophets (a sin)
2-Shop/work on Sunday (a sin)
3-Drink alcohol (a sin)
4-Smoke (a sin)
5-Drink coffee (a sin)
6-View pornography (a sin)
7-Withold tithing (a sin)
8-Avoid church on Sunday (a sin)
The list could go on indefinately. Rather, I think I’ll choose to do those things and give everyone else the opportunity to CHOOSE - agency I believe it’s called. Again, I’m fine with Mormons voting for Prop 8. I just think it’s misguided and will prove to be bad for us and hurtful to others.
Disappounted,
Your argument is silly. Mormonism is Mormonism just as gay marriage is gay marriage. Mormons are not trying to take their beliefs and force the world to call them Catholics. Come on now. Really.
I agree with Disappointed. I am disappointed with Mormon involvement in this also. I guess I expected as much from the other organizations that have contributed to Prop 8, but for Mormons to be singled out for their prominent participation (I got an e-mail today from the Human Rights Campaign that listed Mormons, Focus on the Family, and Knights of Columbus as groups drumming up fear and resentment and raising money hand over fist) is extremely disheartening to me. If you’ll remember, much of true anti-Mormon stuff has been promoted by other Christian organizations, NOT secular society (who really don’t give a crap what Mormons believe) and certainly not the gay community. But I guess the enemy of Mormons’ enemies are their friends these days, at least until those groups can get rid of the gays and can focus on other degenerates of society such as feminists and Mormons.
If Prop 8 passes and the California constitution is amended to define marriage as between one man/one woman, I wonder if there would be any standing to challenge the Mormon “non-traditional” view of marriage. Last time I checked, a Mormon man can be sealed forever to any number of women in the temple as long as he has only one living wife. A Mormon woman can be sealed to only one man, dead or alive. Mainstream Mormons may not practice outright polygamy, but make no mistake, polygamy is alive and well in the Mormon version of heaven.
Many of you saying the church is wrong for imposing their beliefs on people forget one thing: The people of California already voted to include wording in the constitution declaring that marriage between a man and a woman would be recognized by the state. 61% of voters agreed that this should be the correct wording in the constitution. That’s a majority. So 4 judges can simply wipe away the will of 61% of Californians? Whatever you believe about gay marriage, do you not believe in democracy?
Jason-
The argument didn’t say that anyone should call you anything. It merely suggested that using your own logic to deny gays the right to their form of marriage is similar to denying a small group of Christians called Mormons the ability to practice their form of religion when there are clearly other more traditional forms of Christianity available. What right do you have to force traditional Christians to acknowledge Mormonism as a valid form of Christianity? You’ve destroyed the sanctity of traditional Christianity! The similarities do exist. If you can’t see them, I’m not surprised!
I’m mean seriously, really, under your reasoning – why should blacks have been allowed to force everyone to call them “equal” when traditional and religious views suggested otherwise? Why should women have been allowed to force everyone to call them “equal” when traditional and religious views suggested otherwise? That’s shameful reasoning in my view, but probably just because I’m Disappointed!
JM -
If 61% of the people voted to redefine the United States Constitution to interpret slavery as an acceptable practice (which wouldn’t be hard to do under an originalist view), would democracy fail if the Supreme Court holds the law invalid?
jm -
The March, 2000 Primary Election in California had a total of 21.2 million registered voters. of those, only 7.5 million actually went to the polls. Of those 7.5 million voters, 4.6 (or just over 61% of voters) voted in favor of Proposition 22. There were 2.9 million voters (roughly 39%) who voted against the proposition.
If 4.6 million people (not quite 22% of just the registered voters) can be counted as a majority of Californians, go ahead and count them that way.
Did you also know that since 2000, California’s Legislative Branch (elected by the People) approved gay marriage legislation not once, but twice?
Did you also know that California’s Executive Branch (the Governor) supports the recent Supreme Court ruling saying that marriage is, indeed, a civil right that was erroneously denied to gay couples?
So eight years ago 4.6 million Californians decided that they didn’t want gays to marry. In the intervening years, all three branches of California’s elected officials (yes, CA voters vote on Supreme Court justices when they are appointed and can throw them off the bench at that time or at any time they come up for re-confirmation), have supported gay marriage.
So, which voice is the voice of the people of California? The 4.6 million who voted that way 8 years ago, the more-recently elected Legislature, the more-recently elected Governor, or the elected Supreme Court?
Whichever group represents the will of the people, we’ll be voting on it AGAIN. Thankfully, this time more than five million people will be casting ballots, so when the voting percentage is announced it will be more realistic.
jm–That’s why we don’t live in a democracy. That is the very flaw of democracy that the founding fathers were trying to fix when they set up our country. That is their genius. They set up a constitutional democracy. The constitution protects the rights of the minority from the tyranny (however well meaning) of the majority. The constitution says that the majority can’t impose their moral beliefs on the minority (1st Amendment). The constitution says that the majority can’t make sharing Christianity illegal (like in Islamic democracies). The constitution says that the majority can’t pass laws outlawing birth control (the Griswold v. Connecticut Supreme Court decision). The California constitution says that you can’t have a law discriminating against same-sex marriage (hence your belief of the need of an amendment).
I can understand if you think the need for the constitution is outdated. A lot of people do. I strongly believe in the constitution and think that it protects me as much as a Scientologist or a gay person. It protects you also, even if you think that you are part of the majority and don’t need it.
Kate–of course a public facility can refuse to admit certain people. Especially if certain people don’t won’t to use the facility for the purpose it was intended. A restaurant for example is intended to be a place people can go where a chef will prepare food and it will be served to them. If someone marched in and demanded to go into the kitchen and cook the food himself because he only liked to eat food that he has cooked, the restaurant would laugh him out of the place.
Similarly, the intended purpose of marriage is to provide a protection for any children that may result from the union of a man and a woman. (Love, romance, dignity, respect etc. are all secondary to the first and foremost intended purpose.) So, now we have same-sex couples demanding to use marriage for something it was never intended for.
I would like to invite all LDS to our website - LDS4Gaymarriage.org. Our main emphasis is not about feeling compassion for gays (though we do) or a site focusing on legal/constitutional rights. Our focus is on OFFICIAL LDS doctrine. We look at scripture and prophetic quotes and show how supporting Prop. 8 is contrary to OFFICIAL LDS doctrine.
We do address compassion such as stating that giving gays civil unions, even withy the same legal rights as straights is no different than having “Whites Only” and “Blacks Only” drinking fountains. The water from both is equally pure and cold. Civil Unions also offer the same benefits, but it still stignatizes people as did Blacks only drinking fountains.
We also deal with legal issues like the Loving Case and other things.
We would to hear from ANYONE, especially active LDS (like ourselves) who feel that we take scriptures and quotes out of context and misapply them. As we’ve stated to several who have written. If it can be shown that we do, we’ll take our site down the same day.
We Promise.
If Pro-8 LDS and their sources cannot provide a logical, contextual alternative interpretation. Then they no choice. They have to vote AGAINST Prop. 8. It is the ONLY option consistant with the Gospel.
Susan -
“Similarly, the intended purpose of marriage is to provide a protection for any children that may result from the union of a man and a woman. ” Susan, post #168
Really? So, should we not allow heterosexual marriages where the parties have no intention of bearing children? Should we invalidate elderly marriages once children are finally raised and they can no longer reproduce? Where do you get your “purpose of marriage”? The individual states, pursuant to the federal constitution define marriage. I’ve never read any law that defines the purpose of marriage as you state it. While I agree that marriage is a great institution for children, you prove too much. By your own logic, a gay marriage is better than a single homosexual trying to raise a child!
Actually ,I got the intended purpose of marriage from Senate Testimony given Sept. 4, 2003. This is the testimony that convinced the Senate and House to pass the Defense of Marriage Act that was then Signed by Pres. Bill Clinton, who also believes in traditional marriage. (Along with Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton.) Our federal government has defined marriage as between a man and a woman.
As for people who don’t intend to have children…when a man and a woman get married the possibility that children may result whether they plan on it or not, exists. A married man and woman can provide any resulting child a mother and a father. Also, when older couples marry, it also protects children. If an older man keeps his vows, he will not father an out of wedlock child. Marriage is all about recognizing that a man and woman should at least try to behave in a way that best protects children. And all research, I repeat all research shows that a married mother and father that stay married is best for a child. (I know not everyone can have that due to death, divorce, etc.) but shouldn’t we as society at least try to protect children instead of promoting individual sexual liberty.
Susan-
Senate testimony isn’t law. Anyone can express their opinion in Senate testimony. Have you looked for what same-sex couples have said in Senate testimony? Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama, Joe Biden are merely individuals with individual opinions who, I am willing to bet, don’t personally care. They simply express a view to appease constituents. (I see that you are trying to insinuate that Democrats are the supporters of gay marriage and the leaders of the party are against it - uh,uh,uh, not everyone opposing this is a Democrat!)
But as to the crux of your argument - what does gay marriage have to do with “promoting individual sexual liberty”? Is that where your true problem lies? Do you really believe that is what this is about? Homosexuals will engage in sex whether married or not. Do you think prohibiting them from marriage will keep them from sinning? Have you done God a favor by stopping people from sinning? So misguided!
As to children - will fewer gay people adopt children because you stop their marriages? Will more heterosexuals divorce or give children up to adoption if gays get married? The status of children will not be impacted AT ALL by gay marriage!
Since Susan is so concerned for the welfare of children, I would think she would jump at the chance to allow for same-sex couples who have children to be married rather than single and living together with children. Gay couples can adopt and also have children through assisted reproductive technologies, just like infertile heterosexual couples can. Wouldn’t it be best for the children involved? The gay couples who want to be married often cite as reasons the wonderful families that they were raised in as examples that they want to emulate. Personally, as a feminist, I think we could learn a lot about equality from studying same-sex relationships. There is no one defined as the automatic head honcho of the household or the automatic domestic servant/nurturer simply by nature of one’s anatomy. They figure out who does what based on skills, abilities, desires, and necessities. Interesting concept. It doesn’t make me want to turn into a lesbian, since that’s not my orientation, but I can envision a world in which our families could peacefully co-exist.
Regardless of how Prop 8 turns out, this is a losing battle for the Susans of the world. Other states will legalize same-sex marriage, just like Connecticut just did. Same-sex couples who want to be married will travel to the states that allow it and get married. When other states fail to recognize their marriages, they will be sued and this will eventually go all the way to the Supreme Court. Remember Roe v Wade? Another landmark case like that is on the horizon. It’s just a matter of time. The only thing that could stop it is a federal amendment, which won’t happen, no matter how much you fast, pray, and pay for it to happen.
Well, I guess Lara has explained the agenda to us. It isn’t about two people just wanting to be together. It is MUCH BIGGER than that isn’t it Lara? Whether you like it or not!
By the way recent studies do show that daughters of lesbian couples are more likely to try homosexuality themselves and more likely to be sexually active at a young age, while sons of lesbians are more likely to have effeminate characteristics…some may think that’s all great…I think it shows that having both a mom and a dad is critical for kids to understand how to get along with both males and females. No matter how hard a same-sex couple tries they can never give a kid a mom and a dad.
I don’t think it’s a hidden agenda that the ultimate goal is to have gay marriage accessible in every state (don’t we think that civil rights should be equally accessible to all?) 150 years ago some states allowed black people to be free, but of course it was important that they be free in EVERY state–that’s sort of the concept of equality.
I’m a graduate student of sociology and I’ve never heard of these studies of children of gay couples. Are they from peer-reviewed journals? If so, please cite. Otherwise, you’re just making it up.
Since it’s critical that all kids have a mom and dad, let’s strip all single parents of their children.
Your husband or wife dies, well for the good of the children , they should be taken away and given to a home with both a father and mother.(transgendered and intersexed people don’t count or do we count them twice?) One thing I’m confused on, do mom and dad have to be married, or do we de-child those living without the proper documents.
Lara, please stop misrepresenting “recent studies.”
Lara, my apologies. I totally agree with you. I was referring to Susan who was commenting to you.
Hi folks, as has become tradition, we’re going to close down comments so we can all concentrate on the upcoming Presidential debates. Join us again soon. If you haven’t registered to vote yet, go do it now - the deadline is Monday the 20th.
Oh, and go study the other items on this year’s ballot. There are a bunch of them!
If you need another Prop 8 debate fix while comments are suspended, check out the new entries on the blogroll, the expenditures pages and the new small donor tables. You can find links to all of these on our front page.
I have to say that I was against Prop 8 when I first learned about it because I have a lot of gay acquaintances, and a lot of them are really great people. However, I started to see the commercials about what is hapening in the schools in Massachusetts and was wavering a little in my position. However, the fieldtrip to the gay marriage in SF that I read about tbis week has pushed me into the Yes on 8 camp. I have children, and I don’t want them exposed to the gay lifestyle until they are adults.
Gerald -
Just FYI, the children who attended the parent-planned field trip all had permission slips signed by their parents. The teacher did not know the children were coming to the wedding. Several children in the class at the San Francisco charter school did not go on the field trip; their parents elected to keep them away from the weddingspotlight.
That being said, protecting your children is an important thing to do. Good luck trying to keep them from being exposed to “the gay lifestyle” until they become adults.
Despite the various scare tactics, the rights of the religious will NOT be affected by allowing same-sex marriage. The portion of the California Supreme Court’s opinion stating that religions are protected is binding law every bit as much as the portion stating that the ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Nevertheless, let’s assume things go as feared. Assume that through the most bizarre circumstances, children MUST hear that same-sex marriage is morally equivalent to heterosexual marriage. How does this infringe on freedom of religion rights? We do NOT have the right to immunity from contrary moral and religious beliefs! What in the world has made any of you believe that you do? The case involving the two gay kings illustrates this point. Despite the misrepresentations about the court’s opinion, the court merely said that being exposed to this story did NOT violate the child’s freedom of religion! The child was, and is, still free to reject any assertion that same-sex marriages are morally correct.
What Prop 8 advocates are really after is freedom from exposure to any moral principle contrary to their own. This was the same tactic used by many to oppose schools when they began teaching evolution. I hope everyone remembers that such a dangerous sword cuts both ways; and some day we may be the victims of our own precedent!
Furthermore, the rights of same-sex couples ARE being affected. The Supreme Court of the United States has held that marriage is a “fundamental civil right.” Prop 8 proponents are WRONG when the say that same-sex couples have all the same civil rights as married couples. They don’t have the right of the marriage title itself! For those who say “marriage is just a title” - why are you fighting this? Would society be wrong to take the “marriage title” from heterosexual unions so long no other civil rights are removed? Of course not, because the title of marriage is a FUNDAMENTAL CIVIL RIGHT!
I admit, the majority of my views are based on the premise that homosexuality is not a choice, but a biological issue. Nor do I believe everyone is either completely homosexual or heterosexual. There are certainly marginal cases. Sexuality is a gradual scale going from homosexuality to heterosexuality. But even if it were merely a choice, I refuse to force people to adhere to a God, morality or religion that they don’t accept. I remain hopeful that all will treat me the same. I’m extremely confident that the doctrines of Christ and nearly all former LDS church leaders support political and moral agency, even if current leaders and members don’t.
In the end, I am not afraid to have my children acknowledge same-sex marriage. I am not afraid that the sanctity of my marriage or the future marriages of my children will be diminished. I am not afraid that my children will be exposed to diversity. I am not afraid of allowing others to pursue their religious and moral views, even if they diverge from mine. I am not afraid of equality. I am not afraid of honoring the courts. I am not afraid of honoring the United States Constitution.
I will go Totally YES on Prop. 8….It will be a disaster having guy marriages legalized! I tell you…Imagine… The Bible does not Approve SAME SEX MARRIAGE! On the book of GENESIS…view is that the cities were destroyed for HOMOSEXUALITY!!!If you have Read the bible will know what the sins of their inhabitants Sodom, Gomorrah Were!!!….I’ll leave you with that!!
Sarah, I truly hope that you never have a gay child. Your lack of compassion/understanding is appalling. It’s that type of attitude that leads many gay LDS adolescents to attempt suicide. That’s a “disaster” or a tragedy. My family has suffered a loss like this and I would hate to see any other child make such a tragic decision.
Sarah,
Ezekiel 16:49 says that the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah were lack of compassion for others. Voting for 8 also shows a lack of compassion. Don’t be a Sodomite by voting for 8. Show Christ-like compassion and vote NO!
For those Mormons or others who may still be on the fence about Prop 8, I urge you to read some of the stories about what it’s like to be both Mormon and gay, especially some of the stories in the wake of LDS involvement in the passage of Proposition 22 in 2000. Read about Stuart Matis, a devout Mormon who had known from the time he was very young that he was gay. Read about how he would punish himself for having a gay thought by forgoing a birthday party or favorite television show. Read about how he lived a celibate life, served a faithful mission, regularly attended the temple, read the scriptures, served callings, yet had internalized a deep sense of guilt, shame, and self-hatred. In the weeks and months leading up to the election, he felt increasingly estranged from the LDS community as the anti-gay rhetoric grew louder around him. Read the anguished letters he wrote to friends and family about how seeing all the yard-signs in friends’ and neighbors’ lawns made it difficult for him to leave the house. Read about how his bishop pleaded with him to choose life, even if it meant leaving behind his religion. However, Stuart was not able to do that. In the early morning hours of Feb. 25, 2000, Stuart drove to the LDS chapel in Los Altos, pinned a “do not resuscitate” note to his shirt, and shot himself in the head. Those who prepared his body for burial noted Stuart’s deeply calloused knees–from hours spent praying for answers and a sense of peace that would never come.
If you are concerned with protecting your children from the likes of people like Stuart Matis, please remember that Stuart was also another parent’s child… a human being… a child of God.
I have three children myself and I am interested in protecting them too, not from the gay people that I know, who are all decent people. Rather, I want to shield my children from people who preach love yet practice hate; who preach tolerance yet practice bigotry; who preach peace and unity; yet practice discord and division; who read in the news about wars, crime, starvation, genocide, poverty, natural disasters, and disease yet choose to spend their money and time on a political measure that will only result in heartbreak and pain. I may have lost my religion, but at least I still know right from wrong.
We’re having a lot of our “Yes” signs stolen here in the Bay Area.
I’m glad to see those people so concerned about “protecting rights” are willing to trample on my rights of free speech.
JP wrote:
“We’re having a lot of our “Yes” signs stolen here in the Bay Area.
I’m glad to see those people so concerned about “protecting rights” are willing to trample on my rights of free speech.”
Its unfortunate that signs are being stolen. That’s not something I would do, but its all part of the rough and tumble of politics, eh JP? I mean, you know there will be more bad behavior on both sides before this is all over.
If the Church, through it’s individual members wants to enter the political arena, especially as regards such an emotionally charged issue, it should not be surprised when the opposition pushes back.
If it makes you feel any better, I as a No on 8 supporter feel you have every right to your opinion. Even if I find an opinion personally offensive and/or wrong-headed, I would still strongly defend the right to freely express it.
JP -
While I wish I could persuade you to change your opinion on Prop 8, I realize that prospect is unlikely.
For what it’s worth, I just wanted to express my disdain for the tactics many are using, such as stealing your signs. Unfortunately it’s happening on both sides (I hope you don’t think it is only Prop 8 supporters who are being vandalized, etc.). I hope everyone will be lawful and respectful in their advocacy.
Best of luck to all and play fair!
The no on 8 campaign has been highly deceptive, and stealing signs is par for the course for them.
Remember folks, God loves everyone. Including homophobes.
I wonder if anyone can show exactly WHERE in the Bible (and by the way, WHICH Bible) it says anything using the word Homosexual? Don’t you people know that the Bible is a BOOK? It was written by MEN. It was changed and altered by the Catholic Church to suit their needs. And how in the world can anyone take it literally? Everyone’s interpretation is different, according to their TAUGHT beliefs. Think about it: The original language was Aramaic…then it has been translated into many languages, i.e. Latin, Greek, and on and on. You can take ONE sentence in the English language and simply change the punctuation and you will have a different meaning! For example: “I love you God.” (from me to my higher power) “I love you, God.” (from my higher power to me!) .
Use your heads folks. If one believes in Jesus and what he supposed said, didn’t he say “Judge not, lest Ye be judged”? And “Love God above all others…(including Jesus)…and “…LOVE ONE ANOTHER.”
Peace my friends. Peace.
It is so disappointing to see Mormon leaders demand that those in the pews vote to enshrine discrimination against others into the constitution. If members of other grouxs had treated Mormons the same way in the past, then state constitutions might very well outlaw equal treatment for Mormons.
This also reminds me of previous attempts by Mormon leaders to attack the rights of blacks… until in the 197O`s it became socially awkward to continue racist policies and a revised message became necessary.
If you do not believe in same sex marriage (or interracial marriage or interfaith mariage}, then the solution is simple. You can use that believe to guide your choice of marriage partner. But to allow church leaders to guide you toward abusing a state constitution to attack others is a horrible abuse and trashing of freedoms which should belong to all citizens.
Marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman for about six thousand years. What exactly, is the compelling reason to redefine marriage now? What changed? Why now?
I am really hurt to see friends and family members among the list of donors. Just because the prophet is endorsing it doesn’t mean it’s not bigotry.
If Mormons really believed in their principles of marriage this much they would put an even bigger effort behind the legalization of polygamy.
Ken,
How about because in the last 100 or so years our attitudes and knowledge about people who are homosexual has changed and changed rather dramatically. (This has happened even in the LDS Church.) Many U.S. laws that dealt with homosexuals and homosexuality were created in a past where not much was known about gay people. Myths and prejudices abounded and homosexuality was considered a secret and shameful subject. Now that we are more knowledgeable, now that gays and lesbians are more open, now that there is not the same level of stigma attached to homosexuality, our society has had to do some re-examining. Its simply a matter of being humane to want to include and integrate gays and lesbians into their own families and into the larger society. One way to do that is to extend marriage rights to gay couples.
Also, though gay and lesbian couples have always included children as part of their unions, (through adoption or previous heterosexual relationships) this phenomenon has increased so that now a larger and larger number of children are part of same-sex households. What is society to do about these children? I’m not aware of any serious calls for removing children from same-sex households. So, if that is true, I would argue that the best course of action would be to extend marriage rights to their parents so that these children would be more secure, protected and embraced.
Ken
Where do you get the figure of 6,000 years? Surely you don’t believe the Biblical dating scheme? The first books of the Bible were written around 1,000 to 800 B.C. by an unknown source (often referred to as merely “J”). Interestingly, many reputable Bible scholars suspect J was a women in the Kings court! Nevertheless, men and women where procreating many thousands of years prior to 4,000 B.C.! However, whether or not they were “married” is an entirely different topic, one that relates to communal and governmental authority.
Assuming your erroneous facts are correct, what do they prove? For 6,000 years (right!) women were considered inferior to men and blacks were considered inferior to whites. Using your words - what exactly, was the compelling reason to redefine women now? What exactly, was the compelling reason to redefine blacks now? EQUALITY! EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW!
Ken - “Marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman for about six thousand years. What exactly, is the compelling reason to redefine marriage now? What changed? Why now?”
LDS - Slavery has been around for that long too. Just because something has been around forever doesn’t make it good or right. As people have decided to pass laws based on reason and logic rather than religion and jingoism, laws have allowed greater rights for the oppressed more and more. Slaves were freed, Women got the vote, “separate but equal” as abandoned, laws banning discrimination on race, religion, national origin, etc… People are passing more and more laws based on objective fact than subjective dogma. Since there is NO objective reason to disallow same-sex marriage, it too will soon be allowed. Time and Reason are NOT on your side. Sorry.
I have my “NO on 8″ sign in my yard, along with my Obama/Biden sign. I’m in San Jose and there are lots more “YES on 8″ signs than “No on 8.”
I live in a very friendly neighborhood…everyone helps each other out and we have a big 4th of July party and a kid-oriented New Year’s Eve party (Afterall, who can find a babysitter on New Year’s Eve…and not have to refinance the house?)
We have a number of gay households in the neighborhood. A wonderful lesbian couple down the street just had a baby boy last spring. Even before they had a baby, their house has the most creative Christmas and Halloween decorations.
The only “Yes on 8″ sign is where some Mormons live. (I don’t know them personally….they moved in a year ago and keep to themselves.) Little do they know that the neighbor right across the street suffered a tragedy 4 years ago when one man lost his partner of 15 years to death. No one seems to be messing with their sign or anything.
Live and let live.
It is interesting to note that many of you who are bashing the LDS church for supporting Proposition 8 do not actually know what the law is.
The law allows religious institutions (including the LDS church) to support moral issues of interest to them, but they cannot support specific candidates or parties.
The law regarding separation of church and state only applies to the GOVERNMENT, not the CITIZENS. The government may not promote one religion over another. The CITIZENS may promote whatever religion they want.
The LDS church is fully within its rights to support issues of morality, whether you agree with their position or not. Democracy acually means that people get to vote on what laws they would like to have.
Equal rights are not the same as special rights. Anyone can marry a member of the opposite sex, whether they are gay or straight. Legalizing gay marriage would be granting special rights to a vocal minority.
All laws are based upon some sort of morality. (Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, etc.) It is up to the citizens of a democracy to vote to decide what sort of laws represent the morality of that society. The phrase “you can’t legislate morality” is non-sensical.
And now for my opinion:
In the bible, God described homosexuality as an abomination. It is not surprising that any religious organization, LDS or otherwise, might find gay marriage to be amoral and destructive to society. For all those champions of “tolerance” out there- how about a little tolerance for people who actually believe in God, and the Bible.
Judging from some of the vitriolic postings on this web site, you would think only people promoting immoral lifestyles were entitled to tolerance.
By the way, tolerance is not the same thing as legitimizing. No one is proposing making homosexuality illegal, they simply oppose the attempt to hijack a fundamentally religious ceremony like marriage, and force it to accept an irreligious lifestyle.
Whether you like it or not, marriages have always been religious ceremonies during which a couple makes legal and religious contracts between themselves and GOD. How do you think GOD feels about the effort to try to force him to recognize gay marriage. Do you think all the laws in the world will change what he thinks?
Memorie: “Equal rights are not the same as special rights. Anyone can marry a member of the opposite sex, whether they are gay or straight. Legalizing gay marriage would be granting special rights to a vocal minority.”
Not true! By your own logic same-sex marriage is not a special right. For example, you say any gay person can marry someone of the opposite sex. Well then you must agree that any straight person will now be able to have a same-sex marriage. Therefore, neither form of marriage is a special right by your own definition. (Seriously, I’ve heard this argument so many times. Do people arguing this ever bother to think this through?)
Memorie: “All laws are based upon some sort of morality.”
Really? I can immediately think of many morally nuetral laws. I agree, many laws are based on morals. But that doesn’t mean all morals make good laws!
You are correct on several points. The LDS church is not violating any laws by their participation. This is not a separation of church and state issue.
However, you say that marriage is fundamentally a religious ceremony. Which religion owns marriage? Which major style of religion owns marriage? What authority then does the government have to authorize marriages? Will God smite governments for controlling marriage? Just pretend that homosexuality is itself a religion. Their God auhtorizes same-sex marriage. Yeah, that’s it! Now you can vote No on Prop 8!
Seriously though, you disdain the notion of homosexuals trying to force you to recognize their morals concerning marriage, yet you will do the same to them by voting Yes!
[Edited by moderator - part of this was just too close to being a personal attack on another commenter (please remember the comment policy). Thanks.]
Its not suprising that the LDS church is advancing an agenda based on fear and hate. After all, they have the legacy of denying African Americans priesthood leadership until the 70’s and also for defeating the Equal Rights Amendment.
Its dismaying that the history of the Church lends itself to the idea that the oppressed has become the oppressor. In the 1800’s, Mormons were run out of every place they tried to settle. Congress passed 5 pieces of legislation aimed solely at controlling and limiting the power of the Mormon church. That level of involvement in domestic relations by the federal government was unprecedented. People of other faiths called mormons amoral and destructive to society. Indeed, the mormons gained acceptance in mainstream society only after a series of political, legal, and religious battles that ultimately resulted in the definition of religious tolerance changing to encompass Mormons despite the fact that many believed Mormons to be grossly offensive to the Christian sensibilities of others.
For a gay couple that has been together for 60 years- raised children, survived health crises, bought homes, lived monogamously exactly as heterosexual couples- why shouldn’t they be entitled to the same benefits as straight couples?
If the only answer is God says its wrong- well that’s pretty unfair since I can list off several denominations that embrace gay people. Why should one belief take precedence over another? This isn’t a theocracy. Mormons don’t have the corner on religious truth any more than any other denomination that claims to be the one true path. Furthermore, there is no place for religious principles in the public square. Reproductive science allows gay people to raise children. The AMA and APA and the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) have all said that research has shown children of straight parents are no better off than children of gay parents. With no procreative argument or child-rearing argument, the only argument left is: “same-sex marriage is wrong because the Bible says so.” Well, not everyone agrees with that and the Bible does not dictate Constitutional law or individual rights because there are so many different interpretations.
Whether you base the decision on the constitutional guarantee of due process of the law or whether you base the decision on equal protection grounds, they both come out allowing gay people to marry.
I’m even kind of persuaded by this argument:
Relationships come in all types. Some of them are secret like Romeo and Juliet. Marriage is different from a “relationship” because marriage is a public expression of love for another person, and there is no expression more public than a legal codification. The First Amendment guarantees the freedom to publicly express ourselves how we see fit. Since the institution of marriage is a public statement of love, homosexuals have the right to publicly express that love under the First Amendment. It’s a unique argument, but it intruiges me.
When you get to the legal details of gay marriage, it doesn’t even matter what suspect class homosexuality falls into. The laws are usually written in such an exclusive way that courts have no choice but to strike them down. In the case of Proposition 8, to vote for a constitutional amendment over the court’s order is to use emotion against reason. It is akin to a national vote to amend the constitution to reinstate slavery. Legally, it defies reason. Unfortunately, emotions on gay marriage have not yet reversed like emotions on slavery. Hence, we have ballot initiatives like Prop. 8.
This is not to say that we shouldn’t be careful. Some cases, such as Hernandez v. Robles, painted marriage as a way to reign in straight male tricksters who would otherwise be fleeing children. Keeping men from wandering is apparently the real reason why the institution of marriage is so important (according to these judges).
Here are some other arguments I have been kicking around:
1. Protect the Institution of Marriage - Your argument is what we call a “turn” in debate world. Those who oppose gay marriage argue that it erodes the institution of marriage and the heterosexual meaning it carries. You say that denying homosexuals the right to marry itself undermines the institution of marriage by refusing admittance for people who feel the same love and compassion. I will take this argument a step further to say that this problem is rooted in the difference between state marriage and religious marriage. As a religious artifact, marriage can mean whatever the particular church defines it as. But, as a state sanctioned relationship, marriage must be equal for everyone. If some people can’t get married because of who they choose to form relationships with, then no one should be able to get legally married. The state should only issue civil unions, and leave the whole “marriage” business to religion.
2. Biotechnology Solves Everything - I read an article a few months ago which stated that it is now possible to implant a womb into a man, grow a fetus to maturity, and give cesarian birth. Oh wait, did I mention that the fetus is actually a human being constructed from the DNA of both men? Literally, two men (and two women) can now have babies! Ok, it’s probably not ready yet, but I think this gets to one of the common concerns of critics of gay marriage. If it is now technologically possible to add more humans to the pool regardless of what each partner has under their zipper, then what’s the big deal?
I suspect that critics will say, “It’s not the fact that gay people can’t have children, it is that the most healthy way to raise a child is in an environment with diverse genders such as a mommy and a daddy.” There are so many flaws with this argument that they are hard to count. First, single parents don’t have this diversity and we don’t take their kids away. Second, it is empirically disproven. We live in 2008, and there are thousands of healthy adults that were raised by gay parents who lead happy productive lives. I saw the Birdcage. That guy didn’t seem too imbalanced. Third, this argument plays into gender stereotypes. It implicitly sends the message that children need to be raised by a father and a mother so that they can absorb how the man acts masculine and how the woman acts feminine.
3. Post-Structuralism - I don’t know who came up with this whole “protect the meaning of marriage” thing anyway. Words don’t have intrinsic meanings. That is why poetry works. That is why literature excites us. That is why the game of telephone is so much fun. Words (also known as signifiers) are not intrinsically tied to what they represent (also known as the signified). Structuralists argued that we understand the meanings of words through relationality. I know what a tree is because I know what isn’t a tree. Structuralists argued that there was one word that was cosmically tied to its representation and everything else fell into place from that foundational brick. I can say with confidence that the “transcendental signifier” is not “MARRIAGE”. It’s GOD. But even the structuralists were proved wrong and we now believe all language is relational. How does this relate to marriage?
Marriage means whatever you want it to mean. It does not undermine the meaning of marriage to allow others to interpret it differently, since the meaning of marriage is something that is internalized differently by everyone.
4. Fundamental Right - The United States Supreme Court uses different levels of scrutiny when deciding whether or not to overturn laws. The Court is toughest on laws that only relate to a suspect class (such as race), while it is much more lenient on laws of general applicability. The level of scrutiny the court uses is determined by either (1) the identity of the person challenging the law or (2) the importance of the right at issue. People challenge laws because they think those laws infringe on our rights. If a law infringes a right that is fundamental, then the court will use the highest level of scrutiny. If the law infringes a right that is not fundamental, the court will be more lenient. Many heterosexuals wouldn’t even skip a heartbeat to tell you that marriage is a fundamental right. In other words, I have a fundamental right to get married. If this is true, then the court has to examine marriage laws with the highest level of scrutiny and make sure everyone has equal access. After all, if the right is fundamental, then everyone deserves it. Ultimately, marriage is a fundamental right, and therefore, it is subject to strict scrutiny. If the court examines any law restricting marriage to a heterosexual union under strict scrutiny, that law will be struck down every single time because it overtly violates equal protection.
Again, voting for a constitutional amendment against gay marriage is like saying all of this critical thought on the issue is irrelevant. It appeals to people’s emotions. Unfortunately, I believe it capitalizes on the abject. People are personally grossed out by homosexual acts, and therefore they demonize them and try to get them as far away as possible. It’s the same way we treat our poop (and it’s a reason we don’t think about converting it into electricity). For the love of our transcendental signifier, please don’t vote for Proposition 8.
I wonder how many of the members who are turning their nose at the mandate from the prophet to support this measure will lie in the next two years when asked in an interview if they have a testimony that Monson is a Prophet, seer and revelator. You cannot have that testimony and oppose this measure. He is God’s mouthpiece and he has spoken. Discussion should be over.
Lance,
I pose this question to you:
Is it ever ok to question the First Presidency?
Captain Moroni and Bob,
Again…”"”SIN”"”" is the word here… just like POLYGAMY… We must follow GOD’s WORD instead of our own feelings… GOD can Certainly Straighten Men and Women and cleanse them from their sins. I’m not being uncompassionate… and for the scrip on Ezekiel 16:49 Let me just tell you that God Does Not TOLERATE SIN. READ LEVITICUS 18:22 …
Bob…As far as those that you mention that commited suicide… Where you Praying to God to have them Repent and Save? God does amazing things that are impossible to men.
Tell me where in the Bible says that Marriage Should be among same Sex!! Jesus was not Born out of JOSEF and MARIO!!!
Let’s Not follow our own Human instincts and Follow God and his Righteous Way and Will!!
OK, to all you celestial Mormons out there. Since I’m generally a good guy otherwise (well except for that gay thing) I’m probably going to end up doing some kind of ministering angel thing for you and your family in the eternities.
You have a very long time ahead of you to tell me “I told you so”. I’d think you could be a little generous and let me have the next decade or two or three being married and with my family while I’m here on earth. I’m really not bothering you that much now am I?
I know it can get a little uncomfortable when you have to see me hold my partners hand in a movie, but I know you really liked watching Will & Grace and Ellen. Your children really already understand and don’t care much about two guys or two girls getting married.
After it’s time to leave this world, I promise, I’ll do all the decorating, hair dressing, and Broadway show entertaining you want after that. I do need to wear something other than just white though.
Lance,
You’ve shared one of the few false doctrines being promulgated in today’s church, commonly known as “Prophetic Infallibility.” I won’t share more than the following quote as to why this notion is not scriptural and violates many prophetic statements because I am unlikely to persuade anyone that “prophetic infallibility” is wrong; but here goes nothing:
“We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark that they would do anything they were told to do by those who preside over them [even] if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself, should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God would despise the idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told do by their presidents they should do it without any questions. When Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their hearts to do wrong themselves.” (Joseph Smith - Millennial Star, Vol 14, Number 38, pages 593-595).
On a positive note, however, I believe you identified the major hurdle for people trying to dialog with most people of faith, including LDS members. Generally, it is ineffective to try to logically alter their stance. Most people of faith process information differently. First, they unquestioningly, adamantly accept what their source (i.e. God, Prophet, Pope, etc.) says is true. This truth can be called their Major Premise. They then judge all evidence against the truth. If the evidence doesn’t support the Premise, they discount the evidence or find an alternate justification for its existence. FOR EXAMPLE, a Prophet says God told him man has been on Earth for 6,000 years. Therefore, their Major Premise is that it must be true that man has only been on Earth for 6,000 years. When archeologists find bones dated at 10,000 B.C., one of the following must be true about the new evidence: (1) the archeologists are mistaken, (2) carbon dating is inaccurate, (3) God placed those bones here from another planet to test our faith, (4) Satan has convinced evil men to lie about the bones, (the list can be infinite I suppose!).
Logical thinkers take the reverse approach. Logical thinkers find evidence, weigh its credibility, and use the credible evidence to determine the truth of the Major Premise. USING THE PRIOR EXAMPLE: Archeologists find 10,000 year old human bones. Logical thinkers wait for carbon dating, which verifies the age. Logical thinkers determine that carbon dating is relatively correct through empirical analysis. Logical thinkers deduce that the evidence is credible that human bones are 10,000 years old. Logical thinkers note that no evidence suggests that human bones arrive on Earth in any other fashion than birth/life/death. Therefore, logical thinkers adopt the Major Premise that humans lived on this earth 10,000 years ago
Because of these differences in thought process, no amount of evidence from logical thinkers can change faith-based views. The faithful will either discount it, twist it to conform, or simply shrug it off as an anomaly. The only way to change the faithfuls’ view is to attack the source of their Major Premise. And that, my logical friends, is nearly impossible to do when the source is “Infallible!”
Although I read “Disappointed” and found there to be some truth to their argument, the overarching “Major Premise” is wrong for them as well though. I first enjoyed that only logical thinkers are “logical”. Religion is logical as well. We don’t have to discount information to believe in God or our prophets. Instead we use all that we learn to prove that God is REAL. All things denote their is a God.
Now there is truth in the fact that Joseph Smith discussed that we shouldn’t follow blindly our leaders. They sometimes discuss their opinions and on rare occasion can be in contradiction with the church. But, Joseph Smith, in my belief wasn’t talking about the Prophet, he was talking about other Priesthood leaders.
I follow the Prophet “infallibly” because I know that they “understand” God’s plan of salvation. They understand the Atonement of Jesus Christ. And as such they can decipher, with the help of the Holy Ghost, things that will be harmful to God’s children. For me, I follow the prophet because logic shows me I should. “Major Premise” - Prophets, when prophesying, are always right! Yes on Prop 8. http://www.squidoo.com/caliprop8
Well Pleased. After reading your response, I understand disappointed point. There is no reasoning with you.
I guess the glory of God is obedience, light and truth be damned.
Pleased-
You prove my point. You say your major premise is, “Prophets, when prophesying, are always right.” (By including “when prophesying” you qualify your Premise more than most faithful do in my experience - good for you!) Still, anytime evidence pops up to show a prophesy that failed, people with your major premise discount the evidence as being false, or twist it to say it’s only an opinion, or try to find any way to show that it wasn’t a prophetic context. The faith-based thinker can NEVER entertain the thought that the evidence simply suggests the Prophet was wrong.
I could list many LDS prophesies that failed by all “logical” standards, but I suspect faith-based thinkers would be unpersuaded. The evidence could be swiftly categorized to maintain your major premise!
I believe faith and logic can coexist. I wish it did more often. I believe people can believe in Prophets and still believe Prophets can be wrong. Faith is a great place to start. But when evidence begins to arrive to the extent that logic can take over, I have no problem dropping that faith for knowledge. I believe that’s why God gives us knowledge!
WHERE IS A NO ON 8 DONOR LIST?
You can search donors on both sides here in the Los Angeles Times or you can check out the Secretary of State’s website for the main No on 8 donations collector.
Since the LDS Church leaders did not ask their members to donate to the No on 8 folks, and since there are tens of thousands of donations to the ProtectMarriage coalition, it is beyond the scope of mormonsfor8 to track donations on both sides. But feel free to start a site yourself - there are Mormons who have donated to the No on 8 campaign, including this small but growing group.
Looks like the Yes on 8 campaign is pulling ahead. They lead by 9% in this new poll. It’s kind of weird because the the pollsters that do automated polling show the Yes crowd with much larger leads than the pollsters with live people conducting the polling. They have been showing the smaller 3-5% leads. I wonder why there is such a disparity between the two methods.
Here is the poll…
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/marriage-referendum-leads-52-43/story.aspx?guid=%7BFF01DF11-134E-4B2B-AA1C-B4B838AD7E4D%7D&dist=hppr
Many of the most prominent faiths are stepping up in support of proposition 8. Maybe they were emoldned or embarassed by ther Mormon Church getting so much credit for this. It should be noted that the Catholic Church got this proposition on the ballot. Whatever the reason, many leaders of different faiths are getting involved. Even Rick Warren, the leader of the huge Saddleback Church, has come out in support of it. He was neutral in the beginning for fear of offending his membership, but in the last week, he has jumped on board. This is just my observation from Orange County, which is a very conservative, family-friendly place to begin with.
Thanks for the link. Here’s some information from the story:
“The poll was conducted for the Knights of Columbus by the Marist College Institute of Public Opinion between September 28 and October 5, 2008.”
Perhaps the reason it shows a difference from the other polls is that, although the results are freshly reported, the interviews were done long ago.
One thing this poll was measuring was people’s reactions to various arguments about SSM. It’s interesting to see how polls like this shape political advertising and talking point memos, isn’t it?
The story, unfortunately, doesn’t include information about the margin of error, something important to include so readers can understand how accurate the sample is. If the margin of error is large, say 5 percentage points, then the actual percentages for the yes side could be anywhere between 47% and 57% and the actual percentages for the no side could be anywhere between 48% and 38%).
The disparity between automated polling and live polling is well known - people are more willing to try to “say the right thing” to a human being.
This issue will probably remain too close to call right on through until the last vote is counted.
Thanks for the comments.
I would just like to say, was it not Satan’s plan to force people to do “right”. By taking away people’s ability to choose for themselves, how is the Church promoting free agency?
Geraid you wrote–
It should be noted that the Catholic Church got this proposition on the ballot.
Actually Christian Reconstructionists got this on the ballot, with Howard Ahmanson Jr providing $900,000. They believe the US is a Christian nation which should follow their version of Biblical law.
They consider neither Catholics or Mormons to be Christians.
And I bet you thought The Handmaids Tale was fiction.
Disappointed -
it’s all faith. You leap to decide that your logic is the starting point for the universe - but you can’t logically prove that. Faith precedes your logic. As you’ve said both are compatible, but I disagree with your “belief” in the preeminence and infallibility of one’s own logic.
As far as your Joseph Smith quote, I’ve never heard a prophet say their testimony or prophecy is sufficient. The individual is encouraged to get direct, supernatural input on the prophets words to help them work out what to believe. This process either moves the individual toward the prophet or away.
Besides all that….
What I don’t understand is the logic in believing that God would allow a prophet to have exclusive authority to oversee the giving of ordinances but also allow that person to command people contrary to his will. (E.g. the No-on-8 Mormons)
Either that person is God’s representative or they are not.
If a prophet’s authority doesn’t matter, then there are plenty of places to worship where the “supposed” authority of the prophet wont interfere.
Also, why would anybody care about losing ordinances (being ex communicated) administered by a prophet who has no special power or authority?
Hmm. Interesting. I was just reading a book called “Religious Fundamentalisms and the Human Rights of Women,” edited by Courtney Howland and I came across an essay titled, “Finding our Feet, Standing our Ground, ” by Lynn Freeman. She writes, “One of the most enduring characteristics of fundamentalists is their incredible certainty that they own the truth. Whatever else this means, it is a quality that enbles them to employ different modes of public presentation and strategic action as circumstances warrant, always keeping their primary end goals clearly and confidently before them.” Sounds like some people we know.
She writes that two aspects of this chameleon-like quality should draw our attention: “First, despite their ideological rigidity, fundamentalist groups make strategic alliances for particular purposes as suits their ultimate goals.” That sounds a bit like the coalition of churches, organizations, and individuals sponsoring a November ballot measure to amend the California state constitution.
“Second, the concepts, language, and discourses normally associated with progressive movements are co-opted, distorted, and then re-deployed by fundamentalists in service of their own ends.” From The Divine Institution of Marriage document: “Those who favor homosexual marriage contend that ‘tolerance’ demands that they be given the same right to marry as heterosexual couples. But this appeal for ‘tolerance’ advocates a very different meaning and outcome than that word has meant throughout most of American history and a different meaning than is found in the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Savior taught a much higher concept, that of love. ‘Love thy neighbor,’ He admonished.” Mormons can comfort themselves by insisting that they are motivated by love for their neighbor, not intolerance, in taking away their neighbor’s civil rights.
The question is this: do Californians really want their state constitution to be amended by religious fundamentalists? If not, vote NO.
Eric, I don’t understand your statement. Isn’t the democratic process of voting a manifestation of peoples’ ability to choose? Didn’t the people already make this choice 8 years ago only to have their agency taken away by 4 SF-based judges? Aren’t the majority of the citizens of California having their choice and rights trampled under foot by a smaller group?
I mean, same-sex couples have all of the same rights in California as married couples.
Disappointed: When I say that same-sex marriage is a special right, I mean that it is not now a right given to any group in the U.S. Since no one has this right, all are currently equal under the law. Anyone can marry a member of the opposite sex, and no one can marry a member of the same sex. They also cannot marry multiple people, their brother or sister, cousin, dog, or their car. There are people who could be demanding this “right” next.
Equal protection only means that the same laws apply to everyone. Making same-sex marriage legal would be granting a new right, but only to those who want same sex marriage. What about those who want to marry lots of people? Making same-sex marriage legal will then set a precedent that says anyone should be able to marry anyone or any group of people that they want.
Marriage will then become meaningless. When marriage ceases to have meaning in society, people stop getting married. In the Netherlands, since same-sex marriage has been legal there for many years, marriage rates have declined dramatically. People who are not married are less likely to raise children. Thus, birth rates have also been reduced, and now they are trying to reverse population declines through immigration and socialized financial incentives to have children.
As for religious ownership of marriage, you need to think back to the origin of marriage. Marriage was instituted by God, and so historically has been performed by religious authorities. While it is true that recently (relatively, anyway) governments have been granting civil marriages, marriage itself has remained primarily religious in our social psyche.
Furthermore, the government also grants civil unions to same-sex couples in California. Proposition 8 would not prevent this. Proposition 8 only says that marriage is between only one man and one woman. That is all.
All the legal rights and obligations of a same-sex civil union would be untouched. They just can’t call it marriage.
The purpose of marriage is to perpetuate society. As the fundamental building block of our social structure, it is not unreasonable to think that it should be protected.
Nauseated:
You feel that the LDS church is acting out of hate and fear, but you have misunderstood.
The purpose of the gospel is to bring people happiness. God knows what things will bring lasting happiness, and what things will lead ultimately to sorrow. The goal is to support a moral society which will support righteous living, without requiring it. Proposition 8 does not outlaw homosexual activity or relationships, it only states that it is not the same thing as marriage, and therefore not the best relationship for society.
There is no compulsion in Prop 8, only the refusal to legitimize such choices. Sin is still sin, and it is the moral obligation of Prophets, churches, and anyone who believes in God’s commandments to stand up and say this is still sin.
Sirius, that’s right. Same-sex couples CURRENTLY have all of the same rights in California as married couples. You are trying to take that away from them. Eight years ago California voted on a law–a law that was found to be unconstitutional because it violated the rights of a minority group (hence your belief in a need for an amendment to the constitution). The government must be even handed in how it treats all of its citizens. It cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation (Lawrence v Texas). It is fine for religions to discriminate–don’t marry gays in Mormon temples. But the government is not supposed to discriminate. That’s why I think gay marriage will someday be legal in every state. And I am okay with that because I believe it poses no threat to heterosexual marriage and does not take away anyone else’s rights.
Basically all of the Mormon arguments against gay marriage have been debunked except for one. The legal reasoning argument has been debunked (see Thurston). The LDS doctrinal argument has been debunked (see Captain Moroni who will have ten scriptures plus a GA quote and Article of Faith for every one of yours). Mormon History does not work in your favor (see polygamy and blacks and the priesthood). The argument that gays are morally bankrupt people bent on destroying our society doesn’t fly either. Too many of us have friends/family/loved ones who are gay, and we know that is untrue. So basically the only argument that you have left–and this is the one that I buy from you because I was raised in Mormonism–is this: the prophet has told you to do something and so you do it. Period. I understand this. I don’t buy it myself anymore, but I do understand that line of thinking since I’ve been there myself. If the prophet told you tomorrow that he had a new revelation and now God is okay with gay marriage, you would quickly change your mind on the matter as well. Now, as you walk around canvassing neighborhoods, this is not an argument that is going to fly well with the general public, and so you have to resort to the other ones. But just so we are perfectly clear, you know and I know that it is the one and only reason you suddenly feel this is such an urgent moral matter and why you have contributed unprecedented amounts of time and money to this one issue.
Lara, don’t you know that parts of Thurston’s paper has largely debunked, especially because he cites legal cases that aren’t even the foundations of many of the concerns here in California. He often states that this concern is based on this case… and it really wasn’t. It was poorly crafted, imo.
In fact, my kindergartner is learning about family make-up right now. It started last week and finishes this week. That’s two weeks of education on what constitutes a family and why it is important. Don’t tell me that the gay community is not going to jump all over schools and teachers who do no present the alternative life style if it’s considered legal. Please, don’t try to patronize me and tell me that it won’t happen. We all know that it will. You are living in a state of denial to suggest that it won’t. The same group pushing for homosexual education in early grades in Massachusetts is pushing the No on 8 campaign in California.
Lara, please don’t presume you know what I am thinking. It makes you sound stupid, and I don’t think you are. I personally wouldn’t care if same-sex couples were granted marriage licenses if it didn’t affect what my children would be taught, but there is a clear agenda to push homosexual eduaction, and if you can’t see it, We’ll have to agree to disagree.
Sirius
The same group? really, Please !
Do you have anything better than to raise the specter of the homosexual boogieman with his sinister agenda of infecting innocent children with what, fairness and tolerance, or is it the ickcy highly contagious gay disease.
I guess we all receive our marching orders from command central, to advance our Agenda on the precious little ones. Why didn’t I see this? So that’s what’s my marriage is about. I thought it was about love and commitment.
And Thurston has a reply to this “rebuttal” … http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dgbmjj9g_3cppnnzjm
And, no, I can’t see a clear homosexual agenda targeted toward my children, so yes, let’s agree to disagree.
Obviously you dont even understand what Prop 8 really is all about. You just know what your leaders at the Mormon Church tell you. They tell you to go out and vote and support against Gay Marriage because it hurts the institution of marriage between a man and a woman. I know this because I was baptized Mormon at age 20. And obviously you dont understand that Prop 8 has NOTHING to do with pushing homosexuality in school. This is cleary a tactic by the Mormon church and special interest groups that are outside of California to use fear to scare voters into voting YES on 8. Why don’t you take the time to read up on the news today before you open your mouth since a Mormon scholar at BYU TODAY confirmed that Prop 8 has nothing to do with education. Furthermore using children to promote your misguided self interest is morally corrupt and diplorable.
NO on Prop 8: Mormon Scholar’s Memo Debunks Prop 8 Ads
Well-known Mormon Legal Scholar Confirms Prop 8 has Nothing to do with Education
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/no-prop-8-mormon-scholars/story.aspx?guid={7EBD7D67-2DD6-4C94-A022-A35839FA36AA}&dist=hppr
JP:
We obviously see the roles and purposes of prophets and the church in completely different ways! Per my thought process theory, dialogue on this issue will be useless. Best wishes.
Memorie:
M said -”Making same-sex marriage legal would be granting a new right, but only to those who want same sex marriage.” I say - Again, think of what you’re saying! Surely if same sex-marriage is open to everyone, it will only be wanted and used by gays. Just like heterosexual marriage, corrently open to all, is only wanted and used by heterosexuals! But regardless of who wants and uses each of them, all are equally allowed!
M-”They also cannot marry multiple people, their brother or sister, cousin, dog, or their car. There are people who could be demanding this “right” next. ” Please, this is too sick to even comment on! Surely you don’t think homosexuals are equivalent to cats, dogs, and inanimate objects.
M-”Making same-sex marriage legal will then set a precedent that says anyone should be able to marry anyone or any group of people that they want. ” YEAH! Then the LDS Church can restore the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage, which is Polygamy! (See D&C 132).
M - “Marriage will then become meaningless.” How? I disagree completely!
M-”When marriage ceases to have meaning in society, people stop getting married.” Possibly, but I reject the meaningless portion. If people think their marriages will be meaningless b/c a same-sex couple gets married, I submit that they already are meaningless!
M-”In the Netherlands, since same-sex marriage has been legal there for many years, marriage rates have declined dramatically.” Marriage rates are declining in many places, U.S. included, for many reasons other than same-sex marriage.
M-”People who are not married are less likely to raise children.” AND? I see no problem with a lower birth rate. But, there are MANY other factors contributing to that lower rate that are more easily fixed than banning gay marriage to stimulate marriages and births! WOW!
M-”Thus, birth rates have also been reduced, and now they are trying to reverse population declines through immigration and socialized financial incentives to have children.” AND? I hope it works.
I agree that some of the Yes on 8 arguements could have been worded better. Some of the the focus is slightly off in my opinion, but the truth is that they do teach marriage in schools. My kids were taught about marriage and the responsibilities of husbands/wives/fathers/mothers. They will end up being forced to include the gay marriages. Yes, I understand the implementation of that is decided by local school boards. But as we have seen in Massachusetts parents can not opt out! Also religious groups like Catholic Charities was forced to either change their religious beliefs or stop providing adoption services for thousands of hard-to-place orphans. Some has said they could have stayed, yes if they would deny one of their religious principles. I am comfortable with say they were forced out.
The laws and structure in our society was developed with the understanding that marriage was between man and woman. For me personally, I don’t care if a gay couple’s relationship is called “marriage” or not. For me, the reason to vote Yes on 8, is all the other consequences to that structure in society.
Had the pro-gay movement put forth an admendment that would protect those who do not believe in gay marriage from being forced to give them orphaned children, to ensure parents can opt out of gay marriage in school, to safeguard doctors who may not want to help a gay couple get pregnant, etc. Then if they had done that, I think we would not see this big reaction in California. I think they made a tactical error in going through courts rather than legislature.
Disappointed: You do not appreciate the value of children, nor their rights. You obviously would not mourn their loss from society purely from the joy they bring, but perhaps you would when there were no doctors to provide you with geriatric care, or workers to maintain your social security. Population decline results in an implosion of all entitlement programs, such as social security, medicaid, etc, because of a declining tax base. This is why all western countries experiencing this recognize this as a problem.
Also, the point I was trying to make is not what homosexuals were equivalent to, but what marriage isn’t equivalent to. It can’t be redefined without further eroding its meaning. It is true that marriage has been declining for a long time as people opt to “live together” instead of marry. Same-sex marriage will not start the trend, but it will heighten it.
You asked how. It does this because of fear. Absent of strong religious conviction, people marry because it is encouraged and enforced by societal norms, and because it is deemed the lowest risk option for raising a family.
As societal norms shift away from this, the desire to avoid the risk of “making a mistake” causes those who are nervous about commitment to seek less “risky” options. If society no longer considers marriage the only honorable option, marriage itself becomes the “riskier” option because of the long-term commitment involved. Hence marriage declines.
Here is a good article about marriage from someone who actually knows what she is talking about. http://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/01/14/stephanie-coontz/the-future-of-marriage/
Alan
The Governor twice vetoed married equality, saying it was for voters or the COURTS to decide.
No one in California is forcing Orphanages to give children to gays and lesbians where they will do who knows what with them.As a parent, I don’t think I like the implication that I am some sort of pervert. If you succeed in stripping gays of the right to marry, they still can adopt. Or is that your next amendment.
Gays and lesbians are all around you. Forcing second class citizenship on them will not stop your children from finding out we exist. Nor will them finding out we exist harm them.
However you seek to harm my family, but invalidating my marriage.
I just wanted to say that I support this country’s process of free speech and each individual having the right to vote as he/she chooses. I am very sad to find out that demonstrators for Prop 8 have been harrassed, assaulted, their property destroyed and their signs moved. Is this what tolerance is from the other side?
Unfortunately, there are victims on both sides of the political line on this issue. In order for a national voting process like the USA’s to function, all citizens, no matter what political persuasion, must feel free to speak their minds, voice their opinions, post notices and participate fully in the electoral process free from fear of harassment, assault, intimidation, vandalism, property destruction, or any other similar acts.
Is this website listing people’s information to encourage “Mormons” to contribute or to “expose” people who have?
Memorie: “You do not appreciate the value of children, nor their rights. ” I do appreciate the value of children. I dearly love my own and see a tremendous amount of value they hold for society. But that doesn’t mean population rates must forever continue to grow just to keep up my joy and social security! Also, I’m quite familiar with the rights of children. What have I said that indicates an unappreciation for their rights? What do their rights have to do with this issue at all? I must admit that I don’t follow your arguments very well! Sorry!
You said that “fear” discourages marriage. fear of what? I don’t understand your line of reasoning here. Nevertheless, it seems that you think marriage is being diminished and will discourage people from marrying. I think we are seeing quite the opposite. MORE people will be married by allowing same-sex marriages! I can’t imagine a heterosexual (who would have otherwise married) deciding not to marry because same-sex couples can! That’s very strange logic to me. I guess we’ll just agree to disagree on this one!
Martha -
A quick look at our front page will show you that this site exists to answer these questions:
-How much money have LDS donors provided to this campaign?
-Are Mormon contributors a significant source of money and manpower in this election?
The First Presidency asked Church members to get involved in the Yes on 8 campaign; we are reporting the members’ response.
You might also check out our FAQ page.
Well, it’s pretty clear to me that the Mormons can be called a “significant source of money and manpower.”
I wonder how many of them would have donated their thousands of dollars if their church leaders in Salt Lake City hadn’t said anything about Prop 8? Or, if church leaders simply issued a statement about supporting the proposition and left it at that, rather than get everyone so riled up about it in church meetings and satellite broadcasts.
The Protect Marriage coalition talks and talks about its 62,000 donors and its grass roots success. It’s Catholic spokesman went so far as to say that the Mormon church is not a big institutional donor. Technically, the church itself doesn’t appear anywhere on the donation lists, but it’s a little disingenuous to say that all these Mormon donors are getting involved as much as they are all on their own. Sure, they say they feel strongly about it, but how many more blogs and emails do we have to read that say things like, “I never get involved in politics, but because the prophet said to, I’m making an exception for this.”?
admin–
I looked over the information page, and I fear your answer is still not clear. Referring me to the front page of your website is an indirect way of answering my question. I am wondering if you can unequivocally state what the purpose of the site is for. I specifically am asking you is this website to encourage Mormons to contribute or to “out” them for supporting this? I am not sure of your motives. The splash page is also very unclear.
Believe it or not, this site was created solely and only to answer the questions posted above. There is no hidden agenda or ulterior motive.
Do you need something specific still? Okay, here you go: NO, this site is not “to encourage Mormons to contribute,” and NO, this site is not “to ‘out’ them for supporting” Prop 8.
Okay, Lara and Suzanne, you can go on believing that there are not groups who want homosexuality taught to young children. You can also believe that this did not happen in Massachusetts as a result of legalizing same-sex marriage. You can also believe that the same group in Massachusetts is also not out here in California trying to make the same thing happen.
Some people are so closed-minded that they can only see what is convenient for them. My parents always taught me that the decisions we at first think are strictly personal almost always affect other people, and we have to look at those effects.
I will be honest with you. If the proposition was such that the state could issue marriage certificates to same-sex couples but homosexuality could not be presented in schools as an option to traditional marriage, I would be fine with it. However, this question has been put ot the No on 8 leaders, and they said “No Way”. So, even they are admitting that it’s not just about the right to marry. You should, too.
Prop 8 is about the right of same-sex couples to marry. Period.
When teachers talk about families, I hope that they are mindful that there are many different types of families out there other than the 1950’s Ozzie and Harriet style. I think that they do already know this and that they are aware that the children in their classroom live in many different types of families. I certainly hope that they don’t teach that “Jimmy’s family” is more ideal than “Sally’s family.” I am also quite sure that they are not pulling out diagrams and showing how two men and two women might have sex with each other. I know all of my children’s teachers and I am quite confident in their ability to educate my children. I am also quite confident in my own ability to teach them morals, which I believe are better taught at home than in the classroom.
My children are also aware that same-sex couples exist and that they are people just like you and me. Frankly, my children ask me why our society “is so mean” to them. I tell them that mainly people don’t know any better and they were taught to be prejudiced by their parents. I also remind them that they DO know better and so I hope that the next generation of people will be more tolerant, understanding, and loving toward their fellow human beings.
I respect the qualities you have instilled in your children. My parents were mortified when I was taught in 6th grade that masterbation is perfectly healthy and normal as part of the district health instruction. Every district has latititude about what they can teach.
Because there is such a huge push by some of the gay community to teach very young children about homosexuality in schools, I feel like I am on the defensive here. I felt that way before the prop 8 argument came up. Gender confusion in young children is one of the leading, if not the leading, cause of homosexuality in adults. While this condition can and is often corrected in children of young ages, if the confusion is not corrected by the age of 11-12, it’s usually too late to change. I personally do not want to do anything that confuses children anymore on this issue. You have been a great parent and taught your children well, but not all children have that benefit, and they can easily be confused.
Um, I would like to ask a quick question. It seems like many people are expressing concern over the possibility of “forcing doctors, parents and teachers to teach acceptance when they otherwise don’t believe it.”
Even if this were true, would that really be such a bad thing? What is so wrong with teaching tolerance and diversity? There are so many different ways to have a family, and there are so many different people in the world that it is silly to draw distinctive boundaries around what “family” means. In fact, the mormon idea of marriage is already different from many other religious interpretations of marriage. Every time I hear people on this board talk about how everyday Californian’s shouldn’t be forced to accept others for their difference, it makes me think of a video online where a conservative LDS father discusses his son’s suicide. It is very emotional to hear the story of many homosexual mormon’s who committed suicide because they could not make their religious beliefs consistent with their sexual identity.
Personally, I will choose not to make people feel so terrible about who they are. Homosexuality is not a choice and it is not going away. If we continue down this path of, “give homosexuals rights so long as it doesn’t effect my bigotry,” then we are going to end up driving even more mormon youth to depression and suicide. I prefer to be accepting of homosexuality, to allow people who love each other to get married and have families. If Heavenly Father honestly thinks that homosexuality is more disgusting than a life of depression and sadness (and possible suicide), then he can explain it to me when I’m at the pearly gates. Until then, I choose to vote for equality and acceptance. I just don’t think it is bad that you might have to put your discriminatory instincts in check.
LET’S VOTE “”"”YES”"”"2 PROP 8…..
Let’s Stay on what God has instructed us into…and not to follow our own feelings and free will …Those Feelings come from the Flesh and the one that puts that on our own hearts is the DEVIL!! GOD Does not Tolerate “”SIN”"
That’s what we are Sinners…For we had fallen short of the Glory of God….Let’s Reflect and Repent before is too late…
Tell me where in the Bible says that Marriage Should be among same Sex!! Jesus was not Born out of JOSEF and MARIO!!!
Sarah,
You make a good point. It is important to think deeply about what God has instructed us to do. I was under the impression that our religion has instructed us to ponder with an open heart and pray for guidance.
I suspect I have prayed for guidance on this issue more than most others, and every sign I get seems to tell me that Gay marriage is ok. From my personal research to my conversations with other people to the feelings I receive from prayer, everything points to gay marriage being ok. What now?
You are right, God does not tolerate sin. But deciding who is guilty and who is not guilty is God’s job, not ours. We are not supposed to pass judgment. Instead, we are supposed to wait and let God decide. Voting Yes on Proposition 8 amounts to passing judgment where we should leave that to Heavenly Father.
The bible doesn’t say marriage should be limited to a man and a woman. In fact, the only passage about homosexuality in the bible is that man shall not lie with another man. I suspect that this passage is meant to reject the Greek understanding of relationships where young men would join sexual relationships with older men as a form of social contract (lover/beloved relationships). I understand that relationships should be based on love, and that is what this passage seems to be getting at, not a criticism of homosexuality per se.
Why not allow plural marriage? Why not allow underaged marriage? If your point is to let everyone do what they want, I can’t agree. I just don’t want to go down the road become a European nation where people only care about themselves, don’t volunteer (I threw that in there because France & Spain have the absolute lowest number of volunteer hours per capita of all industrialized nations).
We have to remember that California already had granted all domestic partners the same exact rights as married couples. The people want the tradition of marriage to be kept sacred. It’s a tradition deeply steeped in religiosity. Why is the gay community so bent on stepping all over somebody else’s sacred tradition and definition when they already enjoy ALL of the same rights? It really makes you wonder what the real agenda is here.
I think it’s a certain section of the gay community that is pushing this. I know a few gay men here at work that don’t even really care. They have all said that they have the same rights anyway, and they think by trying to change the historic definition of marriage that it will just cause a larger divide - one that they have largely bridged. They feel that they have achieved what they wanted.
In response to “Gay People Already Have All of the Same Rights, So What’s the Big Deal?”
The answer to this question is that “Separate but equal” is not as equal as we want it to be. During segregation, the idea was that it was ok to have separate black schools and white schools because they were given equal treatment. It did not take long for society to figure out that separate was not really equal for a variety of reasons. The same is true with same sex marriage. Civil Unions are an attempt at “separate but equal.” It is the claim that “you can have all of the same rights associated with marriage, you just can’t have marriage.” Ultimately, there is something ABOUT the word marriage that conservatives want to protect, and it is precisely that something that makes civil unions unequal.
If anyone still disagrees with me, think of the basic stigma argument. A black boy in the segregation era grows up wondering why he has to go to different schools than others in his community. He grows up wondering why he has to use a different drinking fountain and wonders why he has to always ride in the back of the bus. Eventually, these attitudes turn into self-fulfilling prophecies about racial difference, which fuel racial tensions and lead to more conflict. Gay children (yes, there really are gay children) grow up wondering why they can’t get married, and why they have an entirely different state sanctioned contract than heterosexuals. Eventually, the stigma associated with “separate but equal” leads to self fulfilling prophecies about difference and a lack of acceptance. This self fulfilling prophecy fuels tensions and leads to more conflict.
And, for the record, as far as I know, there are only 2 states where civil unions include power of attorney, which hardly counts as “equal rights” to me.
Also, there seems to be no proof that homosexual marriage is the deciding factor that causes marriage to fall apart in European countries. It might have something to do with a much larger criticism of gender stereotypes, a rejection of the idea that men protect and provide for families while women stay at home and nurture children, which itself has something to do with the rise of women in professional environments. The truth is that the “decline of marriage” could be due to a whole host of things, and you have no proof that gay marriage destroys traditional marriage. In fact, I would argue that many homosexuals so desperately want access to your “traditional institution” precisely because of the benefits you point out (regarding sociological research).
Let me explain it a little differently. My philosophy professor once asked, “why do gay people want access to marriage anyway? It is such a messed up institution of unequal power relations and oppression, who would want access to something so gross? Why don’t gay people create their own form of special bond and fill it with new meaning? Isn’t the point of homosexuality that it is queer…it falls outside the norm?” My answer is that there are many homosexual couples out there that desire the type of family lifestyle you say is so important and don’t want to create some new form of sexual deviance. They just want to live their lives with the person they love. By not allowing them to call their relationship marriage, you implicitly send the message that their relationship is not as important as yours. I think that’s unfair, and I think that makes this a civil rights issue, not just a “child safety” issue.
We don’t allow plural marriage because it is most often used as a tool to exploit women rather than as a form of egalitarian relationship. We don’t let underage people marry because they are not old enough to give valid consent. We don’t allow people to marry animals or cars because they don’t have the ability to enter contracts, and marriage is a contract.
If Prop 8 passes, what are you going to do about the thousands of gay couples who have already gotten married? Will you automatically dissolve them? Not recognize them? How cold, how cruel.
Orion has a good point. What about all the people who have honestly prayed and sought answers about gay marriage and got a DIFFERENT ANSWER FROM YOU? Do they need to keep praying until they get the right answer? What if their answer is the correct one and yours is wrong? What if, instead of burning in hell for defending the rights of my gay brothers and sisters, I end up getting a gold star in heaven for my efforts? The fact is, you don’t know. No one here has convinced me that a gay couple’s marriage violates your civil rights. You have not shown that it causes a tangible harm to your life, to your marriage, to your family. You have not shown that it furthers a substantial state interest to deny gay citizens their right to marry. All of your objections come down to religious symbolism: the “sanctity” of marriage, the “sacred” nature of the family, “sacred” traditions. I’m sorry, but I cannot condone amending the constitution based on someone’s idea of what is sacred. If you think that’s okay, then fine, why don’t you also work to amend the constitution to force people to attend Church on Sunday, or put fornicating adults in jail, or deny voting rights to those who were less valiant in the pre-existence? As long as the majority thinks that’s okay, why not function under mob rule? Just hope and pray that you are never part of the minority that becomes the next target.
Orion, your separate but not equal argument doesn’t hold up. Under California law it is already illegal to treat domestic partnerships differently in any legal context. The only thing that is different is the title, other than the fact it is still considered an “alternative” arrangement. No one is asking them to use separate bathrooms, pay extra taxes, or eat at Burger King instead of McDonalds. The request is that an institution like marriage, that is considered holy by many religions, should not be forcibly co-opted and redefined without the consent of the public, and especially not by a group who is so intolerant of any religious expression. This legalization was accomplished by judicial activism, not by popular vote.
If Prop 8 passes, the “marriages” should be converted to domestic partnerships and new certificates issued. It will not change their legal status or benefits in California one iota.
About the inspiration issue: homosexuality is clearly prohibited in the scriptures.
Leviticus 18:22 “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”
(This scripture was issued while the Israelites were wandering in the desert and has no bearing on Greek traditions.) If you are still looking for answers when they are clearly written right in front of your face, then you aren’t listening to God, you’re listening to yourself.
This site is misnamed and misleading.
No one has the right to threaten people for donating to a cause. Oh, I guess they do have the right to threaten others, but they also have a right to be punished for breaking the law with such threats.
Everyone has the right to stand up for what they believe in, even churches, even religious minorities in California. I think they don’t “get out” because hey, they like it there.
No one need get angry over any of this. Let the people decide.
Mormons are 2% of the population in California? What percentage is 4 judges? What percentage is 61%? (not a trick question.)
Just because someone thinks differently than you does not mean they are full of hate or intolerance. If you think so, then first check your own heart for those corrosive traits. They may be obscuring your vision and clarity of thinking. You may have higher blood pressure than is healthy. You may be at greater risk for road rage and have a greater tendency than the average person to smash pumpkins that are not yours at hallowe’en. Try to resist.
People have the right to post signs on their property supporting or not supporting proposition 8 without the fear of intolerant people stealing them or doing damage to property.
Always make sure to compare both sides of the story–LDS has raised $30 million in support of Prop 8? What about the other camp? What about most media? $30 million pales in comparison.
Let the people decide.
Be nice to people, even those different than you.
Have a good day.
“Be nice to people, even those different than you.”
Ha! That’s some funny stuff right there.
This looks like a good place for a reminder about how to ensure your comments never make it out of moderation:
1 - Swear
2 - Attack another commenter
3 - Be overly rude
4 - Use multiple screen names
5 - Whine about your comments being moderated
Bonus points for people who make an effort to be kind, polite and thoughtful.
So long as most people are able to abide by these rules, we’ll keep this thread open.
Memorie - You raise an interesting point. You are correct that marriage is considered holy by many religions and they are free to define marriage however they want. They do, in fact, define marriage differently among themselves. This discussion, however, is about the law in California, the law that we must all abide by. I would really appreciate it if you explained to me how marriage is being “co-opted and redefined” by anyone. Marriage means something different to everyone anyways.
Sometimes, the consent of a majority is not necessarily the best thing. If you need an example, see the holocaust, or any other major genocide in the past few decades. The courts exist in order to interpret the law to make sure everyone is treated fairly. It is not activism, it is the function of the courts.
And I’m sorry, but homosexuality is not clearly prohibited by religion. You cannot reduce the complexity of human sexuality and identity to a one sentence passage about Israelites in the desert. I am sincerely insulted that you would attempt to characterize my own spiritual journey to meet your political stance on this subject. That is out of line. You do not have the right to tell me whether or not I am listening to God, for you do not know who I am.
To Ignacio - No one should burn your signs or property. They should discuss the issues and try to persuade you in a more constructive way. However, if you choose to donate money to a political cause, then that is a public statement endorsing a political perspective, and the information is public domain, as in, free for anyone to look at or publish.
I have not accused anyone of hate or intolerance, I have only tried to raise important points related to this important cause. Look through my comments and let me know of anything you find insulting.
Perhaps I missed it, but I don’t see any names listed of who maintains or runs this site. If there is no harm in “naming names”, why not have the guts to put your own names and as a further show of your good faith in what you are doing, what ward you are in on the site?
Since when is it ever appropriate to put the rights of a minority group to popular vote? What would have happened if brown v. board was put to a vote? Schools would have remained segregated. What would have happened if the miscegenation laws were put to a vote? No interracial marriage. “The majority” was overwhelmingly opposed to both of those measures. It is the role of the Courts to protect the rights of minorities against the majority. I think its disgusting to put whether or not someone can marry the person they love on a ballot. How would you feel if someone put your marriage on the ballot?
This is a good letter that was in the Salt Lake Tribune:
The following letter was published in the Salt Lake Tribune 8/16/2008.
We can change history for gay LDS
Carol Lynn Pearson
Reading the various reviews of the new LDS Church-authorized book, Massacre at Mountain Meadows, prompts me to stand as witness for another tragic killing of a group of people in our community for which - when we have the benefit of history - we will be deeply ashamed.
The insidious thing about this killing is that we manage - though it would break our hearts to know it - to get the unfortunate ones to pick up the gun and kill themselves. I speak of the suicides of our LDS gay brothers (occasionally sisters) in a number that far exceeds the 120 members of the Fancher party.
Each victim at Mountain Meadows had walking beside him a man poised to raise his gun and shoot. History will show that the gay men of whom I speak had walking beside them a dark shadow impersonating God, a shadow that gave them misinformation about who they were, misinformation that most of us now acknowledge was both dead wrong and deadly: “Homosexuality is often caused by masturbation . . . may lead to bestiality . . . caused by selfishness . . . electric shock will set you right . . . a good woman . . . reparative therapy . . . fasting and prayer . . . you would be better off at the bottom of the Great Salt Lake with a millstone around your neck . . .”
Our current discussion of this issue reflects better science and a more generous spirit, but too many deaths continue. Gay youth attempt suicide three times more often than their straight peers. According to an article in the Deseret Morning News of April 23, 2006, Utah leads the nation in suicides of men age 15-24.
I recently received an e-mail (quoted with permission) from a woman in Utah who said, “I’m in agony over the suicide death two months ago of my youngest son, Marshall, age 25, a gay student who was a senior in chemical engineering at the U. of U. He knew all about spreading love but didn’t feel enough in return to keep him going. On my refrigerator I have a package of flower seeds marked, in his writing, ‘5/1.’ That was the day he was going to plant them. He didn’t make it that long, so I’ll plant them for him - next spring.”
The stories keep coming: A woman in my ward just told me of two gay nephews who both took their lives; a woman in the airport recently told me of three LDS gay boys who killed themselves in her neighborhood in Bountiful.
The dozens of stories I personally know are the tip of the awful iceberg. I think of Stuart Matis, an LDS celibate gay man who shot himself on the steps of the stake center in Los Altos, Calif., as a direct result of the intense religious rhetoric around a “protection of marriage” initiative similar to the one proposed in California today.
One of the historians of Mountain Meadows, Ron Walker, says that he’s “come to see the massacre as a cautionary tale in making judgments about those who are different” and that the story “is a case study in how not to apply religion and how one should apply true religion in one’s own life.”
I believe, with these historians, that we LDS people are hungry for the truth and that we want to apply true religion in our lives. I believe with Anne Frank that people are really good at heart and I know that there is no better heart than the Mormon heart, leader and member alike.
I believe that if the rider had reached Salt Lake in time, Brigham Young would have done what he could to avert the massacre in southern Utah. Many messengers today, of which I am one, have ridden in with reports and pleas for help regarding the ongoing self-slaughter of so many of our best and beautiful young men.
For many it is too late. For others - if you and I care enough - we can change history.
—
Go Fish - You did miss it.
You might want to read a newspaper every once in awhile. Like this one, perhaps: http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/280669/17/
Or, you could just do a web search: http://www.rickross.com/reference/mormon/mormon555.html
Mark Schoofs’ article mentioned at rickross was in the Wall Street Journal. Is that public enough for you?
Since I’m voting for Barack, I was pleased to find this clip of him supporting traditional marriage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_Hmdcy_lvQ
I love that minorities are supporting the ban disproportionately:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122463078466356397.html?mod=googlenews_wsj#printMode
That was my anecdotal experience when going door to door as well.
It takes a lot of the wind out of the sails of the white, middle-class, utahns who are trying to equivocate this issue with utah racism.
Netsurfer, you have to admit that it would make sense to have the info about the website, on the website.
Also, does:
“You might want to read a newspaper every once in awhile.”
qualify as “rude” or am I missing something?
Intolerance. Bigotry. Undemocratic. Government intervention. Limited choice. Bigger government.
No free agency. Bias. Prejudice. Inequality. Civil rights abuse.
“Intolerance. Bigotry. Undemocratic. Government intervention. Limited choice. Bigger government.
No free agency. Bias. Prejudice. Inequality. Civil rights abuse.”
If you are against these, vote Yes on 8.
Why do the mormons feel it is so important to deny rights to people? NOBODY will be forced to do anything (except afford equal rights to everybody).
The arguments against gay marriage are all thinly veiled arguments FOR religious bigotry.
If I were as hateful as the mormon church I would spend a lot of time and money to pass a proposition that discriminates against mormons. After all, being mormon is a choice and it is a choice I strongly disagree with.
Fortunately I actually live by the principles you claim to. I do not judge others and I will not interfere in the private lives of people. When a movement starts to ban mormon marriage remember your own hatefulness and bigotry and don’t complain or act self-righteous. You are actively working against the rights and happiness of a whole group of individuals so it should be fair to work against YOUR happiness, freedom and equal rights. Remember the time in our country’s history when YOU were discriminated against and run out of every town you tried to settle. Apparently, no lessons were learned by the church from that dark time. You reap what you sow, your hate and bigotry will come back to haunt you.
http://mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/orson_scott_card/?id=4740
“Some people have misunderstood the LDS Church’s position on Proposition 8 in California, and its opposition to gay marriage. They think that we are “against homosexuals” — that we think of “them” as our enemies, and that individuals who have entered into “gay marriages” pose a direct personal threat to us.
The unfortunate thing is that some of those who have this false impression are Mormons.
So let’s set the record straight.”
Read Orson Scott Card’s full article at the link above.
Those of you who are questioning justified reasoning behind the need to define marriage as being only between one man and one woman might want to read this post:
http://iperceive.net/california-proposition-8-opponents-the-children-can-go-hang/#comment-8437
As for identifying those who are LDS for personal attack, what’s up with that? Why treat the LDS people who are speaking their minds and putting their money where their mouths are any differently than you do the Catholics, the Baptists, the Mike Huckabee supporters, or those who don’t claim any religion but believe that children need both a mother and a father, as science supports?
If the opposition to 8 is really on the correct side of the battle, then they ought to spend more of their time reasoning with logic than tearing down signs and attacking the individuals who support 8. Attack the cause, with legitimate arguments, don’t got straw man with your arguments….you lose with thinking individuals when you do that.
Prop. 8 isn’t about attacking gays. It is about preserving families for children. There are solid reasons for it. If you disagree, offer some solid reasons, not emotions, for why those behind Prop. 8 are wrong.
Go visit our website - lds4gaymarriage.org - and read the first essay stating why Prop. 8 is contrary to LDS doctrine. Prop 8 supporters are ignoring scripture and therefore “steadying the ark.”
Orion,
You asked me to explain why I felt that marriage was being co-opted and redefined.
My dictionary (published in 1993) defined marriage as:
a) the state of being married b) the mutual relation of husband and wife and c) the institutions whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family.
In every religion I know of, marriage is a life-long union between a man and a woman for the purpose of forming a family. But more importantly, it is a covenant that was instituted and approved by God. That is why it is inherently religious.
This attempt to alter marriage in a manner that is completely contrary to its meaning is akin to a special interest group campaigning to have Channuka legally copyrighted as the trade name of a line of White Supremacist leather apparel.
It feels like an attack not just on families, but on the rights of the religious community to define their own ceremonies.
I apologized if you felt insulted by my last comment. It was not meant as a personal attack, but merely a defense of the prohibition many religions have against homosexuality. If you would like further references:
Deuteronomy 23:17
Isaiah 3:9
1 Corinthians 6:9
1 Timonthy 1:10
June 1:7
And Genesis chapter 19 where God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah for sexual sin including homosexuality.
These scriptures combined have convinced many believers of the Bible that God considers homosexuality to be a sin.
We are all sinners, of course. No one is perfect. That’s why we need religion, to help us to overcome the baser sides we all have in our nature. However, just because I believe that homosexuality is a sin does not mean that I hate homosexuals, nor do I feel that there should be laws that persecute homosexuals, just as I feel that there should not be laws to persecute religious people. I do, however, feel that the definition of the family should be preserved because it is not a secular institution. Civil unions are a secular institution. They are legally equivalent to marriage in California. People who are not religious, and who despise religious sentiment and laws should use the secular equivalent.
The No on 8 group is at its deceptive practices again. My son is being taught about family and marriage in kindergarten. I believe it stops tomorrow because they move on to a new theme. It’s pretty clear that marriage IS taught in the vast majority of California schools.
The real fact, as stated clearly in the “Yes on 8″ ads, are that, whether it is technically “required” or not, that virtually all schools in California do teach marriage now, and if gay marriage is legal, they will be REQUIRED to teach about gay marriage as well, because that will be the definition of marriage.
“O’Connell’s cleverly worded denials try to trick voters into thinking schools do not teach about marriage,” said Chip White, press secretary for Yes on 8. “But for the 96% of public schools that teach sex education, state law requires them to teach about marriage.”
The California Department of Education’s own website says that 96 % of public schools provide instruction under the Comprehensive Sexual Health and HIV/AIDS Prevention Act (Educ. Code Sec. 51930, et seq.) and every school that provides instruction under that Act must provide instruction and materials that teach about marriage. Additionally, the Department of Education’s own checklist for instruction under the Act confirms that instruction about marriage is required for the school district to be in compliance with state law
It seems, Captain Moroni, that those who are actively campaigning against the counsel of the Prophet and Quorum of the Twelve would be better examples of those who are “steadying the ark.”
So what if they teach about marriage? In the lower grades they’ll simply state that marriage is when 2 grown-ups what to live together forever and maybe raise kids together.
Boy, there’s a real blasphemy.
To all of those who say that Prop. 8 should pass because it was the will of the people with 61% that prop 22 passed banning gay marriage. Yet when it comes to abortion, the will of the people in CA is being ignored TWICE. I wonder if all of those people pushing 8 (because 4 liberal judges ignored the will of the people) are also pushing this abortion measure contrary to the will of CA voters…TWICE!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,443841,00.html
LOS ANGELES — California voters have twice rejected initiatives requiring that parents be notified before a minor can get an abortion, but supporters think the third time might be the charm this Election Day.
Yes but Captain Moroni (and I’ve been through your website and don’t find anything compelling, I’m afraid)
There’s clearly a difference between bringing up a measure before “the people” again and again and a group of 4 leaders going contrary to the will of the people.
Redoing propositions is still much much more Democratic than what the judges did, because it is the leaving “rule” up to the people, even if it is repetitive.
Now I would agree that there should probably be a bit more stickiness to the up/down votes on propositions.
In fact I’ll make a deal, I’ll oppose putting the abortion thing on the ballot again, if the gay-marriage people will not come up with a proposition reversing prop 8 after it passes on Nov 4th.
Here’s something that was sent to us -
”
We will not be threatened
A recent letter to businesses that support Equality California and their work to protect LGBT youth and seniors:
“You would leave us no other reasonable assumption. The names of any companies…that choose not to donate…to ProtectMarriage.com…will be published.
…We will contact you shortly to discuss your contribution.”
It is signed by members of the Yes on 8 campaign executive committee:
Ron Prentice, campaign chairman
Edward Dolejsi, executive director of the California Catholic Conference (the Official Voice of the Catholic Community in California)
Mark Jansson, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Andrew Pugno, lawyer for ProtectMarriage.com.
Donate now and send a message to the other side: We reject your effort to intimidate us and we reject your shameful lies. We will fight to protect our freedom.
Forward this message to everyone you know, and ask them to stand with us. ”
Should LDS Members or the Church as a whole, be involved blackmail and extortion?
But “Captain”, the No on 8 group says that marriaghe and family is not taught in schools, but it is indeed. The head our school baord felt compelled to email an open letter to parents because he was getting so many calls asking if marriage and family are taught, and he says that yes, they are taught, and it has been that way for years.
The deception is unreal.
JP
I will be voting NO on Prop 8 and I urge my fellow Californians, Mormon and Non-Mormon alike, to do the same.
Surly you must be aware that should Prop 8 pass, subsequent ballot measures that deal with this issue are only one of the likely responses. By no means would that be the most likely next response, though. If Prop 8 were to pass, what would likely ensue would be first, a host of State court challenges — on a number of grounds, and next a host of Federal challenges. Remember, there are now a sizable group of Married same-sex couples in this state. They have licenses, legally issued. Should Prop 8 pass, we would next need to see what the implications of having those legally issued licenses are.
In the end, we live in a country where we can voice our positions and vote the dictates of our conscience. I am grateful for this. I think homosexuality is a condition that results from several variables, the largest of which is gender confusion in children. That said, I don’t think hardly any choose homosexuality as a lifestyle. The brain has a great capacity to adapt. I think once someone is confused and experiments, the brain “rewires” itself and adapts. We see that gamblers have a different brain than non-gamblers. It’s just an example. I could have shown research that people addicted to pornography also show a different brain make-up than those who do not. These people were not born with different “programming”. It was acquired through behavior, and the brain adapted.
My point is this, I believe that homosexuality is a nuture, not nature condition. I think it is the result of something lacking in parenting, often a poor father. I feel very badly for people who have suffered and are suffering because of it. Nobody would choose the rejection and ridicule associated with it. I believe that this life on Earth is not fair to many people, but I also believe that we are eternal beings, and the time spent in this life is such a small drop in the bucket compared with our life in the eternities. People who were wronged in this life and have suffered will indeed be rewarded for their sufferings. I will not equate homosexuality with other physical defects or some sort of abuse, but I do think God will make things right for the homosexual individual just as he will for those others who have suffered. Something happened to the individual that was beyond their control.
However, I do not think that same-sex marriage is one of the things God wants as a result. I don’t know quite how to say it, but it’s like the two wrongs do not make a right scenario. I think gay individuals were wronged somewhere along the way, but I think same-sex marriage is also wrong. I believe in a God that makes things right because time is certainly on his side. There are many other groups who have been wronged, and I could name dozens.
However, I do
Digusted with the religion I was raised in.
Absolutely disgusted.
Do not vote to inhibit the Free Agency of others.
When Prop 8 passes, those with same-gender attraction are free to continue to participate in whatever sexual practices they please, and are guaranteed all the rights California gives to married couples if they choose to be in a registered domestic partnership. (California Family Code 297.5). There is no legal proscription against homosexual behavior, and the free agency of those who participate in such behavior is affected not at all.
A vote against Prop 8 WILL impinge on the freedoms of many people. The goal of those leading the charge against Prop 8 is not that society tolerate homosexual behavior - society by and large already does. The goal is that society CONDONE homosexual behavior, and punish anyone who disagrees. Activists will enforce this with lawsuits seeking to silence, punish, or otherwise force to change any organization or person who takes a moral or religious stand against homosexual behavior, using California’s rigorous nondiscrimination laws.
NPR has documented some of the lawsuits that have been filed with such a goal.
Therefore, I agree with Mr. Orr. Do not vote to inhibit the Free Agency of others. Vote for proposition 8.
I’m one of those sign wavers on the streets of California in the morning, supporting Proposition 8. I’m a Mormon. I am so grateful to see the massive local support for Proposition 8 while we endure the constant sign-stealing and the anonymous hate mail left in our mailboxes.
WHAT DOES A “YES” VOTE ON PROPOSITION 8 MEAN?
• It Means You Want To Put Children First.
• It Means You Want A Definition Of Marriage That Has Been Accepted By All Four Presidential And Vice Presidential Candidates. Barack Obama has been on record as opposing gay marriage, although he has equivocated and has also said that he would not support Proposition 8. Nonetheless, Obama said, when he ran for the Senate in 2004: “I’m a Christian, and so although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.” (Chicago Tribune, Sept. 24, 2004.) [But, see, the Pew Forum's summary of his inconsistent views.]
Hillary Clinton, whom I supported in the primaries, also opposes gay marriage. Her views are summarized in Lesbian Life.
When the issue of gay marriage confronted the French Parliament, it noted that it does not want “adult aspirations [to] trump children’s rights.” The Parliament’s special commission refused “to change the nature of marriage” as being between a man and a woman, and decided that it is “essential to enshrine” the principle that “the best interests of the child shall be the primary consideration” in all laws involving the family and children. Summary of the French Parliamentary Commission Report on the Family and the Rights of Children, 1-26-06.
A “yes” vote supports the preservation of all legal financial and property benefits to same sex unions, just as those rights are preserved for any married couple, but also is a vote to define “marriage” as only between a man and a woman.
What do the Opponents of Proposition 8 Support?
1. The opponents of Proposition 8 support the teaching of same sex marriage in school, starting with kindergarten, as being exactly the same as marriage between a man and a woman. Those opposing Proposition 8 have launched a series of misleading campaign ads asserting that California schools will not be teaching same sex marriage, when these very same organizations argued forcefully in Massachusetts court cases that same sex marriage must be taught as early as possible, asserting that it is “most effective when it begins during the students’ formative years.” (ADL Amicus Brief in Parker v. Hurley, p. 3.) It is fair to assume Prop 8’s opponents intend the same result in California if they can defeat Proposition 8.
2. The opponents of Proposition 8 support that same-sex marriage educational campaign taking place at taxpayer expense, as textbooks in California are changed to teach same sex marriage. Opponents of Proposition 8 want this campaign – teaching that sexual preference does not matter – to begin in the earliest grades, even before children develop their sexual identities, which will be confusing and destabilizing to our children.
3. The opponents of Proposition 8 support this educational propaganda campaign taking place without parental consent or notice. The same groups who oppose Proposition 8 here in California took the position in the Massachusetts litigation that “a broad right of a parent to opt a child out of a lesson [on same sex marriage showing a man kissing a man] would fatally compromise the ability of a school to provide a meaningful education, a conclusion that holds true regardless of the age of the child . . . .” (ACLU Amicus Brief in Parker v. Hurley, p. 18.) Again, it is fair to assume they take the very same position in California.
4. The opponents of Proposition 8 support forcing on society the right of same-sex couples to adopt a baby even when that couple will compete with and replace a family with a mother and father, although having a mother and a father is always in the best interest of every baby.
5. The opponents of Proposition 8 support closing down adoption and religious welfare agencies that choose not to place children with same sex marriages (just as has happened already in Massachusetts and elsewhere), placing the right to same sex marriage on a collision course with the right to free speech and freedom of religion of those with whom they disagree, when those agencies are a crucial help to the people of California.
Put our children first.
VOTE “YES” ON PROPOSITION 8
Gay people being a result of poor fathering actually is idiocy given that heterosexuals come from the same families that homosexuals come from. by that logic ALL the children in the family would be gay. they have the same father/mother dynamic. even then, regardless of what it is or is not caused by, the question is, should a church that believes in peoples’ rights to choose limit legally what others choose?
someone asked why gay people care what kids are taught in school. part of the complexity of the issue is that gay kids are raised in mormon families. gay people probably would not care what people are taught in school if there were not gay people in those families coming up the ranks. much like mormon women care what mormon girls are taught. gay people care what young gay people are taught.
susan… the ‘gay’ agenda is no more unified than the mormon agenda. there are gay people who believe that marriage is stifling and they don’t want it or the term. mormons are pushing the point of view of a society w/ nuclear families with males and females. few think about the gender variance of hermaphrodites - people born with both genitals. this debate is a lot about gender and ideas of marriage more than marriage itself. i don’t think an expanded view of marriage threatens marriage truly nor that a term ‘marriage’ means that people can’t tell the difference between a traditional marriage and a non traditional one. mormons have unique vows from the more common ‘traditional’ marriage vows which do not mention children. they have already redefined for themselves ideas about marriage compared to the larger society.
susan… regarding name calling… the gay community is in many cases wounded and angry and outside of religion because they are not treated well or welcomed cleanly and honestly in most religions as gay people. as such many of them are very angry, hurt, etc… much like black people in ghettos who get a lot of anger for being ghettoized and you get an abuse climate, the same happens in many cases for gay men. much like mormons often talk about ‘utah mormons’ as particularly ignorant and ghettoized in their own ways, gay men who are not ghettoized often talk about gay ghetto personalities. when you get a monoculture of gay men who have insulated from others to the point of not connecting with or being aware of others’ concerns you get the a different expression of ignorance and prejudice, but it is one none the less. many gay people see people who are against one view or another as against them, much like mormons see anyone who against one view or another as against them as a whole. black and white thinking is prevalent as is ignorance in the world. many gay men live in fear of violence towards them and in a culture that is developed w/o religious morals, not because they didn’t want them, but because they were told that they were in and out and did not consider middle options or have a lot of other options. as those options evolve, so does the community. there are many organizations working to serve the mental, emotional and spiritual health of the gay community and working to offer more sane culture and treatment for all involved.
susan… remember… one teacher read that book to her kids. not thousands. the issue is that because gay people are born in mormon homes and other homes, we all step on each others’ toes in this case. we are all interconnected. i was raised mormon. i care about what my neices and nephews are taught. part of why this debate is so complex is because gay people are not born to gay parents and are not a group that is easily identified by skin color. mormons are not teaching heterosexual kids and many of us grew up in mormon homes and have a lot of anger and pain about what we were taught about ourselves. we see young men marrying women and are as concerned about the women as the men who are gay they are marrying (or women in case of lesbians). so we feel like our toes are being stepped on. that is why i think it is important to discuss healthier ways of dealing with things and to cross communicate which is of course deeply challenging. mormons so often fear getting educated on the reverse side because of fear of the devil trying to deceive them. people who would be able to easily educate themselves on most other issues. so then a child comes out and fears educating himself, or he comes out and his parents fear getting educated on it. that is why many people are concerned from the gay side who are healthy and well adjusted people who do not want to call anyone names, nor would they otherwise care what kids were being taught.
re: comment that homosexuals’ rights should not be protected… many believe mormons’ rights should not be protected. that is why often mediation is used by an outside group. many islamic groups believe rights of anyone who is not islamic should not be respected. in the case of nambla and kkk, there becomes issues related to violence and respect of other groups whether underage youth or other races. homosexuals are not as a whole violent towards others, and when they get riled is no different from when other groups get riled, when violence is done to them and/or their needs are not met.
living and letting live… gay people are suing and religious people are suing. the issue around people in schools being taught things boils down to safety in many cases for gay people. it is not about gay people caring what straight people believe. in chicago there is a high school being planned for gay people because gay people have high rates of drop out because of fear of unsafety. people are concerned about the wellbeing of gay youth, just like you are concerned about the safety of your family members. the challenge around the gay issue is that it creates hostile environments for gay teens and youth in the ranks and gay adults. perhaps if there were books educating about the issues in intelligent ways and classes discussed it in moderate ways that would be a middle ground. the challenge is that mormons live in california not just in utah and blacks live in white communities, asians as well. not all gay men who come out want to have to live in san francisco anymore than all mormons want to live in utah. ultimately, we are interested in safety and being seen as people and allowed to explore and learn and share in ways that feel right to us.
protecting children… many gay people are interested in protecting the gay child in their developmental psychology. also, an environment that is safe for gay kids does not begin in a world that pretends gay people do not exist. so the challenge is how to allow all healthy rights involved.
Again, Asutosh, the agency of those who participate in homosexual behavior is not impinged at all by defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Prop 8 makes no law prohibiting homosexual behavior. Those who choose to participate in such behavior will continue to be allowed to do so without government interference, and will continue to receive all rights given to married couples in California if they decide to register as a domestic partnership, including hospital visitation rights. There is no limitation on rights to learn and share whatever you want with other consenting adults.
Marriage is a fundamental right in California. Prop 8 seeks to take away the Right of marriage for gays and lesbians.
What would be left would be the privilege of Domestic partnership, an inferior system. Separate is not equal
As a newly married lesbian and previously domestic partnered, I can attest that Prop 8 seeks to strip me of my Civil rights.
re: massachussetts law regarding adoption
it was in fact not as it is presented. the truth as i understand it is that the catholic agency already was adopting to gay couples and rome instructed them to cease. when that instruction came down from rome, several people in the agency resigned because gay people were taking children others would not take. if one is interested in supporting those children then gay couples adopting is in their interest it seems. gay parents would seem more humane to a child than no parents.
in addition, the reason they closed down was not because the state forced them through law to close down, but because the state’s non discrimination law (separate from the marriage law) which voters had put into place, said that they could not discriminate w/ state funding, so they pulled state funding to offer it to other agencies who did not discriminate. they did not close down the agency. the agency closed down after their people resigned and they were offered to seek private funding which they did not seek or did not get. there was no force involved. just not support. very different than the fears are being riled up about.
suzanne, i would be curious to hear what is different in domestic partnership vs. marriage w/in california. is it merely the term? something else? do domestic partners have the same rights when it comes to children who are coparented?
i know that if someone says ‘this is my domestic partner’ vs. ‘this is my husband or wife’ then it carries different things psychologically perhaps. although my domestic partner sounds better than my civil unioned partner which is something that makes people say ‘what the #$@%?’ or in mormon terms ‘what the heck?’ and doesn’t sound particularly caring.
for me personally i don’t so much have an issue with different terms. i think psychologically it challenges a lot of heterosexuals for some reason given a fixation on gender identity and gender roles which i personally don’t share with such precision. i think they are valuable for reference, although clearly not so simplistic for them or for gay couples.
one thing i suggested was defining entirely new terms somehow using etymology and greek references or something which could have value, merit, etc… and be redefined. where it becomes complex is doing it in different languages and cultures and translating it globally which is of course happening in countries and communities where it is legal and already adjusted to or being adjusted to by the surrounding culture. clearly regardless of terminology, it already is creating psychological restructuring throughout the culture.
Marriage is not and has never been a right. Two siblings do not have the right to marry, because the state has determined that it has a fundamental interest in not conferring that distinction on siblings. Similarly, the people of the state (at least, 61% of those who voted in 2000) have determined that society does not have a fundamental interest in conferring that distinction on same-sex couples. However, same-sex couples ARE granted all the same rights that are conferred on married couples. This is not a civil rights issue. When Prop 8 passes, no rights will be taken away from any same-sex couple.
JESUS spoke to me THIS MORNING. And he said VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 8. I urge all of YOU to ask Jesus and listen carefully for the answer. As JESUS said on the cross: “גוייִש משוגעת”
In California, marriage is a Fundamental Right. Saying otherwise is factually incorrect. Prop 8 seeks to strip Gays and lesbians( but not straights) of this Civil Right.
The California State legislature has granted many of the same rights and responsibilities of marriage to Domestic Partnerships. Domestic Partnership is not a Fundamental Right.
Furthermore in States that placed anti gay marriage amendments in their constitutions, these amendments were used to take away many of the privileges that States had granted to gays and lesbians such as health care . These anti gay groups tried to use prop 22, to force the courts to eliminate domestic partnerships.
Again, Marriage is a Fundamental Right in California. Prop 8 seeks to strip Gays and lesbians of this right.
Rev Joe Baytzm,
I really appreciate your contribution. As offered, it seems as convincing as any religious argument from the Yeson8 people.
Those who believe themselves to be in possession of facts concerning what “GOD” does or does not think on any given subject always leave me scratching my head.
When anyone offers a line of argument that basically presumes to know the mind of God (something they could not possibly know) — “God says/thinks X”.
I always think, okay, lets try it your way.
No — He/She doesn’t.
Gay marriage has never been a fundamental right, and hopefully never will. Marriage is exclusively for a man and a woman. Right now, gays and lesbians have all the legal rights of a marriage without the title of being married. To say otherwise is false. This is a moral issue and will never be a civil right issue. Living a gay lifestyle is an abomination and very, very evil.
People who are trying convince us that the constitution provides a right to everyone to marry whomever they want don’t understand the constitution.
I’m amazed at all the blatant lies being thrown out here. People will do anything to clear their conscience regardless of how evil it is.
Additionally, Jesus would never tell anyone to vote NO on Proposition 8. He’s the one who instituted marriage, exclusively between a man and a woman. To say otherwise is not Christian. Anyone who supports gay marriage cannot call themselves a follower of Christ, because it goes against everything he teaches. Where do you people come up with this stuff. It’s incredible.
I hope and pray with all my heart that Proposition 8 passes, and am doing all I can to make sure it does.
Mormons fighting against monogamy AGAIN.
You have to love the irony there.
It’s a bit like Larry Craig or Ted Haggard railing against homosexuality.
Deflect! Deflect!
Here’s the unspoken truth: If the Mormons can stand on their ivory tower in 2012 and proclaim to the evangelical community that they defeated gay marriage in California… they’re hoping that Christians will be more likely to give Romney a shot. It’s political posturing and completely cynical.
There is no reasonable excuse for denying the right of marriage to two people who love each other. That is why they’re depending on lies and this “plague” like nonsense.
If you think homosexuality is contagious, you’re a lunatic.
When in doubt; Stand up for the side that is fighting for Love, Equality, Dignity, and Family.
VOTE NO ON PROP 8
I was able to do early voting today. Count another NO vote on Proposition 8!
I also voted for McCain/Palin. For those of you who think conservative republicans can’t be pro-choice and pro-SSM, ….
(edited - language)
For Sirius, whose dad is a “prominent Psychologist”, I, too, am a Psychologist, and would like to ask your dad if he has read any of the literature on homosexuality since 1950?? Additionally, he should know better than to make claims based on casual observation rather than scientific study. Furthermore, if an absent father and domineering mother “cause” homosexuality, then how can two male siblings who grow up in the same family have one be homosexual and one be heterosexual? Does not add up. This is the same type of reasoning that was used in the 1940’s to say that an absent father and domineering mother “caused” schizophrenia. Preposterous!
Why should members of a religious group be denied free speech in expressing their opinon that same sex marriage is not good for our society?
It seems that many of the posts say:
Tolerance is good as long as you agree with me.
X-Ray Vision - It seems, Captain Moroni, that those who are actively campaigning against the counsel of the Prophet and Quorum of the Twelve would be better examples of those who are “steadying the ark.”
CM - You seem to be unaware of the meaning of the term. See our page on this very subject for explanation - http://h1.ripway.com/lds4gaymarriage/steadying.htm
In short, it is ignoring the revealed scriptures and doing something else that violates those verses in order to perhaps prevent something allegedly bad from happening. Uzzah ignored the scriptures when he steadied the ark (hence the term). We as a Church are doing it because we are ignoring 1 Cor. 10:29 & D&C 134:4 in order to try to prevent something allegedly bad (gay marriage) from happening. gays DO have the right to marriage in CA and we are doing our best to steady the ark and infringe upon their rights by preventing them from exercising that right. I’d be MORE than happy to hear YOUR version of steadying the ark. I look forward to it.
JP - Yes but Captain Moroni (and I’ve been through your website and don’t find anything compelling, I’m afraid)
CM - Thanks for looking. We’d love the hear where our logic and/or scriptural interpretation is faulty. We believe in protecting the truth is better than protecting egos.
JP - There’s clearly a difference between bringing up a measure before “the people” again and again and a group of 4 leaders going contrary to the will of the people.
CM - The purpose of Supreme Court justices is to make sure that the laws that are passed by either the legislature or via iniative are in keeping with the Constitution. The majority here said no. The majority in the Loving case overturning laws against inter-racial marriage likewise said NO to the will of the majority, likewise “separate but equal” (Brown vs. Board of Education). Do you favor their rulings here or should we still prohibit inter-racial marriage and still promote “separate but equal” (hmmm civil unions and Marriage are separate, but equal concepts…) ?
JP- Redoing propositions is still much much more Democratic than what the judges did, because it is the leaving “rule” up to the people, even if it is repetitive.
CM - Newsflash - We do NOT live in a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic which means we have a Constitution which protects the rights of all and are NOT subject to the will of the people.
JP - Now I would agree that there should probably be a bit more stickiness to the up/down votes on propositions.
CM - ? They still need to pass through the courts if their constitutionality is questioned.
JP - In fact I’ll make a deal, I’ll oppose putting the abortion thing on the ballot again, if the gay-marriage people will not come up with a proposition reversing prop 8 after it passes on Nov 4th.
CM - Too bad it’s not either of our call to say so.
Sirius - But “Captain”, the No on 8 group says that marriaghe and family is not taught in schools, but it is indeed.
CM - As stated previously, in younger grades they’ll teach that marriage is when 2 grown-ups who love each other want to stay together forever…or somthing similar. When I was a kid in the 60’s, I knew what gays were before I was out of grade school. maybe this issue will prompt parents to actually interact with their kids for a change and to teach them their own morality rather on relying on the schools to do it.
I too am a therapist and feel that this discussion is very interesting. I do feel that this website however was created with a specific design in mind. In psychology we see that people don’t just randomly do things, people do that which they are committed too. This website is created as far as I can tell to disrupt momentum to defend “traditional marriage” specifically targeting “Mormons.”
Do Mormons have influence on their communities, yes. So do Gays, Catholics, Protestants, and all, yes all other groups. The human voice is powerful, and groups as well as each individuals will always influence the whole. The power of one is amazing.
As for gay marriage, this is an issue that will continue to be a hot topic for years to come. I feel that marriage is ordained of God between a man and a woman; I also know that many people don’t see it that way. I feel that our society is scared to exclude many things that they think will offend groups/ desires of people.
However, morality cannot be redefined as society becomes more permissive. I have many Gay Mormon friends who struggle with trying to battle their orientation with being a member of their Church. From where I stand, they do feel it important to deal with their issues in the same manner that anyone else deals with theirs. With faith in their Higher Power and support from Church leaders, family members and friends.
I have never heard them say they support laws changing to make their orientation easier. I also have gay Mormon friends who have decided that its too hard for them to be members of the Church and be gay. I have never heard them say that their beliefs in the Church have altered.
I feel that it is a right for people to love who they will. I feel that God will hold us responsible for our actions, based on his laws which are unchanging. We get to choose what we do. I also believe God wants us to be diligent in protecting the commandments he gave us. This might cause us to conflict against our brothers and sisters, but that is ok. Each of us has to answer to God for our actions. And only each one of us will know if we did our part in what he wanted us to do.
I am supporting prop 8, others don’t. History has taught us what the future will bring. We really aren’t that different from our ancestors. So look back if you want to see what is coming ahead.
Here’s another for 8 vote. Where can I send at least $1000 to help solidify that marriage is between man and woman? Obviously, this website is not what is claims because solicits information regarding potential mormon donors that one “knows has donated in support of 8″. You’re sly and stupid.
XRay - Marriage is not and has never been a right. Two siblings do not have the right to marry, because the state has determined that it has a fundamental interest in not conferring that distinction on siblings.
CM - Free Speech is not and has never been a right. People do not have the right to slander or libel, because the state has determined that it has a fundamental interest in not to allow slander and libel.
X - Similarly, the people of the state (at least, 61% of those who voted in 2000) have determined that society does not have a fundamental interest in conferring that distinction on same-sex couples.
CM - Wasn’t 61% the percentage of the population who were FOR segregation in the South and the denial of interracial marriage? I guess those should still be in force since 61% (or the majority) wanted to keep them.
X - However, same-sex couples ARE granted all the same rights that are conferred on married couples. This is not a civil rights issue.
Cm - Having the exact same rights doesn’t matter. Blacks were “separate but equal” and they had blacks only and whites only drinking fountains. Every one had the same rights.
I enjoyed this discussion. I trust the people of California to do the right thing.
I find it ironic and hypocritical that “religious” organizations will donate millions of dollars to the yes on 8 campaign and then their money is used ot bear false witness against your neighbors by developing comercials that are essentially untrue, and when these untruths are exposed, you keep on perpetrating the untruths. Anyone who disagrees with you is marginalized. The California Supreme Court suddenly becomes just 4 activist judges who are trying to tell the “majority” what to do. The California Superintendent of Education becomes a, “liberal” politician. Then considering all the suffering the Mormon religion has endured such as the Hahn Mill massacre, everything that occurred in Nauvoo and Kirkland, Ohio, Mormons have not learned not to persecute others. How is it that you have lost you way confusing civil marriage with being sealed in the Temple?
What would be nice is that if people realized there was not god, there would be no problem here.
No god. No problem.
*deep breath* *release* ahhhhhhhhhh…
That is the heady feeling of realizing the world is full of infinite possibilities and not imaginary limits.
If you want your religiosity mixed in with government, then you have little choice but to follow the letter of the law and have your campaign contributions made publicly available.
If you are proud of your religiosity, then you should not have a problem with your efforts to make your belief public in every way possible.
If you feel “targeted” then perhaps you should ask yourself how the people this proposition you support will effect the most feel. Don’t you think they feel just a little targeted? I suspect they do.
In the words of two great philosophers: “Cant shake the devils hand and say you’re only kidding.”
Our ward leaders have come to us two weeks in a row pleading for generous fast offerings (used to provide immediate financial help for members who need help to get them through crises that involve everything from food to utilities to house payments).
Our stake has donated well over $100,000 to Prop 8.
Ironic it appears to be.
Jennifer, after you have treated 30-40 young boys suffering from gender confusion, I don’t think you can speak intelligently. It’s pretty common knowledge that gender confusion often leads to homosexuality. Also, there is no evidence whatsoever that homosexuality is hereditary or genetic. As you well know, millions and millions of dollars have been spent to indentify a gay gene or some hereditary trait, and all of the attempts have failed. There is no such thing.
You have to start to consider that if nature is not the answer, there is a nurture answer. I mean, my brother is a psychology PhD student at the University of Wisconsin, and he says that “dirty” secret is that homosexual behavior in children is really just gender confusion, and it is highly treatable if a male role model can be instituted. He says that many psychologists, however, refuse to treat it this way and just tell parents that it looks like they have a gay child and they should adapt their parenting approach accordingly.
We’re not talking 1950’s methodology here. We’re talking current practice. You need to get out of the 1970’s and 1980’s and realize that conventional thought behind the cause for homosexuality is evolving. You are stuck in the past, and it’s now history.
“They still need to pass through the courts if their constitutionality is questioned.”
The beauty of the proposition being an amendment to the constitution is that it will make it necessarily constitutional. Now if it conflicts with another piece of the constitution, it is a basic legal doctrine that a specific law trumps a more general law - if those laws are on equal footing. Of course it could go to the SCOTUS I believe - but I don’t think the current SCOTUS will take it up.
The weakness I find with your website is actually quite parallel to the issue of “specific” versus “general.”
You argue that 1. the standard works teach to protect the rights of others, therefore prop 8 is anti scripture. 2. The counsel of the current prophets about prop 8 should be ignored because it is contrary to the standard works.
I wont argue as to why prop 8 is not anti standard works (even though I don’t think it is, it’s a matter of interpretation) but I’ll take on your second premise.
Ironically, all of your quotes are from non scriptural sources (implicitly or otherwise,) and thus are no more weighty than what another prophet might say at another time.
Also, as far as what is “scripture,” what do you count as scripture? Something said in general conference? Something said in stake conference to a stake? What is the point of having a prophet at all if, for example, the proclamation to the family is not considered scripture merely because the standard works don’t get redesigned to put it in there?
I think you put yourself on dangerous pharisee territory when you say “here is my interpretation of the scriptures, it trumps what you say as a living oracle because it’s not been published in this Book yet” It is very similar to somebody using the scripture in the book of Revelations about not “adding or taking away” to argue against the book of mormon’s validity.
Also implied in your argument is that certainly the current prophets are at the very least leading us astray since I would suggest that they are probably quite familiar with all of the material on your website (not organized the way you have it - but there can’t be anything new on there to most of the prophets) Therefore they know that they shouldn’t be contradicting scripture and implying that what they are saying is equal to scripture and then doing it anyway - thus knowingly going against God’s will - again I have a hard time with that.
Suzanne said: “Marriage is a fundamental right in California. Prop 8 seeks to take away the Right of marriage for gays and lesbians.”
It is a fundamental right for gays and lesbians only because the Supreme Court said so a few months ago. Before that, it was not. A federal court previously has held that the California prohibition against same-sex marriage does not violate U.S. Constitutional provisions, and thus there was sufficient justification for the ban.
So, it isn’t very helpful to claim that this is a basic civil right that Proposition 8 seeks to eliminate. It isn’t under federal law. It is under California law only because of an 4 to 3 vote, which vote can be overturned by initiative.
Please accept this as formal notification of my desire to have my name removed from the records of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I do not wish to be contacted further by the organization.
Enclosed you will find a copy of a press release from the LDS Newsroom dated June 30, 2008 concerning the preservation of traditional marriage and strengthening families. I have been fundamentally rocked over the Church’s decision to pursue the joining of christian ideals and a state of government.
I have always held the church in the highest esteem for its position on choice and accountability. However, that position has been deeply compomised by the organization’s steadfast pursuit of inequality and the funnelling of substantial finances towards promoting a singular, christian belief on all California citizens, regardless of their faith, and thereby limiting choice.
Further, I am dismayed by the unethical methods I have witnessed in the Proposition 8 campaign and prominent LDS members to reverse the ruling of the California Supreme Court. Using the guise of protecting children to promote this intolerance is the act that I find most heinous and would expect the church to also find intolerable. As a parent, I find that the job of raising my child to be a moral, upstanding and virtuous person is not an easy one. There are many things which my child is exposed to each day which provides me opportunity to train and teach my views and beliefs on. This is the job of every parent. We do not rely upon public schools to be the beacon of virtue and the source for moral teaching but a basis for teachings of facts and figures. Even if the schools did teach homosexual marriage, which they do not, it would be from a place of fact and not from a place of guidance and belief. It is a fact that homosexual people do love one another and are marrying, whether one agrees with it or not. When the concept of evolution is taught in school, many parents use this as an opportunity to teach their personal beliefs about creation. Differences in the belief of family structure is yet another opportunity for parent’s to teach their children.
With this in mind, I will state that inequality and intolerance is not an ideal I teach. My daughter has and will always know that my beliefs are that all men were created equal in the eyes of God. Many men and women have fought and died for that idea and I stand with them. I take comfort in the knowledge that history has shown a pursuit of human freedom always overcomes repression and intolerance.
My conscience simply will not allow me to associate myself with any organization which proposes to impose its beliefs on the rights and freedoms of other human beings. It is with this in mind that I must do what I know to be right and true in my heart by removing my association with the LDS organization. I will continue to pray for those who seek it to find tolerance, love and acceptance for ideas and beliefs which do not correspond to their own.
I will make one final post to encourage my fellow LDS members to rethink Yes on Prop 8. I fear that many of you are being persuaded to vote yes by false representations.
To be absolutely clear, not one civil right is diminished by allowing same-sex marriage. NOT ONE! I challenge anyone to present one civil right that will be harmed by same-sex marriage, even if all your worst fears come true (which they won’t). Freedom of Religion DOES NOT protect you from morally objectionable material, even in schools. The state can allow your children to hear anything it deems necessary, but you don’t have to believe it or practice it! It is true, you have the right to lobby for legislation to give you the privilege of immunity from morally objectionable material (see Prop 8). But even if same-sex marriage is banned, that won’t stop teachers from teaching your children anything! You will still need to go to your local governments to get opt out privileges! You have that same ability if same-sex marriage is allowed!
To be absolutely clear, marriage is a “fundamental civil right” per the U.S. Supreme Court. I again challenge anyone to refute that. It is true that the important question is – what is marriage? When the courts and people decide, it MUST be a decision reflecting “equality.” Even if homosexuals have all other civil rights, they lack the one that the Yes on Prop 8 side seems to cherish the most – the title of “marriage.” Honestly consider the effect of denying someone a fundamental civil right! It is a denial when they only have one legitimate choice. Giving homosexuals the choice to marry someone of the opposite sex is no choice at all! Separate but Equal does not work! Homosexuality is NOT a choice, but even if it – is SO WHAT!
To be absolutely clear, heterosexual marriage is in no way diminished by allowing same-sex marriage. I can’t imagine any heterosexual getting divorce, refusing to marry, or teaching their children that marriage is now broken because same-sex marriage exists. Not one heterosexual marriage will have less meaning or value after allowing same-sex marriage.
To be absolutely clear, the quality of life for children will not be affected. First, homosexuals can currently adopt. As such, Prop 8 would restrict those children to live in single parent households. Same-sex marriage can only improve their quality of life by adding a more stable, committed relationship and additional parent to their lives. Second, whether same-sex marriage is taught in school or not (and it won’t be taught any more than it currently is – which is by individual teachers using their own discretion) your children will still live in a world where homosexuals live and interact. Children will still hear all the arguments for and against same-sex marriage. They will still meet quality people who happen to be homosexual (who are likely to be more civically active, well-educated, and prosperous than their parents). Children will still experience the same sexual urges that children always have, regardless of what they hear. They will act on those urges just as humans have throught history. The point is - nothing will change! You will have protected them from nothing by passing Prop 8. In the end they will be what they were born to be, and even if they choose to walk down the same-sex path, it will have been of their own free will and choice against your personal instruction.
To be absolutely clear, what you should be concerned about is that your children will question the moral authroity of a religion that: (1) has yet to repeal doctrines that black people are disobedient spirit children, are born with the mark of Cain, and that interracial marriage is punishable by death (giving them the priesthood is not the same as repealing the doctrines!); (2) was formed by leaders who engaged in polygamy, with wives as young as 14, engaged in sex with many of these girls prior to marriage, performed abortions to cover up the relationships, subversively married women who were already married, used coercive tactics and threats to get the young women’s permission, often done without their lawful wives’ consent; and (3) spoke against the processes of our constitutional republic, the legitimacy of our supreme courts, and the value of protecting minority rights, all in an attempt to deny a fundamental civil right to a group of people who have different religious and moral convictions. I challenge anyone to refute these facts. In truth, the laundry list is so much longer. Ultimately, your children will weigh your own moral history in the balance. You have the opportunity to wipe number 3 away today!
To be absolutely clear, you have nothing to gain and so much to lose by supporting Prop 8!
There are several issuses that bother me with this proposition.Anti gay initiatives seem to be always driven by religion therefore the church/state seperation should automatically make it invaild.Also an initiative like this which is trying to eliminate existing constitutional protections,freedom of choice to name just one,should also automatically make the initiative invalid.Also up until very recently, 150yrs or so,”traditional marrige” was primarily a bussiness contract often between waring tribes,bussinesses or kingdoms,still is in many cases.So it seems to me that all of your arguments for baning gay marrige just go poof when looked at intelligently.
I have no problems with signing my name Steve Carter and I’m going to a marrige on Saturday between 2 male friends.And I can state absolutely that it not affect anybody else in any way.
How is gay marriage going to hurt heterosexual marriage? How is it even going to affect it? Straight people are still going to get married - it is not like they are going to just stop. By voting yes on Prop 8, you TAKE AWAY rights. By voting NO ON PROP 8, people - FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS - keep rights.
Don’t take away people’s rights. That makes you a bigot.
marriage and family is taught in 96% of the schools in California. Any school that teaches sex education nis REQUIRED to teach marriage.
Also, you should look at the effects of same-sex marriage in Sweden in Canada. It seems that you are not very well informed in making your “big decision”.
You know, I was attracted to the Mormon Church a few weeks ago because I was told by friends that they were the one organization willing to stand up for traditional marriage. I have set a baptism date for November 9th. I am excited to find a group that is so willing to stand up for what is right. I think we have seen the attacks on the traditional family in recent decades, and we have seen how it has crumbled.
It is not that the mormon Church is funding any of the campaign. It is individual members who choose to donate of their personal means and resources to support the definition of marriage which has stood since God created Adam and Eve. Not passing Prop 8 will affect the separation of church and state and churches which preach against same sex marriage are vulnerable to law suits. As stated above, we all are given our agency to choose, but “agency” can not be used as a mask for moral wrongs, abortion, murder, etc… can not be written off as someone’s agency. We only have to look at Massachuesettes to see how our state would be affected by not passing Prop 8. Already children in Sacramento have gone on a school supported field trip to a homosexual wedding. How can they argue that it won’t affect schools and our children? I should be able to choose when and where my children will learn about sexual preferences. Yes on 8.
To My Letter to the Church:
After reading your post I have to say, I have the utmost admiration and respect for you and the sentiments you expressed.
Sadly, when its all said and done, one of the biggest casualties of this whole endeavour might be the compromised integrity of LDS Church leadership and the individual Mormons who led the funding of this deceptive campaign. The cynical use of children — even, in some cases, against the wishes of their parents, to promote this removal of rights is, indeed, unethical and heinous.
I’ve been away for a bit so there’s a few items I should respond to first.
Lara #148 Making assumptions about my personal relationships is pretty silly considering how little you know of me. And I think physical attraction is merely a small part and from the successful relationships I’ve seen something that eventually isn’t important in the least. Why would we focus so much on something so temporary.
Next point regarding doctrine. God is the same yesterday today and forever is true. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that doctrines don’t change. In the NT Christ changed many things when the old law was fulfilled. Does that mean the Law of Moses wasn’t good and true? Of course not, it simply means that it was fulfilled and no longer necessary or current. God doesn’t change his plan or his purpose for us, but he changes the administration of that work on Earth. Christ’s fulfilling of the Old Law taught us that God does indeed adjust the administration of His work on the earth, even to the point of changing doctrinal points. That is the whole reason we follow the prophet, because God still speaks. Even in Christ’s time they went from teaching only the Jews (discrimination?) to teaching Jew and Gentile. At the time it must have looked interesting and some probably even wondered if Jews were the only groupd that was eligible for salvation. But looking at it now it makes more sense.
Dissappointed #149(I know I’ve been away awhile)
My point was exactly what I said, you’re statements did NOT represent current Church doctrine. And you are correct that they may change because they do, God’s doctrine have changed throughout history. He has a plan and he makes changes in a way to best further that plan. Now about your comments regarding President Young. I don’t claim to understand every bit of doctrine so I don’t speak from a position of authority and anything I say will strictly speculation. President Young stated that the curse was passed on so that Devil would have his representation on the earth. Well if the devil had gained sufficient representation elsewhere would then the curse not be lifted? If Brigham Young was truly a prophet and this was prophetic counsel then the curse must have been lifted because we’ve seen people of “the chosen seed” married to black people and nothing happened. I assume your rebuttal would something to the effect that the prophets are wrong sometimes and its our job to figure that out. Thats fine, but I think we might have a clue or 2 that he’s wrong. Like maybe some of the apostles don’t agree or the counsel leads to some sort of sin (neither of which happen in this case). I find it fascinating that you would publically question the prophet, the man called to be God’s mouthpeice to the Church and to lead that Church. The same God who I believe knows the beginning from the end and who wants everyone, Old and Young, Male and Female, Black and White Gay and Straight to gain salvation.
The Supreme Court said that Marriage was essential to our very existence. If same sex relationships were included in that definition they wouldn’t have included that little nugget. I believe that when they Supreme Court(not the CA supreme court of course) defined marriage as a civil right they were under the assumption that it was defined as between a man and a woman.
I forgot to mention this above. I think the site had good intentions but has become a forum for people to take out their frustrations on the Church and its members. The opponents claim the campaign is about hate, but upon reading this site there seems to be a lot more hate from the the no side then the yes side.
It’s fascinating and tragic to witness well-meaning Prop 8 activists either forget, willfully feign ignorance of, or deliberately deny one of the most elegant and famous declarations in the history of social policy in America: that separate but equal, as a tenant for guiding the formulation of law, is a fallacy destined to breed injustice. Whether we’re dealing with education between races or legal benefits between hetero and gay couples, it’s an inevitable stepping stone to the divergence of related rights and privaleges. Unifying the subject classes in terms of how they’re defined is the only way to preserve the rights they share. Come on, people. It’s a half-century old concept.
Prop 8 supporters are working, oddly, to have it both ways. There’s a loud claim that while civil unions are the territory of the state and its lawmakers, that marriage is inherently non-secular. At the same time, the proposition represents a distinctly secular act: to define, in civil terms, the parameters of marriage by gender. It’s a kooky contradiction, folks. You can’t have it both ways; it makes no sense as public policy. Either divorce your concept of marriage, and its definition, from the legal machinations of public policy-making, and enjoy it as a religious covenant with legal benefits… or attempt to openly engage the system with the intent of applying non-secular doctrine upon the California public. You’ll fail and possibly be destroyed, of course, but at least you’d have integrity.
Wouldn’t it be far better to honor the dual respect you’ve got for the purity of your beliefs, and the sanctity of equal rights, by voting NO?
Count me as one more happy to see that Prop 8 has a good chance to succeed. Now’s the time for the final push.
.
Please disregard the inaccurate — frequently by design — hate speech of its opponents. We need this to pass.
.
VOTE “YES” ON PROP 8 !
I must agree with Scott: tolerance is acceptable only when one agrees with a certain point of view.
This discussion would be more productive if both sides would remember that each of us has a right to our own opinions and beliefs. If you want me to tolerate your beliefs, then you need to tolerate mine.
I’ll help you out with my non-religious opinion. Since the earths creation, even before religion, it has been a man and woman. Same sex couples can not obtain the progression of life “naturally”. Thus, indoctrinating society to accept something that is by natural law “unnatural”. Now, why should we indoctrinate society to accept conduct when it doesn’t enhance natural progression? Marriage is NOT a fundamental right. The only difference from their equal civil unions is the label of marriage, which is much more than a commitment between two people. It is the formation of a family which includes procreation and the rearing of children. The voters of California have already spoken once to preserve the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. It should remain so. We need to evaluate what standards our society want to live by and not a failing judicial system. Civil liberties are NOT civil rights
JP to me - You argue that 1. the standard works teach to protect the rights of others, therefore prop 8 is anti scripture. 2. The counsel of the current prophets about prop 8 should be ignored because it is contrary to the standard works. I wont argue as to why prop 8 is not anti standard works (even though I don’t think it is, it’s a matter of interpretation)
CM - When scripture denounces letting your religious opinions prompt you to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others, there isn’t a lot of wiggle room, unless your interpretation depends upon with the definition of “is” is.
JP - Ironically, all of your quotes are from non scriptural sources (implicitly or otherwise,) and thus are no more weighty than what another prophet might say at another time.
CM - Hmmm, so when JFS and HBL both say that prophets can be doctrinally wrong and then president Monson says, “no, those 2 were wrong, prophets are always right”. Doesn’t that statement in and of itself prove the 2’s statement. There is NO LOGICAL WAY to state that the current ones ARE always correct, but the older ones were wrong. Maybe God changed His mind and decided to make the newer models error proof.
JP - Also, as far as what is “scripture,” what do you count as scripture? Something said in general conference? Something said in stake conference to a stake? What is the point of having a prophet at all if, for example, the proclamation to the family is not considered scripture merely because the standard works don’t get redesigned to put it in there?
CM - With the Church focusing on Same Sex marriage right now, the past Conference would be an optimum time to put it up to a vote of the Church to accept it AS scripture. I guess they figured that it wouldn’t be passed and they’ll just let the “Folk Mormonism” doctrine of it coming directly from God to spread.
JP - I think you put yourself on dangerous pharisee territory when you say “here is my interpretation of the scriptures, it trumps what you say as a living oracle because it’s not been published in this Book yet” It is very similar to somebody using the scripture in the book of Revelations about not “adding or taking away” to argue against the book of mormon’s validity.
CM - There is no subjective interpretation here. It’s VERY straight forward. I’d LOVE to hear an alternate view which would allow people to use their own religious beliefs to infringe upon the rights of others. The verse in 1 Cor. is equally clear.
JP - Also implied in your argument is that certainly the current prophets are at the very least leading us astray since I would suggest that they are probably quite familiar with all of the material on your website (not organized the way you have it - but there can’t be anything new on there to most of the prophets)
CM - No, the leadership is simply acting on instinct (like Uzzah re: the Ark of the Covenant). They see SSm as sin, which it is and are acting against it. They however neglect to remember that Satan’s Plan was also about forcing people to be righteous. The CA gays DO have the RIGHT to be married, established by legal means. This is why we push hard on 1 Cor. 10:29 and D&C 134:4. It’s to get LDS to think that maybe Prop.8 ISN’T to be supported.
We know that they ARE familiar with our site since it was mentioned in an AP news story. We got fan & hate mail from England, Australia, etc… The Church has us on file. They tend to ignore all criticism and critics. We are marginalized by them not acknowledging our very existence.
JP - Therefore they know that they shouldn’t be contradicting scripture and implying that what they are saying is equal to scripture and then doing it anyway - thus knowingly going against God’s will - again I have a hard time with that.
Cm - Again, give us an explanation of those verses that WOULD allow us to deprive others of their rights. They may not even be aware that those verses condemn 8. they haven’t likened the scriptures unto themselves. They may simply believe that all that Section 134 discusses is about government involvement in religion. This is why we push those verses…trying to get people to actually think for themselves rather than just swallowing the party line whole without chewing. No one is offering any explanation. one guy DID try to state that 134:4 deals ONLY with religious rights. Since God is the inspiration for our Constitution, I doubt He’d be down with people infringing upon the rights He gave all of mankind. I’d love to here an explanation. We are living with cognative dissonance by taking this stand.
I wish I could be inspired to find the words that would make a light bulb go off in the minds of the Mormon faithful so that you could truly understand why gay people want to get married. LET US GET MARRIED! Marriage is important as it is central to the Mormon faith. I venture to offer that without marriage there would be no Mormon religion as it is central to the doctrine and it is very important. The message is so clear to the the Gay Community that it is not lost on the Gay Community.
Everybody needs somebody to share their life with. They need to make a committment to one another. It adds to the stability of society. Whether you are talking about a same sex couple or an opposite sex couple, who is your spouse? They are your best friend, your closest confidant. They are the person you share you life with, the person you set goals with and work together to achieve those goals. They are your confidant, your confessor, the person you share your most personal thoughts with, the person you can talk to. They are the person you share your popcorn with. They fulfill your life and make you whole. They are the person who keeps you company. They are your closest ally. They provide emotional support. They provide a strong sense that with that special person by your side you can face life and there is not anything you cannot achieve or accomplish. That is what is at stake here and the Gay Community has embarked upon a path from which there is no turning back! It is the right path to travel. Be happy for us and wish us well!
Happy to leave you well enough alone. Be gay. We really don’t care. But don’t redefine marriage to fit your new agenda. It does not promote family and actually you are the one infringing on our rights, not the other way around. Just because you want to say you are “married” does not make it a positive thing for society as a whole. You cannot propogate the race. Married couples can. Adopting children punishes THEM because they are being raised without on of the sexes in a same-sex relationship. This is so much about children, and family. We are not anti-gay. We are pro-family, and Mormon or not has nothing to do with it. This site is anti-Mormon no matter how you slice it. If someone fulfills your life, and you have all the rights you need, then leave marriage to the definition it has been since the beginning of time.
This issue has been clouded by misinformation. Demanding the right for ‘gay marriage’ is not demanding equality at all, but rather demanding that the laws be changed to include a special exception for you.
The fact is that only a mother and father are best equipped to raise a child. This is both nature and society’s norm. To go beyond this is neither what nature nor God intended.
Why do religious groups have to be so hateful towards other human beings? If gays are allowed to marry, how does this affect you? We don’t choose to be gay as most of you probably think. Who would “choose” to live in a society where we are hated, discriminated against (to the point where some turn to alcohol and drugs or worse suicide because society doesn’t accept them)? You don’t understand it, because you’re not gay. Imagine a life where you feel awkward holding your partners hand, where you have no say in the eyes of the law if your partner is on life support, a life where your human rights are up for the public to decide on a ballot. Stop for one second and imagine that. If any god came down and gave me the choice to be gay or straight, of course I would choose to be straight. Who wouldn’t?! We are a part of society whether you choose to believe it or not. We pay taxes, we contribute to California, and we’re good people. Why should I pay taxes, if I can’t get married? Perhaps we should include a tax exemption for gays, since we can’t get married and get those tax benefits that straight married couples get. I’m sure you would all make the argument that gays should pay taxes, if we proposed that. I say if you can take my gay money, you should give me all of the rights that every California resident has..including the right to marry.
Ok, i’m reading some of these posts. I’m floored. One person said all the gay men he knows have come from uninterested fathers. Seriously? I had a great mother and father, and they have been married for almost 35 years. Maybe you should meet some more gay people than the couple you probably know. I think some people are gay due to environment and others, like me… are gay genetically. So much ignorance on here that it’s sad! What year do we live in people?
I am Mormon and will vote Yes on 8. I’m proud to have my name here on this list and to have many of my friends here as well.
I believe in family and traditional marriage. And if that’s what Mormon’s are known for, I’m glad to be one.
If you agree, please vote with us — Yes on 8.
Jacq and LH, until the government successfully enacts legislation restricting marriage to fertile persons with a contractual obligation to procreate, your suggestion that the male and female capacity to produce offspring “as nature intended” has no meaning from a policy standpoint. It may help you define the issue in your head on a philosophical level, but it couldn’t carry less rhetorical weight where the legislation is concerned. Thousands of medically infertile people enjoy the rights discussed every day; many more married couples live decades and perish never having given children a second thought. The law doesn’t bat an eyelash, and until it does, you can’t apply fertility as a standard to these people, in this debate.
Jacq, you may have to remind me how the failure of a proposed constitutional ammendment–one designed to alter the current legal landscape–can possibly result in the denial of a “right” of yours. We get so used to hearing this suggestion, we forget to question the complete lack of logic in it. Admittedly, if Prop 8 (and similar legislation in the future) fails, the California landscape will change over time into one where gay marriage, and homosexuality in general, are more commonly accepted. That may not be to your liking, but it doesn’t represent the suppression of a heterosexual liberty or right. The parents of white children in Arkansas public schools may have found it deeply offensive to send their children to class with black students, and though anti-segregation policy felt like a terrible denial of their right to raise children as they saw fit, it just doesn’t work that way.
So long as marriage is an action or status with civil, secular properties, open to citizens in a secular context, you’re wrong to suggest that the state does well enough to grant a “similar” status to gay couples. Separate, inevitably, does not mean equal. Rights and privaleges will diverge over time; that’s a fact. And that’s where you fail, Prop 8 supporters. Therein lies the fundamental legal and moral flaw in your quest: you’re trying to legislate a denial of rights towards a class of citizens for whom there is no secular justification for that denial. Period.
Evan,
You are incorrect. Same-sex marriage is not a special right. Anti-gay people claim that gays already have the right to marriage, one with the opposite sex. By allowing gay marriage, everyone (including you) will have the right to same-sex marriage. Everyone will have an equal right to both straight and gay marriage. Special right? Who did you regurgitate that from?
Jacq.,
In 300+ posts, your post is perhaps the most venomous so far.
First, not one right of yours will be infringed. I challenge you to name one right! Stop repeating the scare tactics and go to a legal library. You won’t find one right of yours that will be affected. Instead, what you’ll find is that you don’t have the right to moral supremacy, immunity from opposite views, to rid the earth of sin, etc.
Second, and far worse, is your statement that children are punished by homosexual adoption! I almost lost my breath when I read that. I fealt like I was in the 1950’s
South. At least someone is finally willing to admit that their agenda goes beyond gay marriage. Outside of the obviously hatred fillling that message, let’s tackle the substantive issue. If anyone has punished those children, it is the 120,000 heterosexual couples who violate your moral code and give the children up for adoption! Homosexuals take those children into their homes, educate them, provide for them, and raise them as best they can. But Prop 8 supporters want to stop them from being able to have 2 parents in their lives. Who’s punishing who? Have you ever spoken to a child raised by a gay parent? What do you know about their lives? Do they become lesser people? Do they live in anguish?
I know that ignorance is fashionable in religion. Leaders can keep their thumbs on you that way. It’s the same tactic communist nations use to suppress their people - keep the masses ignorant and believing our regime is best. But know that religious people can be educated and still religious! Please educate yourself as to the truth about “RIGHTS” and “ADOPTION”.
Wow !
i’ve never seen so many people fighting for something that is so easy to resolve, THERE ARE NO GAYS AND NO LESBIANS, NO ONE IS BORN BEING ONE, The cause of this is The SIN that has taken over our human nature thus corrupting the perfect creation of GOD.
Having same sex marriages will not only be wrong but a huge time bomb that with time will bring corruption and depravation to our households, our kids will be exposed to the wrong doing of sinners that have decided to come out of the closet? NO WAY !!!.. this issue is far and over with, AMERICA does not need to hand out more condoms on our schools, America does not need same sex marriages to be a Normal way of living, WE NEED GOD IN AMERICA AGAIN !!!…
The bible clearly stated that He created MAN and WOMAN ..NOT ADAM AND JOHN !!! why you want to break the purity of marriage by bringing you SINFUL way of living? Don’r get me Wrong i do support human rights…I DON’T SUPPORT SAME SEX MARRIAGES, THAT IS NOT A RIGHT BUT A PRIVILEGE FOR PEOPLE OF PURE INTEGRITY…NOT PAGANS.
Never once was it mentioned that Tithing funds would be used for Prop 8.
I would like to ask all of those on this sight that are Mormon a question.
Who’s on the Lord’s side who? If you believe and have a testimony of the church then do you not believe that God called the Prophets to lead and guide the Church?
I encourage you all to follow the Prophet. Do what you can to support this Proposition because you have been asked by a servant of the Lord.
The Church is True!!!!
I heard that there were bloggers pointing people to these lists of LDS Proposition 8 donors and encouraging them to research those people and their donations.
It made me think: I’d sure like my name on a list somewhere, showing that I wanted to stand up and be counted as supporting those moral issues that our politically neutral church has deemed important enough to speak out on.
I was heartened as I researched at whatisprop8.com and saw that the Catholic Church, Orthodox Jewish groups and Protestant Christian organizations were working together with the LDS Church. If these religions aren’t afraid to stand up for moral issues, why on earth should we, who know what it means to stand up to opposition, cower and fret?
So I donated 100 dollars to Yes on 8. I hope my name shows up on your list soon.
There are so many comments that are so great to read. One near the top said, “Even Dallin Oaks recognizes the biological component of homosexuality. So, “born that way” seems to be Mormon Doctrine. I’ll take Oaks word over Kearny’s.”
Well, the truth is that Dallin Oaks said that God would not put us here on the earth with something that would keep us from getting back to Him. Therefore, he called it an inclination and a feeling. We can overcome inclinations and feelings. I read this off of the webiste lds.org. Public Issues. I just read it last night, so i is fresh in my mind that you are not “born that way” but may have an inclination toward it, just as someone might toward alcohol or a quick temper. But it is not something that can’t be overcome.
I appreciate this site. I am a Latter-Day Saint and I have a friend in California who is Baptist and she feels the same way I do about Prop 8—Yes on Prop 8. So it is not just limited to Latter-Day Saints. Many people have religious beliefs to the contrary of those against Prop 8. That is just the way the world is because we all have a freedom to choose.
I choose Yes on Prop 8, except I don’t live there so it won’t matter what I vote.
Bebitoh, I appreciate the earnestness of your statement, but we don’t live in a theology. Legislation and policy making should withstand secular tests of their soundness, fairness, logic, and legality according to related statutes and laws.
There are plenty of countries where state laws and constitutions enforce religious interests at the expense of secular ones, but here, we try not to do that. Frankly, I don’t think you’d enjoy life in one of those nations. No, here, we preserve individuals’ freedoms to live according to their religious ideals, and work on a secular level to address civil and social policy issues at large. Try again.
The misinformation in this campaign is atrocious. I am not here to advocate for one side or another, but it is very disheartening to see my own church (albeit for a good cause) aligning itself with Evangelicals and Bigots.
There are sound reasons for opposing gay marriage, and those arguments I support. Using hate from the Evangelicals, and misinforming voters with this silly (and not legally justifiable) “slippery slope” argument is just embarrassing.
I had considered contributing to the Yes on 8 campaign several times, but upon receiving some of these forwarded (and untrue) emails (trust me, I’m a practicing attorney for over 55 years), and seeing members of my own faith our walking sidewalks with Evangelicals (some of whom still have anti-Mormon screeds on their own webpages), it’s too close to the “anything to win” mentality. I’m not proud of my church at this time, and I pray our leaders realize the folly of getting ourselves into this mess with these folk sooner, rather than later.
Just curious - how are you finding out all these people’s religious affiliations? I can’t find that on the Prop 8 contribution database.
While I’m sure that many of these people are proud members of their church, if you’re getting their religious affiliation from some private (or questionable) source, I find that hard to justify.
I don’t feel it is ok to ask other people to identify someone else’s religious beliefs.
Friends and family who are listed as donors on this site feel this is a violation of their privacy. City, state, name and amount of donor is public record, religious beliefs is not. That is information for the individual to give out if they wish.
Christine-
>”Mormons for Proposition 8 exists to provide as much >information about the LDS church’s involvement in >supporting California’s Proposition 8 as it can gather.”
What’s interesting is that ostensibly this website has no purpose, other than to list the information.
However, I continue to be suspicious, and I was reading through the FAQ I came across the following:
>”Where does the list of donors come from?
>
>The California Secretary of State’s office maintains a >database of donors to political causes within the >state. That database is online and searchable at the >Secretary of State’s website. That database is >updated almost daily currently.”
It is very possible to infer that the religions affiliation is included on the Secretary’s website; however, religious affiliation is not on that site. The FAQ does not disclose how it gathers the information. So as an “information only” site, the information should not be relied on as its sources are not cited and available for confirmation.
Also:
>”Is this an anti-Mormon website?
>
>Definitely not. Just as the people who support Prop 8 >say they are “not anti-gay, just pro-marriage”, this >site is “not anti-Mormon, just pro-information.””
>
My understanding is the author of the website believes the church IS anti-gay, and so the author’s use of what the author believes to be a fallacious argument for the website’s neutrality makes me question the neutrality.
It was so gratifying to learn that Steve and Barbara Young have stepped up and gone public with their opposition to Prop 8.
I’v uploaded the CBS5 report to YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akt908vnUT0
They decorated their yard for Halloween with gravestones bearing these inscriptions:
RIP inequality, Nov. 4
RIP
May discrimination
be a thing of the past,
May hate and fear
be gone at last
RIP prop 8!
Those who forget
the past
are condemned
to repeat it.
No to 8!!!
———-
My thank you note to the Youngs:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/1/11037/0718/167/648681
This website persecutes the saints for thier beliefs as in times of old. Prophesy is being fulfilled by this website where we see persecution from within the Church. Rebellion against God’s will and the added persecution against the saints can only bring misery and suffering to those that are responsible.
Good luck explaining your actions before the judgement bar.
Yes on Prop 8, because our God desires it.
JP, It’s possible to have a strong opinion on a matter, but still remain neutral in reporting information. This site merely documents LDS donations.
The LDS Church has made a critical error in deciding to get involved in the issue of civil marriage for same sex couples. You call yourselves “Christians” and you claim that God is on your side. Then you provide monetary funds to conduct a misinformation campaign that is simply out and out LIES! You are liars and you bear false witness against your neighbors! The latest LIE is that Barack Obama supports Proposition 8. That is a LIE as Senator Obama has publically stated that he is not in favor of Proposition 8. Add this to the lies about schools, children, and churchs being forced to perform same sex weddings and it is no wonder why you are incurring a backlash and adverse reactions and out hostility to say the least. If Prop 8 passes next Tuesday because of lies and deceit, it will be a hollow victory. 51% of the vote will not stave off the inevitable - gay marriage will one day be legal in this country and around the world. A victory for Prop 8 will not be the end of it. The Gay Community will be back again to fight another day!
For every action there is a reaction and for every sequence there is a consequence and you shall reap what you sew! I do not buy this attitude that the LDS Church can slap and insult the Gay Community in the face time and again figuring we are not suppose to fight back and that we just suppose to accept your abuse. Then you turn around and play the victim and claim you are being persecuted. You need to understand that we are offended by your actions and you need to understand that we do not agree with you and you are being challenged for you actions. You need to understand that if you are going to challenge the Gay Community and you are going to know that you have been in a fight as you know now that you are in a fight and that your efforts at passing Prop 8 is far less than a cake walk!
A San Francisco Chronicle column about the Chronicle’s voter donation database and the pros and cons of checking out who’s on it:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/31/BA1213S2KV.DTL
I think this website has been a critical element of the campaign. The authors have done an outstanding job.
Prop 8 has contributions for and against totalling $60 million. Its the most heavily funded ballot measure in the history of the universe. Mormons have funded the pro-8 side heavily, and without this site, no one would know.
I certainly don’t want the Mormon Taliban writing theocratic laws for my family.
Vot your conscience, based on the merits, but be wary of preachers selling snake oil.
Being a member of the LDS Church, let me state that the church does not hate gay people…Do we condone gay marriage? Absolutely not. But that does not mean we are intolerant to that group of people. You want intolerance? How about those who oppose prop 8 that continue to steal signs out of my yard and my friend’s yards??? How about those who use this site to find LDS donors and persecute them for it??? That is intolerance! The LDS church has donated a great percentage of the money in support of Prop 8 and so what? Is there anything wrong with supporting a cause you feel strongly about? And there are several Christians and Catholics I know who support the cause…where’s their list???
Let me tell you why I support Prop 8. Marriage has traditionally been a union of one man and one woman for centuries! Why do you think God put Adam and Eve on Earth? This is the way God intended marriage to be. We are put on this earth to be companions and multiply and replenish the earth(can two men or two women do that?). I do think everyone deserves the right to love who they choose. But I don’t agree that the gay’s lifestyle should be forced upon the rest of the population. And if Prop 8 does not pass, It will.
Let’s be civilized human beings people, don’t persecute those who have different beliefs than you. I state my opinions, but I’m not out vandalizing homes of Gay people or slashing their tires, or even stealing their signs! We all have been given the freedom of speech, and I would never want to take that from anyone or punish them for using that freedom.
There have been signs stolen and vandalization on both sides of the issue, which is wrong. I am a Mormon, but I am against Prop 8 because I do not believe allowing gays equal civil rights is akin to “forcing the gay lifestyle on the rest of the population.” That’s just silly.
You know what makes me really sad? I see this issue morphing my religion into something I don’t recognize or want to be associated with anymore. I just finished a book called “Dude, You’re a Fag” about the socialization of students in high school. The author wrote that the LEAST homophobic and sexist table in the high school lunchroom was the Latter Day Saint table. That made tears come to my eyes. Those are the Mormons that I remember and love–the ones who love their fellow beings and don’t pass judgment. Now they will be known as the face of homophobia, which is tragic to me.
Next summer I will be walking part of the Mormon Trail at Rocky Ridge in Wyoming, where my Mormon ancestors pulled handcarts in a desperate effort to escape people who deemed them an “abomination,” people who drove them from their homes and off their land and ordered their extermination. They pulled handcarts over 1,000 miles. They froze, starved, and buried loved ones in the snow all along the way. They suffered beyond anything you can ever imagine. I honestly believe if my ancestors could see what the church is supporting now in persecution of another group of people considered an “abomination,” they would not recognize their religion either. They would weep just as I weep. I support my gay fellow beings and their right to live their lives as they see fit. What could be so wrong about wanting to have a committed, long-term relationship based on mutual love and respect and to have that relationship recognized by law? I don’t think I have any explaining to do on Judgment Day for following the dictates of my own heart. What if YOU are the ones who have to do the explaining? What if blind faith doesn’t reap the rewards you are expecting? What if you just dropped a truckload of money in support of Prop 8 for no reason at all? In these troubled economic times, I call that irresponsible. How does the saying go? “Stupid is as stupid does.”
Dear Rachael,
Here are your arguments in a different light:
1. Mormons have given a large percentage, what’s wrong with that? You are forcing your religious beliefs on the rest of us. If you were a Christian living in Iran, you’d understand why that’s a problem.
2. No one should steal your signs. That’s wrong. However, stealing the rights of your gay neighbors to enjoy the benefits of matrimony is also wrong…and is a much bigger wrong. Stealing the rights of their children is the biggest wrong of all…so don’t tell me about your signs.
3. “Marriage has traditionally been a union of 1 man and 1 woman for centuries.” Slavery was a tradition. Polygamy was as well. Destroying rain forests is too. “tradition” doesn’t make it right.
4. “We are put on this earth to multiply and replenish the earth.” You need to consider that this is a religious belief, and that your effort to enact a law supporting it is a kind of theocracy. Its the same as if someone made you wear a burka in public. When you force your religion on me, you put your own ability to enjoy religious freedom in jeopardy. Understand?
5. If prop 8 fails, you believe the gay lifestyle will be forced on you. That’s simply an insane thought. You won’t suddenly become gay…I promise.
Sign wavers are everywhere today in San Jose! I’ve never seen anything like it…..especially in the pooring rain. On the corner of Almaden Expressway & Branham there were about 10 “Yes on 8″ sign wavers.
Then on the corner of Stevens Creek Blvd. & Winchester (near Santana Row and Valley Fair) there were about 30 “No on 8″ sign wavers and about 15 “Yes on 8″ folks.
Amazing!
You are all insane. What a waste of time and money. The economy is crashing, wars are happening, and plenty of people can’t even afford to eat. Why is this an issue? Instead of the church WASTING (shame on you)all this money to fight gays, I have a better idea. Spend that money to educate the un-educated and feed the hungry. If God doesnt want gay people to marry, he will judge them when the time comes. It is no one’ place but Gods to judge! If these people want to marry (which is the same damn thing as a civil union, let’s be real here.) Then let them. It will in NO WAY affect any one elses lives but their own. Instead of focusing on that, let’s all focus on our own sins that each and every single one of us commit every day, and try to improve upon our own lives and humanity. ENOUGH ALREADY!!!!!
Lara,
Thank you for your kind words.
Apparently not all Mormons support this heinous behavior.
Before removing the splinter of gay marriage from California’s eye, I think the Mormon church should spend some time, effort, and money on removing polygamy from their own.
I mean, I understand that a new prophecy can take place allowing Steve Young to play football on Sundays, but the Mormon church putting itself in the forefront of “Hooray for traditional marriage” seems disingenuous.
It’s pretty clear that “1 man and a handful of women” is close enough, so maybe we can come to a compromise. 1 man can marry either 1 man or 2 women. Or hell, let’s make it 1 man or 5 women. Kind of a latter-day 3/5 compromise.
It’s about love after all, and a man can have the same kind of love for another man that he can have for 3 or 4 women (5 would be the sole realm of the Mormons, other religions could have up to 4).
It’s human behavior to always want more than what we have, especially to prove a point. before the marriage issue the homosexual comunity pushed until they were given civil unity rights. Now that’s not enough. They want to take marriage (Holy Matrimony), which was commanded by GOD in order to have sexual relations between a man and a woman into their own hands. The constitution gives us freedom of religion, so why does religion keep being taken away from us. voting no on prop. 8 is a selfish and arrogant act. We are being stripped of our beleif in order for others to have more of theirs.
Homosexuals have been done a terrible injustice that may be to late to turn around. After months of research, I have found that no studies have been conclusive that geneticly a man can be born a woman or a woman a man. In fact the only thing proven in all studies is that this is a treatable condition. However, socially and politically we take the easiest way out which in this case is to run from the fear stemming from such a sensitive issue and give them their way.
This could have been an issue taken into hand long ago and corrected However the easiest way was to let it fester. Corporate america and politics benifit by allowing any kind of community to grow in order to grow themselves. If pr0p. 8 does not pass it WILL be to late to turn things around and we will continue to be stripped of our faith.
The $60 million plus that has been spent on this marriage issue could have been donated to Unicef and they could have spent the money to provide people in third world countries to provide the poor with clean drinking water. The money could have been donated to Medicins Sans Frontier (Doctors Without Borders) - they produce and distribute a product they call, “plumpy nut” which is a peanut mixture that is produced inexpensively and distributed to mothers of children in third world countries in Africa and Asia that prevents child malnutrition and infant death.
Yet the Knights of Columbus (a Catholic organization) contributes close to a million and a half dollars to the YES on 8 campaign and Mormons have contributed tens of millions of dollars to the YES on 8 campaign. And what we a fighting over is really just a word because gay marriage is already legal in California except that gays are not allowed to call their unions “marriage.” What it comes down to in California is, “why have two separate registries? One for heterosexuals that is called ‘marriage’ and one for homosexuals that is called ‘domestic partnership’?” It is indeed ridiculous! Then why have religious zealots put Prop 8 on the ballot? DISCRIMINATION IS THE ONLY ANSWER! Don’t tell me that you do not hate me and this is not about hate when you are trying to discriminate against me at the same time because that is HYPOCRACY - GET IT?
Lara - i’m sorry but where I live there has been a disproportionate amount of Yes on 8 signs stolen. I see many “No” signs untouched and unmoved, but Yes signs go missing almost completely every day.
This disproportionate reaction and also the attitudes of certain opponents of 8 give a hint as to where we are headed.
I believe that many sign stealers see Yes on 8 signs as an illegitimate symbol of hate speech. Like, in their minds, if we were putting up swastikas all over the place.
In the bay area it’s compounded by this legacy of civil disobedience, which I believe is only legitimate for the formally disenfranchised, but get’s used here pretty much daily to crybaby about not getting one’s way (i.e. the fact that Prop 8 is on the ballot at all.) As opposed to going through the process. (voting, putting up your own signs etc etc etc)
This faction does not actually believe in free speech. They believe that if you do not agree with someone’s opinion that opinion is not just wrong - but should not have been allowed to be voiced in the first place.
This is part of the reason I am for Prop 8. I will not have to worry about committing the thoughcrime of believing marriage should be between a man and woman, because it will be very clearly constitutional that such a belief is legal.
If I were a No on 8 person I would be less concerned that if I lost, having a different *opinion* on the matter would be illegal, because of what I see as the Yes on 8s people’s more consistent respect for the *more fundamental* right of free speech. (certainly more fundamental than marriage rights one way or another)
brian and george - Why are you wasting time posting on a blog when you could be writing letters on behalf of Amnesty International or working at the soup kitchen?
JP - Listen to me very carefully. It is important to ME! Just because the economy has gone sour does not mean that my civil rights can be put on the back burner and dismissed as unimportant. Sorry you can’t be bothered.
JP, don’t let a few vandals out there color your opinion on an entire group of people. Free speech is indeed vastly important, but consider how you might feel if thousands of people had signs out on their lawns calling for your temple marriage to be invalidated because they think it’s somehow harmful to society as a whole. You might not take it too kindly. Perhaps you might not destroy their signs, but it sure would be tempting.
With all due respect, you can still believe that only marriage between a man and a woman (or an entire harem of women) is recognized by God. You can continue to teach that in church and in your home. But since our marriage licenses are issued by the government, not signed by a bolt of lightening from the heavens, it’s probably best to be even-handed about it. We do expect gay people to pay taxes, obey traffic laws, and to be good citizens. It seems strange that we should even be allowed to have “a say” in whether they can have the same rights that we enjoy for ourselves. I always wondered why it was illegal before. But then again, slavery used to be legal, women couldn’t vote or own property, segregation was legal, interracial marriage was illegal. Laws change to reflect how we’ve evolved as a society. For me, gay marriage is just that next step in our social progress. Someday our children will wonder what all the fuss was about. I’ll be glad to tell them that I spoke up and that I was on the side of social justice and progress.
I am very proud of the people who donated money to Prop 8 in California. It shows that they are standing up for what they believe in.
I am hoping Prop 8 in CA and Prop 102 in AZ pass on Tuesday. The failure of these two measures would NOT be social progress. I think people would look at the after effects and think “I just didn’t know.”
Part of me wonders why members of the church are listed here in such a fashion. I understand a unified front, but didn’t Jesus say in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) something about “not letting your right hand know what your left hand is doing…. to not do your acts of righteousness in front of others.” I commend people for stepping up to the plate for something they believe in strongly, but this may cross the line in gaining attention for attempting to do a good work before God (not saying that you are doing God’s work here by any means…. though that is surely your perception).
Mormons are not “forcing” their beliefs on anyone. No one is trying to make you believe what they believe. Anyone has the freedom to donate to whatever political cause they choose to. Just because someone, of any or no faith, gives money to a cause they are not “making” you believe or accept their beliefs. They are just choosing to support their own ideals, isn’t this what our country was founded on? “Religious freedom.” Leave Mormons, Jews, Baptists, everyone alone and if you are so opposed to Prop 8, them put your money where your mouth is. I personally am all for 8!!!
I can’t tell you how excited I am for this campaign to be nearly over. I can’t wait for the “coalition” to implode on itself, getting back to their usual war against each other for control over human salvation. As a Mormon, I’m always amused at religious ignorance and intolerance used during religious infighting. Every group, including Mormons, are equal offenders. I can only be amused because secular governments prohibit religions from reverting to the genocide and unspeakable crimes against humanity they have previously committed for God. However, I’m still terribly fearful of the modern trend of our religious factions momentarily coming together to fight non-religious groups they seem to hate more than each other – like blacks, women, and now homosexuals. Fortunately, society and decency has prevailed on the first two. Yet with typical religious amnesia, religions now pick on homosexuals and deny their mistreatment of blacks and women. Yet this third battle for equality will be determined soon enough, and I have faith in society and decency once again. My real interest is in identifying which group religions hate bad enough to coalesce with their spiritual enemies to fight in the near future? Any guesses? Or will the next fight be the ultimate final fight? Christianity v. Islam? Religion v. Secularism?
P.S. VOTE NO ON 8!
Marriage between a man and a woman has been the law for thousands of years. In California, lawmakers have been progressive enough to give homosexuals all of the same rights as married couples. That is good. Why tear down an important tenet and tradition to appease 1-2% of the population, especially when they already enjoy all of the same rights?
Homosexuality is not a race or ethnicity. Though hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on research to prove that homosexuality is genetic or hereditary, all of the research has actually proved otherwise. In fact, a growing number of psychologists are rejecting the notion that you can’t treat the condition and are now doing just that, and with frequent success. You should hear the talk at the continuing education seminars. My experience has been that on an individual basis, as you go through the life history of a homosexual person, you can always find the exact source of the condition; what it was that sent them down this path. No, it’s not always abuse. That’s not what I am saying.
I had been asked what could the church had done spiritually instead of politically in terms of the money that had been donated to this proposal.
Bearing in mind that LDS members had donated $11 million (or in some places, $8 million) to the campaign of this proposal. Could this money had built 2 or 3 more small temples?
I had been asked, it is more important for mormons to promote eternal marriages or reject civil marriages.
I have felt that this move by the Church had even generated a lot of hate from people who otherwise would not have even heard of our Church. So anything negative about our church, even though untrue, would be so believable than anything positive when these people are fed information about our church in their life later.
Did we make a wrong move when we know that Prop 8 is not going to affect our church, when it all boils down to nothing? Do we have an eternal perspective when we did this? Do we truly believe in the seperation of Church and state?
Daniel, you must know how much money the Church donates each year to welfare causes across the globe. Per capita, the LDS religion donates more to charity than any other faith. We won’t even get into service hours where the Church members are the class of almost every community where they are present. Let’s not start thinking that the LDS people are not helping others.
All I can say as an inactive, gay, LDS member, is that I will be having my name removed from the roles. I still believe in the Book of Mormon, and have a strong testimony, but I no longer want anything to do with the organized church. These are really sad times and I feel like any support or love I might have had from my bishop or my brothers and sisters in the church has been betrayed.
Daniel:
- Do we believe there’s much reason to have a prophet if we are going to disregard what the prophet says?
Disappointed:
- I continue to be somewhat fascinated by Mormons who disagree with such huge parts of LDS doctrine, yet continue to identify themselves as members. I’ve read the occasional “why we stay” in Sunstone and but don’t really understand it very well.
I’m not referring to your “No” position, but the accompanying argument that Church members shouldn’t vote on 8 because it’s just like all of the sins the church has committed in the past.
I certainly am happy that they come to Church - so long as they aren’t bullies with their extreme (relative to the rest of the attendees) views.
I am always cautious with them, however, as I think many of them feed off of the adrenaline of contention and the feeling of superiority (in terms of knowledge and logic,) rather than sincere gospel fellowship or a true quest for truth (in their interaction with other church members, for example – I certainly don’t doubt their overall quest for truth.)
Though many are very respectful at church (and know what we want to hear, and will toe the line a bit) and I think primarily come to support a child or a spouse.
What a sad state of affairs, and Mormons for Prop 8 should hang their heads in shame. You are denying rights and the fundamental dignity afforded to ALL based on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Remember when Mormons had to flee the Midwest due to bigotry? Now Mormons are professing and continuing the same. We have a separation of Church and State in this country. If you want to cross that line them the Mormon Church should be duly taxed.
How very sad that you have wasted so many dollars and resources when people are starving and homeless!
Shame!
And for what? Has Canadian morality disintegrated due to same sex marriage? Has it happened in Belgium or Spain? Or California so far for that matter.
Sites like this aren’t objective. You are just fostering misinformation and unfortunate falsehoods in the name of organized religion.
That’s OK… God knows and God will judge who’s right in the end. Correct?
I am proud to support Prop 8. Whether you believe in God or not…I do. God does not condone marriage outside of what He defined as being between a man and woman. Shouldn’t those who believe in marriage as only being between a man and woman support those beliefs? Society and its laws are made up of beliefs. It does not make me a bad person or a hateful person to stand up for my beliefs and work towards making laws that I feel will benefit our society.
Stealing is wrong, right? But what about a little petty theft from a person or company that can afford it? Is that ok as long as it does not appear to harm another? Stealing is wrong, period. I feel the same way about same-sex marriage.
Allowing gay marriage will have a negative affect on society now and especially on future generations. I will not be passive about letting that happen.
As an original Morman decsendant, someone whose ancestors fled the east coast and mid west due to discrimination, this makes me sad. I have many written anecdotes passed along from the days hand carts and eartly settlements in Utah and Idaho that question the discrimination of my relatives definition of marriage, without which I would not exist. For one of the newest religions, how quickly we forget.
“If you want to cross that line them the Mormon Church should be duly taxed.”
Should tax-free organizations that have said NO on 8 be “duly” taxed?
“Has Canadian morality disintegrated due to same sex marriage? Has it happened in Belgium or Spain? Or California so far for that matter.”
I don’t know, but it’s only been here for a few years in a few countries, and I’m afraid that we don’t have a lot of data yet.
I know there are plenty of other “enlightened” countries that differentiate between domestic partners and marriages, so I feel in pretty good company believing that doing so is reasonable approach.
I think people like Tom on both sides of the issue really damage the discussion by painting people who have an opposing view as so “obviously” wrong
I also think Tom should read the FAQ on the site. For once I’m on the side of “admin”
Why is it that in a time economic distress and potential global disasters, Mormons are taking it upon themselves to force judgement and discriminate against other people?
Seriously… they’re spending millions of dollars on a Proposition that is small on the grand scale of Planet Earth.
I don’t hate them, but I truthfully pity them.
In Studio City, there aren’t a lot of ‘No on 8′ signs. We’re pretty liberal and open-minded.
The ‘Yes on 8′ signs don’t stay up to long around here for some reason.
JP:
The point made is that there is a separation of Church and State in this country. Any religious tax exempt entity crossing that boundary violates that basic element of our Country’s existence, and yes, on one side or the other, should be taxed.
Perhaps if homosexuals aren’t afforded their full rights under our Constitution they should be taxed less then?
Yes, indeed the rulings in other countries are relatively new but there hasn’t been any news of people pulling their children out of schools, needing to leave because of morality degradation or Churches being sued. Same for Massachusetts; except for one couple who seem to not be able to handle the reality of homosexual existence as being a reality.
If you look deep enough into the issue there is a definite distinction in domestic partnership vs. marriage. A recent Wall Street Journal article outlined it well.
The fact is that same sex marriage is not going away, Prop 8 or not.
I find it ‘”obviously” wrong’ to discriminate against anyone for their religion, race, sex, cultural background, or their sexual orientation. I do find it wrong to impose one’s values, especially religious values, of uncertain origin, on everyone in a country or place where a separation of Church and State exists. If this were a Mormon country it would obviously be different, but it’s not.
Being open minded is a gift from God.
[let's keep trying to avoid personal attacks, please.]
1) Voting Yes on Prop 8 is not discrimination, any more than drunk driving laws discriminate against alcoholics.
2) If you are a faithful LDS member with a testimony of the gospel (and are registered to vote in CA), only a Yes vote on 8 is acceptable. The Prophet has spoken. ‘Nuff said.
3) Of course we’re putting our time and money on this. Its importance surpasses the economy, starving people and other sad world situations. This is about the FAMILY! The foundation of society. Destroy the foundation and the whole thing crumbles.
4) I am not a bigot, I am not full of hatred, I am not homophopic. I love my Savior Jesus Christ and I follow the Prophet.
Tom, but same-sex couples already enjoy the same rights in California as married couples. My lesbian neighbors across the street have even told me that they already have achieved what they want, and they have no problems respecting the traditional definition of marriage. I am proud that they have the courage to tell their friends that they feel inclined to respect a long-standing tradition, such as marriage. I mean, maybe I should start having barmitzvahs for my kids when they are of age. Sure, it might offend them, but it’s my right…
Tom, are from the anti-One-Nation-Under-God side? Or are you a In-God-We-Trust opponent? I know people cringe when they hear it because they do not beleive in God.
Time to go vote, people. The only ones who will know which box you check are you and the Supreme Being of your choice. If you don’t vote, you don’t get to whine about it later (and you miss out on the free donuts and coffee [maybe you Mormon types can get them to substitute a hot chocolate for you].