What will happen to this site?
It will remain up. It will continue to identify LDS donors until the last filings are filed and reported. It will continue to remove last names of identified LDS donors because the purpose of the site is not to threaten individuals or organizations, it is to demonstrate what Mormons, as a group, have done to finance this proposition.
It will remain up. It will continue to serve as a reminder that there is “grassroots” and there is Grassroots.
It will remain up. It will continue to remind us that LDS chapels across the state of California had special donation forms in every foyer and that members were continually requested to use donation forms provided in chapels so that wards and stakes could “get credit for” the donations made by their members. It will continue to remind us that Stake Presidents received regular reports about donations from their areas so they could keep track of how close they were to reaching their contribution goals and assessments.
To our knowledge, no other religious organizations operated donation or contribution requests in this manner. If anyone can provide proof that other religions were as active in seeking contributions from members, we would be happy to add similar information to this database.
It will remain up. It will serve as a record of how to run a top-down campaign that appears on its face to be completely grassroots.
61 comments ↓
I can understand peoples frustrations with the movement the LDS Church made on behalf of Yes on 8. They provided a huge influence in the passing of this proposition by providing means and time towards this effort. They, just like those on the No on 8 side, have strong beliefs in regards to this issue.
Marriage is one of the fundamental teachings and focuses of the LDS Church. They believe that it is for time and all eternity, not just a to death do us part issue, and that it is ordained of God. 13 years ago they released a document entitled Family: A Proclamation to the World (http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,FF.html) which clearly defines where they have stood on this issue. It has been their right to defend this belief, just as it was the right of the No on 8 to defend theirs.
As far as the donation forms, reports and actively seeking contributions, I thank them for their efforts. They are a very organized and structured organization and the only religion, in my opinion, that was even capable of pulling together such a widespread and strengthening effort on behalf of the yes on 8 effort. Yes on 8 did not have as many multimillionaire business owners, actors, TEACHERS UNIONS, etc. donating millions of dollars toward their effort like No on 8 did. Without the organization of the LDS church and all of their efforts and service, there would have been no moving force to fight this battle.
I thank them for their efforts in protecting marriage and hope that we can move forward in bridging the gap between the no and yes on 8 beliefs by finding a place to meet in the middle and create peace.
I do not live in CA, and am very glad that I was able to avoid getting caught up on the Prop 8 thing. I am especially glad that I did not have to decide how to vote - - I am not sure what I would have done.
A couple of thoughts/questions: 1) It appears that the Yes and No sides raised about equal amounts of money, and that about equal amounts were raised by each side in and outside of CA. Do you think that undermines the argument that the LDS Church somehow improperly influenced the outcome? I mean, clearly its influence was significant, but do these facts make it hard to argue that the No side was outmatched? 2) There seems to be some implication on your website that supporting Prop 8 was shameful, and that by “outting” (excuse the irony) Prop 8 donors, they will be shamed into not doing os in the future, or will at least embarassed. Do you think that the fact that over half of the those voting on Prop 8 supported it undermines that theory (if it is your theory)?
Thanks.
The LDS should practice and revere the institution of marriage as they see fit. Our country established the separation of church and state so that no church has to defend its practices to government, which then leads to a wealth of benefits designed to protect churches and the privacy of their worshippers.
Why isn’t that enough? Why was it necessary for the LDS Church to actively promote a change in law that tells others what rights they may have? Since when did the Mormon Church secure the right to use government to impose its world view on people who do not subscribe to their faith or their principles?
When a church uses its resources, gained in part through guarantees like tax exemptions, bestowed by people, to promote law restricting the rights of others to be treated equally, it crosses an ethical and civil line. How does a church expect to enjoy protection from government power on one hand, but assert that marriage in all its forms is for the church to define and enforce.
Nothing in our laws prevent members of the Mormon Church from observing the rites of a sacred bond between a man and a woman. Why is it acceptable for the church to insist that goverment maintain or adopt that same meaning? What harms comes to the Church, what liberties are curtailed, what freedoms denied, if two people outside the Church observe the same laws and receive the same benefits as a man and woman within it?
I have yet to hear of one thing any church loses by allowing any two people to declare to their friends and family that they wish to live as one. Mormon principles, whatever those might be, are simply not in jepopardy. Why behave as is they were?
I proudly donated time and money to the yes on 8 campaign. I can’t believe you are hiosting this site. The entire strategy of the NO on 8 movement was to accuse us of hate and discrimination. This may seem valid on the surface, but we had conflicting rights in this situation. The consequence of losing would have been lawsuits to force gay marriages in our churches (and temples) “hate speech” lawsuits for anyone preaching morality and government support for the gay lifestyle as an equal in adoption law, school curriculums etc.
I would much rather risk the name calling from the gay movement than the weakening religious freedom guaranteed in the constituion at the founding of our country. Gary Thorpe, Yucaipa CA
In general, no organization, including a church, may qualify for IRC section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation
(commonly known as lobbying).
Gerald, you need to read this article from the Los Angeles Times:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-ed-prop8-2-2008nov02,0,7071124.story
It’s called “Debunking the myths used to promote the ban on same-sex marriage”
Here is how it begins:
“Clever magicians practice the art of misdirection — distracting the eyes of the audience to something attention-grabbing but irrelevant so that no one notices what the magician is really doing. Look over at that fuchsia scarf, up this sleeve, at anything besides the actual trick.
“The campaign promoting Proposition 8, which proposes to amend the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriages, has masterfully misdirected its audience, California voters. Look at the first-graders in San Francisco, attending their lesbian teacher’s wedding! Look at Catholic Charities, halting its adoption services in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is legal! Look at the church that lost its tax exemption over gay marriage! Look at anything except what Proposition 8 is actually about: a group of people who are trying to impose on the state their belief that homosexuality is immoral and that gays and lesbians are not entitled to be treated equally under the law.”
It goes on to discuss some of the details behind the pro-8 arguments.
Furthermore, the LDS church itself said “No one on any side of the question should be … subject to erroneous information.
So, while you’re defending your position and your vote, consider that your church doesn’t want anyone spreading lies around, either.
What is lost on others is that there is portion of the gay community that has an agenda to force their lifestyle choice on others. It’s probably the minority, but the intention was to restrict certain freedoms that non-gays currently enjoy. It was a very real fear. I mean, marriage is taught in 96% of California schools - that is an undeniable fact, even though the No on 8 campaign sought to deceive through its commercials.
Had prop 8 failed, these gay activists already had lawsuits lined up to target educators, youth organizations, etc. For many homosexuals, this was just about marriage, but for another segment, this was about pushing an agenda. The same group that wnet after the schools in Massachusetts after gay marriage became legal was out here planning the same steps.
Thanks for your comments, yes i voted yes
Netsurfer, ouch, lets play nice and not throw around the B- word in our comments
I can tell that you feel strongly about your position and I don’t have ready answers for the website you linked too. But it does seem like a stretch to think that everyone’s bad experiences with this issue was part of a conspiracy.
Everyone involved in the “Yes on 8″ has sacrificed and some like the Mormon church are still being crucified in the media for it. If we all really hated homosexuals why would we stick out our necks like this? It looked a few months ago like “Yes on 8″ would be soundly crushed and that would have left us embarrassed and not really in a state to gloat over the people who did the crushing.
This issue is not black or white on any side. I am saddened by the disappointment people are feeling right now. If there was a way to keep my values and give the homosexual community what they wanted I would do it in a heart beat.
No, this issue is not about hate, it is about differing values. A correct judgment on this issue can not be made without knowing that.
I’ve never been more ashamed of my religion than I am right now. To the LGBT community, I am so sorry how this turned out. LDS scriptures are very clear (D&C 134), we are to keep our religion out of our government and never seek to take away someone else’s rights. This has been a huge blow. I can’t imagine how those of you who are newly married or planning a wedding must feel right now. Please don’t lose heart.
I keep thinking of an article I had read by gay Mormon and LDS historian D. Michael Quinn–how deeply disappointed he was that Prop 22 passed in 2000. Yet, he saw some hope there. Previously the only people who ever cared or stood up for gay rights were the “out” gays. If 39 percent of Californians had voted against the measure, that meant that a significant number of straight people were standing up for gay rights. To him, that meant hope. This time, 48 percent of Californians stood up for gay rights. Some people will never get over certain prejudices, so there is no use trying to convince them. But progress inches slowly forward, and our children (I know mine at least)–who view gay people as equal citizens deserving of equal rights–will someday enter the voting booths. I think Prop 8 wouldn’t have passed were it not for the groundwork and money from the LDS church. Someday they will be so embarrassed by their involvement in this that they’ll deny they ever did it or twist the story so that it looks like people just “weren’t ready” for gay marriage to be legal and that’s why God wanted them to vote as such. Look at all the excuses and stories made up about polygamy, Mountain Meadows, blacks/priesthood, equal rights for women. This will fall along the same lines: gay marriage will someday be legal across the U.S., and probably about 10 years later adjustments will be made in LDS church teachings (at least they will lose their “fear” of gay people and provide a more welcoming atmosphere for them) and no apologies will be forthcoming. It will somehow all make perfect sense in a believing Mormon’s mind.
In the end, I believe that equality and justice will ultimately prevail. I have to believe that.
What I will just never wrap my head around is this statement from you:
No, this issue is not about hate, it is about differing values.
Okay, you said it…differering values. Which, you have now imposed on people who were never going to impose it on you.
NEVER.
NEVER.
And, I’m not buying your ‘teaching it in schools’ etc…
Netsurfer - In any election or effort on any proposition, there are definitely arguments that are not fully backed and are shown to the public via commercials or other means in a misleading way. I agree with you that not all of the promotions on the side of Yes on 8 are fully backed by facts. At the same time, not all of the promotions for No on 8 are either. That is to be expected in an election.
This whole proposition is based on 2 differing beliefs of the people of California. I feel that both sides need to be understanding of the other to really bring about the best resolution. What upsets me is that even after the election is over, just as Prop 22 in the year 2000, the voice of the people is not being respected. In fact, right now it is being trampled upon by mobs of people that don’t agree with what Democracy has brought about. These mobs are resorting to anarchy to get what they want, because democracy did not go their way. Democracy isn’t about getting your way. It is about freedoms to choose what the majority of the state feel is best for the California. Mind you, the majority was only 52%, it is still the majority. These riots and appeals are, in my opinion, wrong.
Michael Ernest - It was the LDS Church MEMBERS that donated their time and money to the efforts on Prop 8, not the Church itself. And from what I understand, it is just as much their right to promote what they believe in as it is the No on 8’s side to promote their beliefs. That is where the major issue lies here, is that there are opposing beliefs that will not work well together unless there is a common ground found to meet in the middle. As far as the Church’s involvement, they do have a right to take a stand on the matter and encourage their members to donate time and means. The CTA (California Teachers Association) and companies such as Time Warner, Comcast, AT&T, Apple and others also reserved their right to do the same on behalf of No on 8. Until we respect each others beliefs and do not persecute others for how they believe or voted on this matter, there will be no progress on this issue.
I voted Yes on 8. Was there hatred involved in my vote, No. Did I have bigotry and discrimination on my mind, No. I believe that same sex couples should have their rights, while at the same time preserving all of the rights of others. I did not feel that a No on Proposition 8 reserved these rights and that it would be taken far beyond this measure in the future. That is my belief. I feel there have to be compromises and laws set in force regarding schooling, religious institutions, and many other issues that will protect these fundamental rights while being able to compromise with the fundamental rights of same-sex couples.
Thank you for your thoughts. How do you think God feels about people who deviate from His plan to unite man and woman as in Adam and Eve? If we don’t stand up for God who will? Did you ever think that maybe God helped us overcome the opposition? With God all things are possible.
Is anyone going ot answer my questions? I am sincerely wondering.
And for what it is worth, no one was ever going to force the LDS Church to perform gay marriages. That is a load of crap.
Unfortunately Mormons believe it’s a choice to BE gay - unfortunately that is a minority belief. You can’t change that - ask the thousands of women in the straight spouse network - most are Mormon ex-wives of gay men that were told to get married to “change” their “choice”.
How would the Mormons feel if some other religion forced their beliefs on them? As a church, the law cannot compel them to admit gay members or make them allow weddings in their churches or temples. They do not allow the public to book those facilities and are therefore exempt.
In black and white, this proposition REMOVED a right that has existed for quite some time. The Supreme Court did not overturn anything, just clarified that there cannot be a differentiation.
It is discriminatory and bigoted.
This, coming from a religion that STILL TO THIS DAY practices polygamy - albeit eternal polygamy - since when a man gets divorced or a widower remarries, they can be sealed (isn’t that “marriage”) to yet another wife. I know that’s splitting hairs, but come on.
Did the Mormon church stop it when the US outlawed it? No, they set up towns in Mexico - until the current polygamists died off and stopped the practice. It’s BS that it was “revealed” that it was no longer necessary.
Check out CourageCampaign’s Mormon Missionary Marriage Enforcement Police video… Mormon’s are probably looking at that going - yeah, a great idea.
Oh yeah, hey Bishop, if you figure out who I am go ahead and excommunicate me - I really don’t care anymore. I’m tired of being embarrassed by my religion.
njr–
Once again God enters the picture because it is impossible to argue your cause without invoking God. Problem is, whose God? They are all so different and they all say different things. We live in a religiously diverse AND secular society and so our laws need to be such that they allow religious freedom without endorsing a particular religious view. As I said before on another thread, marriage licenses are issued by the government, not signed by a bolt of lightening from the heavens. A Mormon temple marriage is certainly different from a marriage performed at the Chapel of Love in Las Vegas. You believe yours is a far better form of marriage that will last through eternity and the other will not. It’s okay to believe that. But the government needs to recognize them both equally. Would you support a ban on those types of Las Vegas weddings because you don’t believe God recognizes them beyond this life? Would you support a ban on marriages in which the couple does not plan to have children? The Mormon God doesn’t like those marriages either because he commanded Adam and Eve to multiply. Whatever happened to Joseph Smith’s exhortation to “teach correct principles and let them govern themselves”?
One last thought, if God helped push the Yes vote over the top on this one, does that mean that God was rooting for Obama too? If there actually is such a being as God, I truly hope He/She has more important things to worry about than U.S. politics. Read the world news. God is desperately needed elsewhere.
interested - I fully agree with you on both of those points and questions, which is why I did not feel the need to restate/answer them. From what I understand, the donations on both sides were close to being even in total, which means the LDS Church did nothing more than even out the sides of the campaign. If the No on 8 Donors had $22 million dollars more than Yes, it would have been a very skewed campaign. I feel that the anger and hatred is because their initiative failed and they have found a logical scapegoat on which to put the blame.
As far as “outing” the Prop 8 donors, I don’t think it brings them “shame” for donating to something they believe in. I feel all it really is doing is creating fear, because there have already been multiple threats of hate crimes on donors and LDS Church members. A few examples follow below:
On a blog website, “Tread” wrote, “I hope the No on 8 people have a long list and long knives.”
On the “Queerty” website, “Stenar” asked, “Can someone in CA please go burn down the Mormon temples there, PLEASE. I mean seriously. DO IT.”
“I’m going to give them something to be f—ing scared of. … I’m a radical who is now on a mission to make them all pay for what they’ve done,” wrote “Jonathan.”
On yet another site, “Americablog,” “scottinsf” wrote, “Trust me. I’ve got a big list of names of mormons and catholics that were big supporters of Prop 8. … As far as mormons and catholics … I warn them to watch their backs.”
“I do not openly advocate firebombing or vandalism. What you do with the information is your own choice,” wrote Jeremy
THIS is Hate. Not voting for a belief, but threats of harming or taking lives and property to those that don’t believe the way you do.
Lara- Touche!
Very good arguments and points of view. Particularly the Joseph Smith quote, “teach correct principles and let them govern themselves”? I do feel that God was a big part in peoples decision on the Yes on 8 effort though and that is not a bad thing. A fear or love of God (whatever you want to call Him) should not be looked upon as an invalid way to influence the way a person votes. Great points though!
True, I support legalized gay marriage, NOT violence or hate speech. I understand there is a lot of pain right now because a fundamental human right has been taken away from a minority group. Let’s take the high road, folks. We have truth on our side, and justice will ultimately prevail.
So, if someone voted Yes on 8 - is that a hate crime?
We’re proud to be listed here as a donors. The church members I know view this list as the honor roll. This is democracy in it’s finest hour. The people spoke (again). Gay people are looking for someone to blame rather than face the fact that most of their fellow Californians do not want gay marriage.
According to CNN, African Americans voted against marriage equality by a wide margin, 69% to 31%.
According to an analysis of the most recent reports from the California secretary of state, the pro-equality side raised an astonishing $43.6 million, compared with just $29.8 million for those who succeeded in keeping gays from marrying.
Hmmm….Looks like the gay movement raised more money. Additionally, are you going to attack blacks just as easily as you intend on attacking Mormons?
770,000 members of the Mormon Church in CA over 5 Million voted yes on 8… Of the 770,000 the percentage of voting age is less than half… so less than 400,000 (if all voted and voted yes)…
Both sides need to get over it and find a workable ground in the middle where additional protections can be added to protect what ACLU type groups want to extend Gay Marriage to mean… and the other side needs to respect the people that long for a loving validated relationship.
Anyone on either side that hates anyone on the other side DOESN’t GET IT! It is not about hate it is about fear of imposing “religions” or beliefs on the other and protecting that which either group believes to be “true” or sacred to them.
my opinion — with all of the fire power from Hollywood, Jay Leno, Ellen, Apple, politcal figures… etc. I was surprised No on 8 did not prevail. There does exist a resident fear that I believe has been exaserbated by the far left AND the far right… Most of us lie somewhere in the middle.
May God or whoever you believe in bless America with understanding on both sides.
Two questions:
Why did a simple majority get to vote on an issue that deals with the rights of minorities? What would happen if the next proposition that a specific group petitions for is against the Mormons? If there are only 770,000 of them in California…
Strip the LDS church of its tax-exempt status. They made concerted efforts to influence their members political and governmental decisions, and thus they forfeited their tax-exempt status. It’s as simple as that.
I understand why the Mormon church did this. They’re on the losing side of history –a narrow loss was unthinkable only a few years back but support and understanding for the LGBT movement continues to grow — so if they don’t institutionalize and legalize hatred and discrimination right away it won’t have much more oxygen to survive on.
So the Mormons have essentially bought themselves a victory but they’ve done so at a great expense to their own spiritual character — remember, Mormons were once the oppressed minority in marriage equality battles and now they’re the oppressor. History is slow in the making but it never sides with the bigot.
Separation of Church and State remains crucial to the religious freedom we all enjoy. It’s too bad that so many churchgoing people in our great nation have so much trouble wrapping their heads around this concept. If churches start controlling laws than you have to ask yourself: which churches will control it? If the Born Again Evangelicals ever completely controlled the USA do you think they’d make room for believers in the Book of Mormon (which many consider a blasphemy)?
Anyway I’m happy this site exists. I shall scour the donor names and see if I know anyone (as a former Mormon) that I can write to to ask for an explanation as to why they think their religious beliefs should have precedence over my civil rights.
I certainly don’t think my beliefs should infringe on other people’s lives.
We live in a democratic society, and every person’s vote is valid. Period. If someone votes because of a non-religious value system or a religious value system. It still counts as one. If you suppose that someone’s position is inferior to your own because of religion, you yourself are in very real danger of bigotry. Here is the definition of bigotry.
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.
As for those who say that are ashamed of their religion. Wow. I would tread carefully where you walk. If the religion is the true religion of Jesus Christ, and we are asked to be valiant in the testimony of Him, that is quite the statement.
What a sad day for the Country, the people of California, Gay men and women who are in loving commited relationships, and unfortunately for the followers of the Morman Church, LDS. I keep hearing from the people against same sexy marriage that they are looking to “protect”this institution… you are right, marriage is under attack, by yourselves…
The divorce rate in America for first marriage, vs second or third marriage
50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce, according to Jennifer Baker of the Forest Institute of Professional Psychology in Springfield, Missouri.”
To “protect” something means:
1. to defend or guard from attack, invasion, loss, annoyance, insult, etc.; cover or shield from injury or danger.
i do not see anyone attacking Marriage as a religeous sacrament, what i see is a group of oppressed people, looking for freedom and rights under the same constitution that everyone enjoys in this country. I look at the State of MA which has allowed Gay marriages for several years now and I really don’t hear any major problems over there. Why can’t we allow peaceful, law abiding citizens to LOVE and be LOVED.
I don’t think what the LDS church realizes is it has created a new HOLY war, and unfortunately, they will lose MUCH because of this, Already i have read in many blogs about how disgusted your own church members are with how they were manipulated by the Elders.
In 1835, the Morman church created “Doctrine & Covenants”
unders these D&Cs the following was written
“That our belief with regard to earthly governments and laws in general may not be misinterpreted nor misunderstood, we have thought proper to present at the close of this volume our opinion concerning the same.” directly under this statement in D&C 134-9 the following was written and agreed upon:
“We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied”
So now, after the LDS church has drawn first blood they are asking for peace? After they have aliented a very large segment of the population, stripped them of one of the fundemental rights in this country, and started a cultural and religious problem, that if it does heal over, will leave very large and lasting scars….
as I said before, what a very sad day for Our Country
one more thing, think of how all that money… more than 78 million on both sides, could have been put to work in a much more productive manner…….. education, homeless issues, cancer research, aids research, green initiatives, .. i think of how some people got very wealthy becuase of all this hatred when this money could have gone to so many programs for good…
Actually, while some Mormons probably do think being gay is a choice (and honestly, for SOME gays, it probably is), not all do. The Church leadership does not push this opinion. Many Mormons believe that homosexuality is genetic.
However, most Mormons do believe that having GAY SEX is a choice.
Big difference there.
For what is it worth, “Mormons” (i.e., all Mormons everywhere) do not believe that being gay is a choice. I am Mormon and do not believe that. Many, many Mormons have family members who are gay, and do not beleive that their children and siblings chose to be gay.
It is really difficult for someone who is not a Mormon to understand, but Mormons just firmly believe that marriage is a very important institution that should be preserved. They believe that a central purpose (but not the only purpose) of marriage is to form a family and raise children. This purpose is, to them, of etenal importance. They believe that by changing the legal, societal definition of marriage to include other consenual relationships, the institution of marriage is diminished.
On the other hand, I think it is hard for Mormons to understand how marginalized gay people feel when they are told that, because of how they feel and who they love, they cannot form a family every bit as valuable as a traditional family.
Each side understands the WORDS the other is saying, but neither side really understands where the other side is coming from. It is a really hard problem, and I wish I knew the answer. I don’t. But, mischaracterizing your opponent’s position, calling names, and threatening people exacerbate the problem and keep wounds open. I have (from a distance) observed this conduct on both sides of the debate. I wish each side could work on finding common ground, instead of throwing stones.
I have many gay people in my life. I love those people. They know my stand on the prop 8 issue. I voted yes. We’ve talked at length about it and have mutual respect for each other. I totally see their points and after speaking civily, they understood mine. The beauty of the country we live in is that we are allowed to express our opinions. When people don’t get their way, they get angry and frustrated. They want to blame it on someone. I happen to be a republican and am frustrated by this election. Does that mean I hate democrats? No. They won. Good for them. The only way to prove my ideas is to wait and see. Did they donate to the democratic party out of hate for republicans, no, they did because they agreed with their beliefs. I know that gays say they have no choice if they are gay. I say that everything in our lives are choices. Some people will say that doing drugs makes them happy, does that make it right? Should we legalize drugs because it’s someones right to take drugs? Should we legalize suicide because it’s the right of the person to take their own life? Should we legalize the right of a father and daughter to marry if they are of consenting age? If this is all about rights, then we will open a pandoras box of rights. Are you prepared for that? I said to my gay friend, what does this change from domestic partnership. She said it was easier to check the marriage box. I think the gay community would spend less effort and money trying to make domestic partnership laws better suited to what they want. People, many of us will never agree, but the hate thrown at the yes on 8 people seems to be coming from some very hateful people. Look in the mirror before you judge.
Since you seem to think you can use religion to influence government and are now politically active, I propose the state of Utah, California (or anywhere your participating churches are located) tax the church. You are acting like spoiled little children. Separation of church and state dictates that you may not act as a political entity. Also, you have NO right to dictate anyone else’s marriage. Ironic and hypocritical given the Mormon church’s history regarding marriage, not to mention current things going on in Texas. Don’t worry though, the gears of democracy are still turning and I believe the illegality of this amendment will be established.
I also propose we amend constitutions to invalidate all second marriages, as some churches historically would consider them adulterous.
Your disgusting, baseless prejudice is not something that can be legislated. what would Jesus do? Slap all of you for ignoring his teachings. You should really be embarrassed. I am for you. Christianity has become a joke in this country. Enjoy your hell for acting in a very un-Christ like manner.
“It will remain up. It will serve as a record of how to run a top-down campaign that appears on its face to be completely grassroots.”
Does that mean you’re proud of the fact that you ran a deceitful campaign? If not, I recommend changing your language, because that’s what it sounds like you’re saying.
Also, as for being gay being a choice? Get your heads out of your mythology for a second and look at reality. Science is reality, not your fairy tales.
Nobody seems to be asking the question of why the state chooses to license and regulate marriage in the first place? Normally a state (any form of government) only does so in order to secure some benefit.
Now marriage as a civil (not religious) institution has been licensed*, regulated and defined as between a man and a women since at least the dawn of recorded history. Given its endurance across all time, all places, all cultures, all governments and all peoples,
it appears to benefit civilization in some fundamental way.
It seems to me the proper place to begin the discussion is:
1) what benefits does the state derive from that enduring definition of marriage between a man and a woman?
2) how would altering that definition alter the benefits to the state?
*note: Marriage is not an inalienable, constitutional right (like freedom of speech or religion), and the state is entitled to set criteria (i.e. ‘discriminate’) with respect to licensing and regulating activities (else a driver’s license or a license to practice medicine would mean very little). Which means that the question is one of meaningful and relevant criteria to secure the desired benefits to the state and its citizens.
It seems like Mormons would be among the last people on Earth to want marriage to be legally defined as being between one man and one woman.
CKNJ: No, that’s not true. The law says churches can’t push CANDIDATES, not that they can’t push issues/referenda/initiatives. I thought the same thing, but someone set me straight, as it were.
Rathje, you said “However, most Mormons do believe that having GAY SEX is a choice.”
Prop 8 wasn’t about gay sex though. It in no way inhibited or prevents gay sex, just same-sex marriage.
And if gay marriages end up being like most straight marriages, sex becomes bottom priority..
So think about it this way… Encouraging Gay Marriage is one way to limit Gay Sex.
Seriously though, when people talk about the gays coming in and forcing their marriages on straight or LDS folks, that’s a lie. They want to live in peace with their families, and be protected by the same laws that protect other families.
The Yes-on-8 campaign is definitely proof of one well funded (”grassroots” or no) religious group pushing their views of what marriage should be on other people. If Prop 8 failed, all the good religious married folk would go back to their lives and nothing really has changed.
Since it passed, it has affected 18,000 same-sex married couples across California. 36,000 people who are being told that their family isn’t a family.
How would the church like it if they were working to make laws invalidating Church marriages? The uproar from that would be deafening… but that’s not what people, gay or straight, who support same-sex marriage want.
Equality under the law. It’s very simple, and I would think that religious organizations would understand that.
Jeff, we don’t live in a purely democratic society. We live in a Democratic Republic.
For lack of a complete civics lesson… a pure democracy would mean that the people would vote on laws, and if passed by a majority (or some percentage), they would become law. There are no representatives, just law by the people. The phrase “tyranny by the majority” comes to mind. In a pure democracy, slavery would still be legal. Because a majority of people can suppress a minority.
In a pure Republic, all laws are made by representatives voted in by the people, but people don’t have an individual voice on laws to pass. This system can lead to corruption, as people with money try to influence lawmakers. Representatives make the laws, and that’s that.
We have a mix of both. People can petition for new laws, and our representatives make laws. But we also have a check on that called the Judicial system. These are people who can judge whether a law is good law or not, based on the Constitution (or higher law) of the land. You also have an executive branch that can help make laws, and decisions as well.
But what works is it all balances out. People make laws, they can be struck down as bad law. The legislature can make laws, and people can ballot to strike those down.
In the end justice can prevail, and no minority is oppressed… but it can take decades, even centuries for that to work.
What will happen, with Prop 8, is it will eventually go back to the California Supreme Court, and they will say “Look,in “In re Marriage Cases (2008)” we said that the Constitution doesn’t allow laws that strike down equality. See previous law, Prop 8 is invalid.”
Somewhere it’ll get taken to the US Supreme Court, and based on “Loving v. Virginia” (1967) and “Perez v. Sharp” (1948) and the 14th Amendment… and laws restricting marriage based on the gender of the participants will be struck down *at a federal level*. States will complain, but that’s how inter-racial marriages were struck down.
Loving v. Virgina was 1967, and in the year 2000, Alabama was the last state to remove laws restricting interracial marriage. So it took 33 years…
Don’t worry folks, same-sex marriages WILL happen in the United States at a Federal level. It’ll take the Supreme Court to do it, but it’ll happen.
Why? Because we’re a nation of laws, equality, and justice. Not a theocracy where “the bible says”. If we were, slavery would still be legal, as would polygamy. Both of which are supported by the bible. So would killing your children if they dishonored you. The bible isn’t the ultimate authority on United States Law, the Constitution is. Read the 14th Amendment sometime… you’ll see.
Regarding post #3 by Michael E.: Please remember that over 60% of California voters had expressed a few years ago through the ballot process that they wanted marriage to be between one man and one woman. That is a majority vote by the will of the people. The will of the people was overturned this year by FOUR judges in San Francisco at the state supreme court. They had the political power to overturn a majority vote on a ballot measure. So the people fought back, and it looks like the majority of them still want to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.
And I ask those of you vilifying the Mormons and others who supported Prop 8: Why can’t you be big enough to fight your battles through legal chanels? Why the terrorism, the graffiti on structures sacred to others, the outspoken words of hatred and poison? Why would you participate in acts of outright hatred and bigotry? Why would you do to someone else what you certainly wouldn’t want done to you? IF you want the peole of this nation to take you seriously, you’ve got to act better than a bunch of bullies who didn’t get your way and are now childishly taking it out on the people who acted according to their consciences.
I was proud to donate.
I am just curious what makes something a fundamental civil right. I bet many people who say this are just parroting something they heard somewhere else, on both sides of the issue.
From my understanding, fundamental means absolutely necessary. If that is the case, without gay marriage does that mean that civil rights don’t exist in any shape or form. I don’t think that is the case, or it could mean that it formed the base civil rights that came with the package we call civil rights.
Also what is a civil right?
A civil right is a right bestowed by the government, plain and simple. They are not natural rights, which people have by merely being born. It would be great if civil rights and natural rights always matched up but they don’t.
Is gay marriage a civil right? It may or may not be but what makes it a civil right is if the government declares it as such. Therefore, in California, last Monday same-sex marriage was indeed a civil right, but as of Wednesday it no longer qualifies, because the government withdrew that right through prop 8.
So currently in California, same-sex marriage is not a fundamental civil right. You may say that it is a natural right, but no, it is most definitely not a fundamental civil right.
Also as to the choice thing, I think that the church says it is a choice when one acts on their gay tendencies. Big difference. It is not wrong to have the tendencies, but it is a sin to act on them. This is why it is different from the race issue. A person is naturally their race, and a person may naturally have gay tendencies, but the person can do nothing about their race and the person may choose to not act on their gay tendencies. Come on, we all have instincts, and if we let our instincts control us we are no better than animals.
What is sad to me is that people who runthis site and support it call themselves LDS or christian. Surely the bible and LDS teaching supports the sanctity of Marriage. For the LDS who showed opposition, it was not only opposition to the amendment, but it was a lack of testimony and faith in a Prophet of God and biblical teachings.
On the legal side. This amendment protects Religion from “State” or government. People who left to come to America came for religious freedom. They did not want the Government telling churches what was right or wrong, but wanted that dictated by God. People who support this site are allowing “State” to interfere with “Religion” If you view it as inequality or discrimitory, then what is it when the Gay community tries to force the hands of religios officials as to what they can teach and who they must marry? I now lost my right to believe and practice my religion did I not? And lastly, Mormons did not make up the 54% that voted it down. It was the California majority. That is called the VOICE OF THE PEOPLE….again DEMOCRACY….and thats what people died for. This site not only is offensive to God, but also for those who died so that peoples voices could be heard. And it was done fair, the votes were cast, and the people chose! So choose for yourself God or Democracy and in either instance Proposition 8 was a failure.
Mormons do not believe marriage is for time and all eternity. Mormons believe that their own temple marriages are for time and all eternity. Civil marriage, which is what this is about, is until death. LDS have pretty strict rules about who can marry in a temple, and not even all their own members can do it.
Oh, yes, and Chris, if you’re still reading this:
“Everyone involved in the “Yes on 8″ has sacrificed and some like the Mormon church are still being crucified in the media for it.”
You’re being called out for illegally being told by your Church Leaders how to vote and that you must donate. And yes, I’ve read several accounts of Mormons who felt, or were made to feel, that their souls were in jeopardy if they didn’t at least donate. That’s coercion, plain and simple.
“If we all really hated homosexuals why would we stick out our necks like this?”
Because A> your Church Leaders told you to do so, B> because you feel it incumbent upon yourselves to force your beliefs down everyone else’s throats, and C> because you wanted a ‘Victory for God’ and to ‘Defend the Definition of Marriage’ even though all those are entirely and completely bogus arguments. Ultimately, all you wanted was a cornerstone to build your anti-culture wars around. Sorry but I’ve done a good deal of research due to ‘pro-life’ and ‘Saving the Family’ arguments not to know where your Church will take things.
“It looked a few months ago like “Yes on 8″ would be soundly crushed and that would have left us embarrassed and not really in a state to gloat over the people who did the crushing.”
And this is somehow an argument for having voted Yes on 8 how? By the last statement in this, it seems to me that you were indeed looking for a means and reason to gloat over others. If that’s what you really think the gays and their supporters were doing, wow are you in a different universe altogether.
I don’t attack your church for doing something. It is one of the fundamentals of life that marriage is between a man and a woman; gays can’t even have children. If you even believe in God and the Bible, it states that unnatural marriage is wrong, the unnatural part being homosexuality. Now I know everyone is entitle to their own opinion, another basic ideal of my church, so you can have yours, but don’t persecute me for mine. Our church has already had enough persecution for absolutely no reason
Proposition 8 is an abysmal violation of basic civil rights. It is a doctrine of hate and intolerance thinly disguised as moral issue. The mormon church should offer a formal apology.
Patrick
Please explain the connection between the 14th amendment and gay marriage
Just to let all the bible thumping idiots out there know… there is a force that is working on removing tax exempt status of those churches that participate in the anti- equality laws. It is law that any tax exempt corporations, this means churches, from becoming involved in law making. It’s called separation of church and state for all you that didn’t pay attention in school. The are consequences towards the actions of those churches out there and be sure that they will pay. Oh and the law also states lobbying is not allowed. That is what the churches did.
I am confident that gay marriage will be “the law of the land” in my lifetime, simply because our country is committed to justice and equality.
I’m sad that bigotry has won a temporary victory, but encouraged by the progress that’s been made in mainstream attitudes in the few short years since Prop 22. And yes, I call it “bigotry” because I honestly don’t see how it can be anything else. I say that even though my wife voted “yes” on 8. I tell her, “You’re a bigot, but I still love you.” We’ve been together 20 years, and raised two beautiful children, one of whom was old enough to join me in voting “no” this week.
There seem to be a few thoughtful “8″ supporters here, so I wondered if someone who says “It isn’t bigotry, it’s defending marriage” could tell me — what exactly are you defending by saying two unrelated, loving adults cannot get married? I don’t understand how anyone else’s marriage or divorce threatens mine, or threatens the marriages of my neighbors.
It seems to me that defending marriage would mean encouraging people to marry only after sober consideration of the lifelong commitment it pledges, and encouraging them to stay married once they have made that commitment. How is excluding people defending anything?
And to those who say some “No” proponents have “an agenda to force their lifestyle choice on others,” what are you smoking? Do you think affording equal rights means that straight people will be forced to marry people of the same sex at gunpoint?
Mormons and Catholics are certainly free to marry only people of the opposite sex, and to preach that only such marriages are in accordance with their religious beliefs. Muslims and Jews don’t eat pork, but they’re not trying to ban bacon as a matter of state law. Wear a burka if you think that’s what God wants you to do, but don’t insist that the law be changed to inflict your religious beliefs on people who don’t subscribe to your religion.
Chris, I take it that this is your website, and you are a Prop 8 supporter, so this list isn’t to shame people, but to praise them. If that is the case, why are you censoring the names of the Mormon supporters? If you fear violence, why not censor the names of non-Mormons as well?
Finally, I condemn those “No on 8″ people who advocate violence. Even though 8 passed, the domestic partnership laws give gay couples most of the same rights and privileges that married couples enjoy. I understand, and share, your frustration at being told that you or your friends or your family enjoy only second-rate citizenship in California, but that cannot be an excuse for violence. Victory is inevitable, there is no need to cheapen it by taking the low road en route.
Thank you Patrick. Sometimes I wonder if people really understand how our government works. It’s not mob rule, thank goodness, since we know how mob mentality works. It’s really too bad that all it takes is a simple majority vote to change amend California’s Constitution. It seems like it should take quite a bit more to amend such an important document. Ironically, the Mormon Church was staunchly opposed to amending the U.S. Constitution 30 years ago to protect the equal civil rights of women. The battlecry in the church was, “Equality Yes! Amendment No!” This time I guess the battlecry is, “Equality No! Amendment Yes!” Oh, the irony….
Thanks to all who helped put this site together. I am saddened to think that my church chose to coordinate the taking of rights, especially after having itself suffered persecution for its marriage practices. I have been LDS all my life; I served a mission at my own expense to tell others about the good things it taught. But now I am ashamed at what it teaches and at the coercive pressure it exerted on its members in California. That’s not the church I loved enough to give two years of my life.
David,
Being a homosexual myself, I for one am amazingly sick to death of the Religious Right telling me how Evil I am. Of accusing me of being a Child Molester. Of convincing everyone around them that I have some sinister, near-terrorist plot to ‘force’ faggotry on everyone and everything.
You know and I know that’s of less intellectual value than what falls out of horses and dogs. But it still gains traction. Leading by example is clearly not what these people respect. Look at various members of the Clergy of various religions and those Republicans that claim strong ties to various religious institutions. They violate the law, they are closeted gays themselves, yet they advocate tougher and tougher anti-gay legislation. Enough is enough.
The Religious Right, the Fundies, and the Republicans have made it abundantly clear over the last 8 years that there is no reasoning with them any longer. They actively spit on intellectual discourse as being ‘intellectual elitism’, and that’s to be feared and denigrated whenever possible. They have shown, time after time, that they are anything but uniters, that they want anything but this elusive ‘middle ground’ some in this thread have posted about. They have revealed themselves to be nothing but 6 year old schoolyard bullies. And after a point, you can’t talk a schoolyard bully into stopping the bad behavior. You’ve got to discipline the brat, and make sure he learns his lesson until the next time he decides to act up and out. Normally I don’t advocate violence or harassment or the like; I hate seeing it done to my brothers during Pride Marches, I hate seeing it done to the girls going into Planned Parenthood.
But as I said. Enough is enough.
Mike,
Elections are held so that people can decide what our government should uphold. Anyone who casts a vote is deciding that what they believe ought to be law - everyone that votes has an agenda that they decide that everyone else should follow. What the Mormon church did is not consistent with everyone’s agenda, but it is consistent with their doctrines and beliefs, probably the same ones that you preached about on your mission. They did nothing different than everyone else that cast a vote. Are you ashamed that homosexuals voted no because it was consistent with their beliefs? Are you ashamed that they rallied together to protest, raise money, and fight for a political movement that is founded on their moral ideology? Of course not, so why would you be ashamed that your church leaders urged your members to vote in line with your doctrinal beliefs? Is the Mormon church wrong for urging members to vote according to Mormon beliefs? Are homosexuals who hold the common belief that heterosexual and homosexual unions ought to be equal before the law wrong for urging others to vote according to their beliefs?
Anyone who says that religion should stay out of politics as related to this issue is taking that idea way out of context. The idea is that a religion should not have an unequal influence on governmental processes, such as members of a particular faith having two votes where others would only have one. It does not mean that people, churches, or any group with an interest in a moral topic should not vote according to their beliefs. Any person who says that they are voting for this or that because “I believe…” is making a philosophical/religious decision that they feel should be imposed on others through law. It seems that many people that vote according to their moral convictions think that they are doing something different than a religious person who votes according to their beliefs simply because the religious person gleans their beliefs from a set of organized philosophical ideas that are called a “religion”.
“They have revealed themselves to be nothing but 6 year old schoolyard bullies. And after a point, you can’t talk a schoolyard bully into stopping the bad behavior. You’ve got to discipline the brat, and make sure he learns his lesson until the next time he decides to act up and out. ”
That’s exactly how I felt when they picketed the LA Temple.
It seems hypocritical for the LDS church to inject itself into a political debate regarding the status of what constitutes a traditional marriage, given the history of the church in relation to polygamy. It seems that any church that has been persecuted by the US Government for its practice of polygamy (The Morrill Act-1862; The Edmunds Act-1882; The Edmunds-Tucker Act-1887), would not want to see others persecuted as they have been for holding a non-traditional view of marriage. One would hope that given this history such a church would take a less provocative stance in defining traditional marriage for others not of their faith.
The church currently has 10 temples in 4 of the 6 countries and the 1 state where same sex marriage is already legal. Has the LDS church involved itself in the political process regarding same sex marriage in any of these locations? No.
Why not simply take the same, more conservative approach in California that the church has already taken in Canada, South Africa, Spain, The Netherlands, and Massachusetts?
The highly provacative stance the LDS church has instead taken in California, seems foolhearty. Escpecially when such an effort creates a constitutional conflict with the equal protections clause. Patrick has it exactly right. The Supreme Court will overturn this amendment.
In its initial written majority decision, the California Supreme Court wrote; “…we conclude that, under this State’s Constitution, the constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual’s liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process.”
This will be overturned.
The LDS church has gambled tens of millions in member dollars, and even more in terms of lost good will for the church itself in a foolish political grand stand. For what? A ploy to separate the wheat from the tears?
This was foolishess, at best. And hypocrisy, at worst.
Actually, Mormons believe that ONLY a marriage or a “sealing” performed as an ordinance inside an LDS Temple (and not anywhere else) is valid for “time and all eternity”.
Civil marriages — ANY civil marriages (even those performed by LDS Bishops) are valid until divorce or spousal death according to the LDS Church.
Glad to hear you’re sticking around.
Now that the election’s over, it’s time for more of this:
I. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i52JL5_N-XE
II. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdWsJcteW4Q
III. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02P3g3L9m-Q
IV. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXFX9abHyNs
V. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgmXHXLu0s8
Mike, I am in the Bishopric of my LDS Ward and felt no pressure at all from the Bishop, or from Stake and Area Authority leaders. We all have our free agency and means to provide for the causes we believe in. Their are many in your shoes. I feel sad for all involved. Your Prophet has been tolerant (and empathetic) of the plight of the gay movement but when something infringes on our basic right to religious freedom and the core values of the doctrines we have been taught from thousands of years before Christ walked the Earth, he is going to give us counsel straight from your Heavenly Father. And this isn’t just the LDS church that feels this so important a topic. Again we have our free agency, I gave no money to the cause but supported whole-heartedly because it’s what I believe to be true. The voice of the adversary is but a whisper as is the Holy Ghost and will creep into our lives if we allow him to. If God doesn’t wipe us out before the Second Coming, gay-marriage (our modern-day Sodom and Gomorrah) certainly will if you are so willing to put your beliefs aside. How do you expect our brothers and sisters to reproduce offspring vital to a continued existence? That community provides no renewable resource to sustain life. I am sure my comments will not change anyones mind but I ask you to read your scriptures and pray if the cause you stand for is right.
What does the opposition plan to do to the 70% of the black CA voters who supported prop 8? We all have President-elect Barack Obama to thank for motivating that demographic to enter into the political process. Change isn’t always what you will think it will be. What about the millions of Catholic, Evangelical, Lutheran and other CA voters that supported prop 8? The opposition has their sights set way to low. The opposition, instead of acting like a bunch of whiney 4 year olds throwing a tantrum because they are hungry and need a nap, needs to regroup and refocus for the next election. The people in this state more than 25 others have spoken regardless of faith, creed or race in support of traditional marriage. The opposition has done marvelously in closing the gap since the 2000 61-39% defeat. Be proud and continue to stand up for what you believe in. From the CA Secretary of State website, I found that the opposition raised 45 million while the support raised 28. Does that equate to mo money, mo problems? It sure didn’t buy the opposition the vote. But there is no need to slander (or promote terrorist acts on) a specific faith group in which only 250,000 LDS CA voters participated in the voting process. You don’t see the supporters banging on Apple’s door or stopping people from going to McDonald’s or pulling their children out of the CA school system or boycotting Brad Pitt movies (all prop 8 opponents). Even if prop 8 did lose, I doubt that we would see the likes of what the radical gay supporters have done since 11/4. If you can’t allow people to express their own opinions without feeling fearful of them then try living in Iran, Afghanistan, Cuba or Russia for a while. Opponents of Prop 8 and 22, heed your leaders’ call, stand together and live to fight another day (http://www.noonprop8.com/articles/2008/11/07/no-on-prop-8-campaign-leaders-call-on-community-to-stand-together). My bet is in 2012 God will wipe out this modern-day Sodom and Gomorrah (fingers crossed). It is the end of the Mayan calendar then.