Nov 8 - Mormon Individual Donations Dwarf All Others

37 comments ↓

#1 Donor Groups Identified, Largest is Individual Mormons — Mormons for Proposition 8 on 11.09.08 at 1:20 am

[...] UPDATE: For post-election summary information, please see this link. [...]

#2 Lara on 11.09.08 at 7:11 pm

As a response to 5.5 million times yes!

“What does the opposition plan to do to the 70% of the black CA voters who supported prop 8?” Sociodemographic studies have shown that negative attitudes toward same-sex marriage from Black Americans is directly related to their level of religiosity. When religiosity is accounted for, they have the same attitudes as non-religious white Americans. Black Americans tend to be more religious. Religion is what fosters homophobia, not skin color.

“We all have President-elect Barack Obama to thank for motivating that demographic to enter into the political process.” Are we to presume “that demographic” has never been involved in the political process before?

“What about the millions of Catholic, Evangelical, Lutheran and other CA voters that supported prop 8?” I’m not sure where you’re getting these “millions.” There are fewer than one million Mormons in California yet they account for 48 percent of the Yes on 8 funding. No one has anything against Mormons. They do have a legitimate beef with Mormons who seek to take away their civil rights. I watched as my Mormon extended family members went from somewhat ambivalent attitudes about same-sex marriage to suddenly deciding it was the most urgent moral issue of our time after their church leaders told them it was. Frankly no one else really cares whether Mormons are brainwashed by their leaders. But when their brainwashing results in tangible consequences for a minority segment of the population, it becomes a concern for all.

“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.” Sorry if it seems whiney and childlike for 18,000 newly married couples to find out that their marriages are no longer valid. Sorry if people are outraged that a majority gets to vote on whether a minority group can continue to have equal rights and can amend the constitution to exclude them. The fact of the matter is that the election results have no effect whatsoever on your life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. What was at stake for the minority group? The right to marry. The right to form a family. The right to pursue happiness the way they see fit. If these rights were taken from you, you might (justifiably) throw a little tantrum of your own.

“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).” I did see former Steve Young fans burning their Steve Young memorabilia and denouncing his wife as a heretic and heathen for opposing Prop 8. But let’s move on.

“My bet is in 2012 God will wipe out this modern-day Sodom and Gomorrah (fingers crossed).” There you have it folks–Christianity at its finest. I’ll bet Jesus would say the same thing.

#3 David in LA on 11.09.08 at 9:06 pm

While pursuing redress in the courts and expressing support in public demonstrations will no doubt continue, I was wondering if it might not be worthwhile to put this back on the ballot for the next election cycle. An initiative takes less than a million signatures, even for a “Constitutional Amendment” like this one. It would obviously be possible. Voters who turned out to cast a vote for Obama might not turn out just to cast another vote for bigotry. Let the Mormons spend $20 million every couple of years fighting for inequality until reason prevails and they tire of the fight.

#4 susan on 11.09.08 at 9:52 pm

I think it is interesting that everyone is conveniently ignoring that the ” no on 8″ campaign raised millions more than the “yes on 8″ campaign. Seems like it was the gay activists that were trying to buy votes.

#5 Lara on 11.10.08 at 6:16 am

From what I’ve read, the amounts raised were approximately even, especially within the state. http://cbs5.com/local/proposition.8.spending.2.855582.html

Much of the out-of-state money for Prop 8 came from Utah. Much of the out-of-state money against came from the East Coast at the last minute.

#6 Greg on 11.10.08 at 10:44 am

At our ward (congreagation), we had several non-members show up to Church as a result of the support for proposition 8. They are now interested in learning more about the Church because it was courageous enough to defend traditional marriage and family, despite the critics and naysayers. This scene has been playing out all over Southern California, apparently. In my father’s ward in San Diego, they had 13 new “investigators” in their ward yesterday, and most came as a result of the prop 8 support and media coverage. In my brother’s ward in Corona, he said they had half a dozen new investigators yesterday. I think we are seeing some real miracles here.

Speaking of miracles, when I was calling on behalf of the proposition on Monday, I had three people call me back in the space of an hour and tell me to change their no response a yes response because after they hung up, they had a distinct impression that they were to vote Yes on 8. I really think the stunning election result was less about money and election efforts than it was about the will of a father in heaven.

#7 Calif Mormon on 11.10.08 at 11:14 am

Well, in our ward and in at least two others in my area, the missionaries say they are having a VERY hard time finding people to talk with since the Church got involved in supporting Prop 8 and we’ve had investigators leave as they’ve seen the escalation in political speech and action. I guess it depends on the community where you live.

#8 susan on 11.10.08 at 11:20 am

As of Nov. 6 (According to “Track the Money” in the LA times) the “No on 8″ campaign raised over 2 million more than the “Yes on 8″ campaign. I don’t call $2 million difference very even. Here are the numbers.

NO-$38,400,000 (rounded)

YES-$36,100,000(rounded)

NO-received $12,000,000 from out of state

YES-received $10,700,000 from out of state

By the way, a significant portion of that 10,700,000 came from Knights of Columbus, Focus on the Family and other non-religious organizations.

Additionally, the No on 8 campaign received a cool million from a single Utah donor.

I love how so many are trying to paint the homosexual community as a powerless minority. They are not. As we have seen, they are perfectly capable of organizing. They are perfectly capable of urging their ranks to donate money. Not to mention that there are hundreds of openly gay people in government. I just read yesterday that there are two openly gay high ranking officials in the LAPD and over 300 openly gay people holding elected office. Gay people have stature in the the entertainment industry as well as a good representation in the legal community. As I watched a Youtube video of a single Mormon silently scrubbing the words “Mormon Pig” off the outside walls of the LA Temple fence, I couldn’t help but wonder who is the real bigot? Who is trying to silence whom? I saw another Youtube video with the picture of another temple wall. The word LIAR scrawled on it with lipstick. The NO side keeps screaming they lied, they lied. The fact is, before this campaign even started the No side took the Yes side to court to prevent them from using the “Gay Marriage will be taught in the schools” argument. The court ruled it was an ACCURATE statment. The No side did not appeal. So who is really lying?

#9 Greg on 11.10.08 at 12:02 pm

I am in Santa Monica, and my parents are in San Diego North County. My brother is in Corona. In Southern California, the Church is getting a lot of interest from pro-family individuals that see the Church as standing up for what is right. We don’t really have any political speech at our meetings, that’s all organized outside. Maybe that’s a difference. I haven’t even heard proposition 8 mentioned from the pulpit, and our leadership has asked us to refrain from bringing in political topics.

#10 David on 11.10.08 at 12:43 pm

What happened to free speach and the ability for people to donate to any cause they feel appropriate. Gays can donate to the ACLU or any other PAC they deem appropriate. As for auditing the church I think that is the funniest thing I have ever heard. The church welcomes the audit and I think people will be surprised at how unpolitical it really is. The Catholic church is by far more politically active. I have been a member over 40 years and this is the first time the church has ever taken a position this strong in an election and that is just because it is such a basic moral issue.

#11 admin on 11.10.08 at 12:50 pm

Susan -

Knights of Columbus is a Catholic fraternal organization.

Focus on the Family is a Christian nonprofit organization that is hugely religious. (For more information about these large donors, see http://mormonsfor8.com/?p=154 .)

The $1,000,000 donated to the no on 8 folks was matched by $1,000,000 donated to yes on 8 by Alan Ashton.

And, as long as we’re talking individual donations, take a moment to check out how much money Elsa Prince donated to the Yes on 8 campaign. She didn’t make the million-dollar club, but at $650,000, she came close.

In the grand scheme of things, $2 million may sound like a lot of money, but as a percentage of the total amount you’ve reported as being donated on both sides, it’s small - not quite 3%.

#12 susan on 11.10.08 at 1:24 pm

I wonder if you would still feel like the difference was insignificant if the numbers were reversed. I’m sure $2 million dollars could by alot of TV or radio time. At any rate, the point is, this has in no way been unbalanced or unfair. If the No on 8 campaign failed to convince the people of their cause, it is not because they didn’t have money or power.

If anyone out there is tired of the hateful, nasty rhetoric being spewed by the prop 8 protestors, take a look at this. It serves to remind us all of what it means to truly be tolerant of others. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKfqLG9XIzg

#13 Nauseated on 11.10.08 at 3:42 pm

We can only hope that our “father in heaven” loves the rest of us all as much your church has shown love for us. Stay out of my life, as I stay out of yours!

Not so long ago, you were at the other end of this. Don’t you recall why you moved to Salt Lake?? How soon we forget…..

#14 Greg on 11.10.08 at 4:18 pm

Nauseated, why can’t you and your creative community (and I say that with utmost respect) come up with your own tradition? Heck, it might even be the envy of the heterosexual world. You would have no problem getting the state to recognize it as having the same impact as marriage. You have to realize that 2/3 of married people who voted were in favor of proposition 8. There is obviously something there that makes this big of a percentage feel this way. I don’t know why you continue to push so hard to infringe upon the tradition and beliefs of others when you could come up with your own new tradition, and it could be really great. In fact, I have already heard some in the gay community voice this very idea.

On a side note, I thought we were driven from Missouri (a slave state) because of our anti-slavery stance. At least, that is what prompted the extermination order by the governor. The growing Mormon population was pushing the state towards non-slave status.

#15 Nauseated on 11.10.08 at 5:35 pm

Unfortunately, being “creative” and coming up with our own “tradition” does not allow us the same rights recognized by State and Federal Laws. This is the reason we say no to the separate but equal argument. (See Civil rights movement 1960’s; they didn’t stand for it either)

I’m not going to argue your anti-slavery stance of the 1800’s (although funny, it was not until 1978 until blacks could hold church office). I was referring to the fact you had your rights taken away too (Property taken from you) and were driven out. Again, how quickly we forget!

By the way – Here are just a few of those protections we have been denied.

Hospital visitation. Married couples have the automatic right to visit each other in the hospital and make medical decisions. Same-sex couples can be denied the right to visit a sick or injured loved one in the hospital.

Social Security benefits. Married people receive Social Security payments upon the death of a spouse. Despite paying payroll taxes, gay and lesbian workers receive no Social Security survivor benefits – resulting in an average annual income loss of $5,528 upon the death of a partner.

Health insurance. Many public and private employers provide medical coverage to the spouses of their employees, but most employers do not provide coverage to the life partners of gay and lesbian employees. Gay employees who do receive health coverage for their partners must pay federal income taxes on the value of the insurance.

Estate taxes. A married person automatically inherits all the property of his or her deceased spouse without paying estate taxes. A gay or lesbian taxpayer is forced to pay estate taxes on property inherited from a deceased partner.

Retirement savings. While a married person can roll a deceased spouse’s 401(k) funds into an IRA without paying taxes, a gay or lesbian American who inherits a 401(k) can end up paying up to 70 percent of it in taxes and penalties.

Family leave. Married workers are legally entitled to unpaid leave from their jobs to care for an ill spouse. Gay and lesbian workers are not entitled to family leave to care for their partners.

Immigration rights. Bi-national families are commonly broken up or forced to leave the country to stay together. The reason: U.S. immigration law does not permit American citizens to petition for their same-sex partners to immigrate.

Nursing homes. Married couples have a legal right to live together in nursing homes. Because they are not legal spouses, elderly gay or lesbian couples do not have the right to spend their last days living together in nursing homes.

Home protection. Laws protect married seniors from being forced to sell their homes to pay high nursing home bills; gay and lesbian seniors have no such protection.

Pensions. After the death of a worker, most pension plans pay survivor benefits only to a legal spouse of the participant. Gay and lesbian partners are excluded from such pension benefits.

#16 Lara on 11.10.08 at 8:09 pm

Mormons did indeed suffer horrible persecution and were driven from the state of Missouri with an execution order from the governor. But I think it’s a bit misleading to say that it was because Mormons were anti-slavery and that’s why they were persecuted. People were becoming frightened because Mormons had a very closed, self-sufficient community that was growing rapidly and becoming strong politically. Mormons claimed it was their “promised land” and that it was their “God-given” entitlement, which didn’t go over very well among Missourians. There were also threats of violence of Mormons against non-Mormons (see Sidney Rigdon’s Salt Sermon). There’s more info at http://www.lds-mormon.com/tmpc.shtml. This is not justification for what happened to the Mormons in that state. It’s a very dark page in American history in my view. So is the Mountain Meadows massacre. So is the Mormon involvement in Prop 8.

Perhaps Mormonism might win a few already bigoted investigators into the waters of baptism with these actions, but they are also losing potentially many more people who are appalled by LDS involvement in Prop 8. Remember 48 percent of the state voted AGAINST Prop 8. Many other Americans who know very little about Mormonism except for the fact that Mitt Romney is one now associate the religion with brainwashing and bigotry. Good luck trying to get the missionaries into their doors.

#17 Allison on 11.10.08 at 8:34 pm

If you are going to actively campaign for a political cause, you should not have tax-exempt status. Period.

#18 Allison on 11.10.08 at 8:41 pm

why can’t you as a church make a distinction between legal marriage and spiritual marriage? we realize that your church would not recognize gay marriages as valid, but why deny gay people the legal status of marriage? do they not deserve the same rights in society? allow the secular world to have gay marriage. you would still be able to keep it out of your church if you so wish. and kindergartners would not be taught sex ed. that is ridiculous slander. all people deserve the dignity of equal rights.

#19 Lara on 11.11.08 at 7:36 am

The church already has a very strong distinction between legal and spiritual marriage. Marriages performed in the temple are viewed in a very different light from civil-only marriages. Mormons believe their temple marriages will last through the eternities while other marriages will end at death. Allison, like you, I don’t understand why legalized gay marriage is such a threat to the Mormon viewpoint. It would simply be treated as any other non-temple marriage in Mormonism. It wouldn’t change a thing about who is considered temple worthy and who isn’t.

#20 susan on 11.11.08 at 9:33 am

where to begin…Naus.-the benefits you list all fall under different categories. some fall under state law and some fall under federal law. the benefits that are controlled by state law, should reflect the law set out in Family Code Section 297.5 that says “Domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections and benefits” as married spouses. so if you are not receiving a benefit that falls under state law you have legal recourse.

As for the federal benefits, what we do in California does not change the fact that the federal government has defined marriage as between a man and a woman according to the DOMA. If you want federal benefits you will need to work for those on that level. why not ask Dianne Feinstein to put together a bill that provides that domestic partnerships receive the same protections and benefits as married spouses on the federal level?
Then gay couples can pay the same marriage penalty that everyone else does when they file their joint tax return.

Allison-Regarding tax exempt status. Are you sure you want every tax exempt organization that takes an interest in an issue (especially when they are operating within the confines of the law) to have their tax exempt status revoked. How about PTA’s…they get involved in political issues when they feel it involves their interests. Or do you just want to punish the Mormon church because individual mormons dared to speak up and donate money to a cause.(which as I have said before was millions less than what the No on 8 side raised.)

Lara–your comparison of the mountain meadow massacre and prop 8 is way off base. For starters the mountain meadow massacre was a group that went against what higher level leaders told them to do and then operated outside the law.

Prop 8 was democracy in action. Just because you don’t like the result you can’t start comparing it to a time in history that reflected people behaving in a lawless manner.

In my estimation, the people that have had a disregard for the law as of late are the prop 8 protestors. Check out the videos of all the protests. the police asked the crowds to disperse because it was an unlawful assembly, so the crowds rushed the police line.(They did not bother to follow the law and get a permit at the Long Beach protest, I don’t know about all the other ones.) They block traffic and create dangerous situations for others. A police officer was struck by a car while trying to put up barracades to protect the illegal assembly. Protestors have spit upon people that disagree with them .(assault) Protestors have written on walls.(vandalism)

Lara I’ve read your comments that you don’t approve of the vandalism, etc. but I wonder if you realize that your mormon bashing does not help reduce the lawless behavior.

You may not be aware of this, but according to 2005 FBI hate crime statistics there were more violent attacks on people because of their religion than because of sexual orientation.

#21 Lara on 11.11.08 at 11:49 am

Susan, I do agree that Mormons alone should not be targeted. I think people should study the donor lists and picket or boycott Focus on the Family, Knights of Columbus, and businesses, etc. that supported it. If black churches were behind the funding and groundwork, why not picket them too? Bigotry is bigotry, regardless of where it originates. The boycotts and demonstrations are ALSO part of democracy in action. I think it is okay to have demonstrations in front of Mormon temples, because it is obvious that Mormons played a large role in the groundwork and funding that helped to pass Prop 8. Once again, I do not support any vandalism or violence against these organizations. The LGBT advocates that I have talked to are in complete agreement with this. Peaceful demonstrations are to be expected, and Mormons brought this on themselves in my opinion. If people cross the line and cannot peacefully demonstrate, they will be fined or jailed.

#22 Nauseated - Even MORE on 11.11.08 at 11:49 am

Susan - Way to twist the facts in your favor!

86% of people the US identifies themselves as religious.
10% (est.) are gay.

2005 FBI hate crime statistics here -
16.0% victimized because a religious belief.
13.8 % were targeted because of sexual orientation.

BTW -
69.5 % of those victimized because of a religious belief were victims of an anti-Jewish bias.
98.1% of those victimized because of sexual orientation were victims of an anti-homosexual\bisexual bias.

Don’t you DARE make it out to look like YOU are the real victim here. You’ve never been run down in a car on the street by some guys just having fun because you are gay have you?!? No? Didn’t think so!

Seems a bit more clear when you have the facts.

#23 Nauseated - Even MORE on 11.11.08 at 11:50 am

Fact check welcome here: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/victims.htm

#24 Pephi on 11.11.08 at 11:51 am

I truly can’t believe that members of this church, or any church for that matter, donates thousands of dollars to a cause that bans two people who love each other from getting married. I don’t think that Jesus would be very happy with this type of behavior. Aren’t there better causes out there to donate this kind of money to? There are starving people out there!

#25 David in LA on 11.11.08 at 2:19 pm

“You may not be aware of this, but according to 2005 FBI hate crime statistics there were more violent attacks on people because of their religion than because of sexual orientation.”

Really?

According to the 2005 FBI hate crime statistics I found at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/table1.htm, there were 1,227 hate crime incidents attacking religion (mostly anti-Jewish and anti-Islamic), and 1,017 hate crime incidents attaching sexual orientation.

The same statistics state that there were almost twice as many “known offenders” (individuals about whom some characteristic was known) initiating the hate crime incidents over sexual orientation (1138) as over religion (580).

Now, there might be many reasons for this, but the one that occurs to me as being most likely is that most of the religious hate crime incidents consisted of some anonymous coward scrawling a swastika (or “Mormon Pig”) on a wall outside a place of worship, while most sexual orientation hate crime incidents consisted of a physical assault against an individual. In the case of a stealth graffiti attack, nothing is known about the perpetrator; in the case of a physical assault, some information is likely to be gleaned about the attacker.

If that is the case, your claim of “more violent attacks on people because of their religion than because of their sexual orientation” is likely false. But perhaps you were looking at a different table?

If we consult a breakdown at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/table4.htm, it seems that my hypothesis is correct: 454 violent incidents (simple assault, aggravated assault, intimidation) over religion, vs 811 over sexual orientation.

Looks like you were incorrect.

#26 susan on 11.11.08 at 2:55 pm

Wow, here is a scary video clip from the Palm Springs Local TV News. One of the “peaceful” protests turned ugly. I just read an update and the woman that was attacked is pressing charges.

http://gatorgop.blogspot.com/2008/11/crazy-lefties-attack-old-lady-at-no-on.html

#27 Lara on 11.11.08 at 7:34 pm

What’s really scary is reading the nutty right-wing comments below Susan’s posted clip.

My favorite: “The only way to handle bullies is to beat them down to where they will never get up again. These leftists had best be careful: many of us have military background and we are willing to fight to save our country. Not only that, we exercise our right to bear arms- if they keep it up, they might awaken the dragon to a terrible resolve. Most of us have the stomach for it! do they? They’d best be careful, fratricidal Civil Wars are the most cruel. See South Carolina during the Revolutionary War.”

Egads. Where are the sane people?

#28 David in LA on 11.11.08 at 8:24 pm

They shouldn’t have knocked the cardboard cross out of that lady’s hands and stomped it, and she’s certainly within her rights to press charges.

What’s really scary at that site, however, is how much hatred the “religious” and “righteous” express in the comments section.

#29 susan on 11.11.08 at 8:29 pm

Lara,

I would think you would understand that comment boards do not represent everyone’s views. Just thought all you open minded people would be interested in seeing what is happening out there. the link I provided is merely of a local newscast. I know how hateful that may seem but anyone can post comments.

I’m not quite sure why there is so much agitation about the hate crime statistics. The Facts are clear. People commit violence for many reasons. Religious people get attacked and homosexuals get attacked. Are you seriously trying to minimize the crimes committed on religious people. Just because you are homosexual and have not experienced any crimes that religious people have experienced doesn’t make them any less serious. (By the way the information I cited came from an article on the website Boxturtle. If it was incorrect, sorry. I assumed a gay website would provide accurate information regarding this topic. I didn’t check the stats with the FBI myself. )

the real point is, if prop 8 lost, do you think all religious people would scream for protests. Gather together at all the gay bars, gay clubs, gay gathering spots and scrawl “Vile ____” or “____ Pigs”

This approach is going to backfire. I’ve already seen the newscast I linked to popping up all over the internet.

Oh and, Nauseated. I don’t have to make it look like religious people are the victims. The prop 8 protesters are doing that all by themselves.

#30 David in LA on 11.11.08 at 9:08 pm

“By the way the information I cited came from an article on the website Boxturtle. If it was incorrect, sorry. I assumed a gay website would provide accurate information regarding this topic. I didn’t check the stats with the FBI myself.”

It was incorrect because you didn’t cite information from boxturtlebulletin.com. Their articles consistently argue that the FBI statistics under-report hate crimes for sexual orientation. You will not find anywhere on that site your statement that “there were more violent attacks on people because of their religion than because of sexual orientation.” That statement was a lie, and your claim that you were merely passing along information from boxturtlebulletin.com is another lie.

#31 susan on 11.11.08 at 10:04 pm

Wow David. you don’t need to be so hostile.

I admit I have not read every article in boxturtle regarding Hate crime Statistics. this afternoon I merely did a search for hate crime data. Boxturtle popped up and I decided to check that out to avoid accusations of choosing skewed data. It was an article about how some groups try to skew the data by leaving out “intimidation” statistics. Here’s what they wrote.

“But let’s go ahead and humor them a little bit. Let’s remove “intimidation” from the totals and see what happens:”

Hate Crime Incidents: All reported incidents Hate Crime Incidents: Minus “Intimidation”
Race 4,691 56% 3,165 54%
Religion 1,314 16% 974 17%
Sexual Orientation 1,171 14% 870 15%
Ethnicity 1,144 14% 782 13%
Disability 53 <1% 45 <1%
Multiple Bias 7 <1% 5 <1%
TOTAL 8,380 5,841

you’ll notice that whether they calculated with or without the incidents of intimidation…cases of religious attacks were still higher.

Again, I’m not trying to minimize violence perpetrated because of sexual orientation. I’m just pointing out that anyone can be a victim of a hate crime. Homosexuals aren’t the only ones.

So, you see, I did not lie. i simply read a single article that I thought provided some accurate data. Next time I’ll make sure and read every article on a topic so as to not miss any detail that could cause you to accuse me of being a liar.

#32 Lara on 11.11.08 at 10:06 pm

Susan, the difference is that the Yes on 8 people had nothing to lose. Of course they’d be disappointed if it didn’t pass. But their lives would go on relatively unchanged. It’s like seeing your favorite sports team lose. It’s disappointing, but you get over it.

Now try to consider for a moment that the general public suddenly considered Mormon temple marriages to be blasphemous (a step toward Godhood) and decided to outlaw them. You, as part of the minority 2 percent of California’s population, would have to depend on benevolent-minded Californians to speak out on behalf of your right to live your life as you see fit, even if they weren’t Mormons themselves and never planned to have a temple marriage. Now, if you lost this right by a majority vote and the California constitution was amended to exclude Mormon temple marriages, would you simply throw up your hands and say, “Well, I tried my best. The majority has spoken.” I’m trying to show you that when something very important to you involving YOUR rights and YOUR perception of happiness and the good life happens, it becomes much more important than when voting on someone else’s life and someone else’s happiness.

Now, I know you are going to continue to insist that you had plenty on the line in this vote: children, gay agenda, potential lawsuits, etc. But there’s really no comparison here. That would be like an Evangelical telling you that your temple marriage violated their “right” to protect their children from those who would blaspheme God. You would not be able to understand how that loosely-connected, peripheral-at-best “right” was able to trump your much-more-important right to marry. Please don’t tell me you would not react emotionally if such a thing were to happen. I would hope that you would react very emotionally and I would be right out there with you boycotting, picketing, and screaming in defense of my own marriage.

Oh, and growing up Mormon, the only persecution I ever experienced was when my friend and I got in a fight and she said she was going home to wipe the “Mormon” dust from her car… a far cry from the persecution an “out” gay or lesbian will experience in a lifetime. A study of anti-gay harassment over a six-month period showed 37% of respondents reported experiencing anti-gay verbal harassment; 11 percent reported discrimination; 5 percent reported physical violence. High-school students - 94% hear anti-gay epithets frequently, which is rarely or never confronted by school officials. One in 10 has been physically harassed based on real or perceived sexual-orientation. Another study showed 34% LGBTs have been turned away from renting or buying a home due to discrimination, 66% report job discrimination. More discrimination is reported in the legal and healthcare industries. The list goes on and on.

My support goes to the LGBT community because I can see how far and deep the hatred and discrimination goes. I thought I learned about loving my neighbor and doing unto others as I would have done to me from my religion. It pains me to see the Mormon Church so visible in this anti-gay movement. I know you think I am fueling the Mormon bashing, Susan, but maybe it is helpful for other people to see that not all Mormons agree with the official church stance.

#33 susan on 11.11.08 at 10:47 pm

David,

here is the link if you care to check for yourself.

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/03/25/255

Lara,

I appreciate the toned down rhetoric. May I just say, that i have never endorsed crimes against homosexuals. The debate here is whether it is appropriate to make a distinction between homosexual couples and heterosexual couples when it comes to marriage.

many people argue that it is no different than the fight for civil rights, but I disagree. Reasonable people agree that it is wrong to make a distinction because of race. But do we make distinctions because of gender? Absolutely, all the time. We provide separate bathrooms for men and women. We provide separate lockerooms for men and women. We have different physical requirements for men and women entering the armed forces or the police department or the fire department. why? Because men and women ARE DIFFERENT. They are not “similarly situated” That does not mean that they should be denied protections or benefits under the law. It just means that differences exist and some distinctions are appropriate.

I believe a similar difference exists with heterosexual and homosexual couples. These couples are not the same. In fact the differences are many. When the New Jersey Courts ruled on the issue of same sex marriage, they accepted this argument that same-sex and heterosexual couples are not “similarly situated”
In fact, the New Jersey supreme court ruled that gay couples should have benefits and protections but they did not find marriage to be a fundamental right. Additionally they admitted that it was not their place to legislate, and accordingly ruled that the legislature should put protections in place. The court suggested either changing the definition of marriage or providing for civil unions that had the same benefits as married couples. (similar to what we already have in California)

My view is that a distinction between same-sex relationships and heterosexual marriage is appropriate.

I know that not everyone will agree with me and I also understand why they feel that way. But do you understand how Prop 8 supporters feel. I haven’t seen the No side trying very hard to see things from anyone else’s perspective.

#34 Jim on 11.12.08 at 12:29 am

Voting no on Prop 8 was seen as infringing on the beliefs of traditional marriage groups. It seems to me that someone could create a gay marriage bill or amendment to the constitution and probably have that pass fairly easily because it does not force marriage to be changed to accept a new definition. Many people including many mormons are not against gays receiving benefits that married couples receive, they just do not want marriage hijacked and redefined to mean something ands be forced to accept it. And it would not be a separate but equal thing, it would be marriage and it’s definition and gay marriage and it’s definition, each with their own rights and benefits as they serve their own purpose in society, not being a discriminatory issue if some one chooses to believe either one or both. There would be a fight but I bet no where near the fight of Prop 8 and would pass rather easily. Right after the Prop 8 statement add “and only gay marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

#35 Marcus Hamilton on 11.12.08 at 12:43 am

Susan,

Well, I for one having already chimed in here am wholly in support of the ‘real’ solution here. I’ll cover that first, then delve into the uglier truths.

The reality is that the Federal and State Governments are in violation of the ‘new’ view on things, with the ‘Separate But Equal Isn’t’ view, as well as the Separation of Church and State view. Marriage has evolved into a fusion of contract and religious law, and should retain only one of the two statuses. Since every right wing person I hear from and watch/listen to demands that the ‘traditional definition of marriage’ be retained, fine. You can have it. Marriage should only ever be considered a religious institution.

Civil Union, Civil Partnership, Domestic Union, whatever, is the contractual, legal definition that should matter. When you get the license/certificate from the City/County seat for signature and enaction during your marriage, it will now be known as a Civil Union Certificate, and it will be the doctrine under which all State and Federal rights, priveleges, and monetary considerations are formed. Retroactively, all existing marriage certificates shall be converted into such documents, and any church will have the right to marry whom they choose, when and how they choose.

Honestly, I HIGHLY doubt that any religious group or organization will be happy with this, since it would ‘diminish’ and ‘cheapen’ their Holy Contract/Covenant with God by making at least part of their marriage just like what the gays get. It’s the only viable solution there is, even before the Prop 8 discussion happened. But somehow this compromise, since it really is the only legal recourse that won’t suffer from immediate, warranted fighting on both sides, won’t be permitted to happen. Sorry, but my optimism that any sort of virtuous legislation is simply impossible in this country. It takes time, commit, money, fighting, blood and loss to make any headway nowadays. That’s not the world I want to live in, but that’s the one my parents handed me, so I have to deal with it.

To other topics

Now, let’s be fair here. Sure, the stats posted earlier show a slightly greater level of hate crime impact on the religious crowd. But 2% isn’t something I’d give anything but a passing notice to in statistics like this. Gays have been persecuted for centuries longer than Mormonism has existed. There are well documented and authenticated/respected accounts back from the Middle Ages, if we leave the Bible out of it. If we don’t, then THOUSANDS of years have had gays legislated against, even religiously. Sorry, but to say that we have to understand the plight of the Mormons on this one is both absurdly disingenuous as well as incredibly hollow. Trying to ‘understand’ this plight of the Mormons is a lot like demanding that the gazelle understand the plight of the lion that’s consuming it, piece by piece. Sure the lion is hungry and needs to survive, but that’s incredibly cold comfort to the one being consumed. And yes, I view this as having been incredibly predatory. Unrepentantly predatory for most of the bloggers and those leaving comments out there, in fact.

#36 David in LA on 11.12.08 at 4:52 am

Susan, thank you for the link, it confirms what I said: nowhere in the article you cited does it say what you claimed — “there were more violent attacks on people because of their religion than because of sexual orientation.” The article was a response to a claim by “The Traditional Values Coalition and Concerned Women of America” which said “They claim that [the hate crimes for sexual orientation in 2005] is an epidemic, [but] one third of the ‘hate crime’s statistics’ are for ‘name-calling’”. The article merely pointed out that the FBI’s definition for ‘intimidation’ was more serious than ‘name calling’. It also pointed out that the proposed federal legislation applied only to violent crimes, and did not include vandalism or intimidation, two categories which are included in “hate crime” statistics.

Using THAT ARTICLE’s definition for violent crime, the 2005 FBI statistics which can be found at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/table4.htm show that violent hate crimes for sexual orientation are much worse than violent hate crimes for religion. The relevant numbers are:

Religion

Murder 0
Rape 0
Simple Assault 81
Aggravated Assault 33

Total 114

Sexual Orientation

Murder 0
Rape 1
Simple Assault 333
Aggravated Assault 177

Total 511

Almost 5 times as many VIOLENT crimes against people because of sexual orientation than VIOLENT crimes against people because of religion.

The overall hate crime statistics cited in the article include “vandalism” (775 incidents for religion, 275 incidents for sexual orientation), which is what makes the overall numbers higher for religion. The article also links to the same Table 4 data that I’m using.

I’m going to assume that you read the article and simply didn’t understand that not all hate crimes represent violence against people. The article never states or implies that all hate crimes represent violence against people, and in fact mentions that “intimidation” and “property crimes” are two types of non-violent hate crime which would not have been covered by the proposed legislation being discussed.

Now that you do understand it, I’m sure you’ll stop repeating the lie that 2005 FBI statistics show more violence against people because of religion than because of sexual orientation, and the lie that a gay website is making this claim. If one of your fellow Prop 8 supporters repeats one of those lies, you now have the facts, and can set the record straight.

#37 susan on 11.12.08 at 10:34 am

I’m going to say just one more thing on the whole hate crimes issue. Please understand, I do not minimize the plight of homosexuals.

I have just tried to point out that homosexuals are not the only ones that face hate crimes. And it is completely unfair to minimize the plight of everyone else just because you understand the homosexual plight on a personal level.

I face discrimination on a daily basis. We are religious people. My children are multi-racial and one of them is hearing impaired. My husband is physically handicapped. And yes we have had to fight for rights. We had to file suit just to make his company provide a bathroom that he could use at work. (He had to leave the building and go to a nearby gas station with a wheelchair accesible restroom.)

His company then proceeded to create such a hostile work environment that he had to quit. And while they had to pay punitive damages it still caused a great deal of turmoil in our lives. So please stop acting like no one else could possibly understand discrimination or hate crimes.

Just because homosexuals have had to face difficult things throughout history does not make it OK for them to break the law. Unlawful assembly, intimidation of religious people, assault, verbal abuse…this is the prop8 protest arsenal. It is not democracy in action. Getting a permit and protesting peaceably is democracy in action. Defacing private property and all the other garbage is not.