Proposition 8 and Commandment 9
By MikeinWeHo
By now we’re all tired of discussing Prop 8, the constitutional amendment to eliminate same-sex marriage in California. Lines have been drawn, millions raised, and those with strong feelings on either side are unlikely to be swayed.
But what of political strategy? Should Latter-day Saints take the high road or play to win? The airwaves in California are filled with ads for both sides. The pro-SSM side has focused almost exclusively on the fairness argument. The No On 8 campaign asserts it’s unfair to discriminate against gay couples, and domestic partnerships are not good enough. One may or may not agree, but the message has been straightforward.
The Yes On 8 campaign has taken a very different approach. The ads discount the fairness argument because gays will continue to have domestic partnership protections similar to marriage. Yes On 8 focuses on other consequences if gay marriage is not eliminated.
Problem is, some of the statements in these ads are known to be false. Let’s look at one example. The first Yes on 8 ad states “Churches could lose their tax exempt status.” This is beyond speculative distortion, it is simply not true.
What shall we conclude? Is it appropriate for well-meaning Latter-day Saints to pay for untrue and misleading TV ads, or does this constitute a violation of the 9th Commandment?
That is an interesting perspective, of which I didn’t think of. I suppose it would only be inappropriate if the ‘well meaning Latter-day Saint’ who paid for the ad was ignorant of the facts. I am sure there are some out there that don’t take the time to find out if all the assertions for the side they fight for are true or not. If that is the case, shame on them, but they cannot be held accountable to the 9th Commandment. On the other hand, those that front enough money to support a radio or TV ad should definitely be smarter with their money, but we have all seen a lot of stupid choices regarding ones personal finances -fo-shizzle!
Comment by dallske — October 24, 2008 @ 4:56 am
D&C 10:25 Yea, he saith unto them: Deceive and lie in wait to catch, that ye may destroy; behold, this is no harm. And thus he flattereth them, and telleth them that it is no sin to lie that they may catch a man in a lie, that they may destroy him.
Comment by cyclingred — October 24, 2008 @ 6:59 am
See here for a dissenting view.
Comment by Peter LLC — October 24, 2008 @ 7:23 am
I don’t see why it’s beyond speculative distortion. It’s pretty speculative, but entirely reasonable. If marriage is a right, then any church that unfairly discriminates in that right might be subject to the force of the law. Is it so hard to imagine that in 20 years the church might lose it’s tax exempt status if it continues to not allow gay sealings in the temple? The chain of events from Proposition 8 to defining marriage federally as a guaranteed ‘right’ isn’t too speculative. The courts in California basically decided so. If Obama wins the election and the supreme court gets more members of that mindset, the supreme court could side with those in California. Yes, it is speculative, but not dishonest - entirely possible. Some might doubt this outcome, but that’s for each voter to choose.
You can’t just call someone a liar if you disagree with their perspective, even if it is highly speculative.
Oh, and the prophet is pushing this measure - which might mean that there’s something to the speculation. Of course, I shouldn’t use that line of reasoning, should I?
Comment by ZSorenson — October 24, 2008 @ 7:29 am
I don’t live in California so I don’t have personal experience about all that is going on there. I have read some things that members and local leaders are doing that I find disturbing.
Could there be a parallel here with Prop 8 and another situation in the LDS history? Leaders at the top take a positioin on an issue. By the time it gets to local leaders and they are on the ground it gets perverted and goes way over board. I am referring here to Mountain Meadows.
I think Morris Thurston makes a good point when he says he thinks members should hold them selves to the talking points of the church.
Comment by CYCINGRED — October 24, 2008 @ 7:36 am
BTW-If the concern is about the Tax Exempt status it is no longer a “moral” issue and is now a financial issue.
Comment by CYCINGRED — October 24, 2008 @ 7:39 am
so we decide to discriminate against homosexuals to save our tax exempt status? True or not makes no sense! It’s just plain ‘ol rude what our church is doing.
Comment by DoubleL — October 24, 2008 @ 7:46 am
I’m in the camp of believing that we are not to become organized in any political platform as a Church. It’s one of the things that appealed to me when I converted- that the Church neither promotes or endorses any political platform. Whatever political cause individual Mormons give their time and money to are none of my concern and should be decided by those individuals without backlash from the pulpit. Getting involved on a stake level and pressuring members to vote one way or another is dead wrong, in my book. Paying for and supporting ads that are misleading or plain wrong is compounding the offense.
Comment by Kimberly — October 24, 2008 @ 8:25 am
From what I understand, it’s about more than tax-exempt status, it could also lose the ability to issue marriage licenses at all.
Comment by SilverRain — October 24, 2008 @ 8:34 am
Also—the church has never claimed to not get involved in political platforms, it only does not endorse a particular party or candidate.
Comment by SilverRain — October 24, 2008 @ 8:35 am
Thank you for that link, Peter LLC.
Comment by Stephanie — October 24, 2008 @ 8:35 am
#9 I don’t know about all states but where I have lived marriage licenses are not issued by any church. They are issued by the state. A member of the clergy simply peforms the ceremony.
Comment by CYCINGRED — October 24, 2008 @ 8:37 am
Peter LLC,
I actually don’t find Blake’s tax-exempt argument terribly convincing. Yes, the Church could conceivably lose its tax-exempt status of SSM is legalized and the Church doesn’t perform it, but by the same logic, it could lose its tax exemption for not permitting gays in a civil union to run its Institute programs. Note that I don’t think either is terribly likely–you would have to stretch Bob Jones University to get to the first, and I don’t know how you would get to the second–but I frankly don’t think the tax-exempt argument is a good one.
That said, it is pretty intricate and (potentially) scary. So Mike, even though it’s pretty unlikely, I don’t know that it is lying–it strikes me as a bad argument, but one that is at least as valid as anything McCain or Obama says about the other’s record.
Of course, I haven’t watched the ads (pro or con). And I have no intention of watching them. And I doubt I’ll accidentally see one, inasmuch as it would be a huge waste of money for the pro- or anti-amendment groups to spend money on ads airing on the East Coast.
Comment by Sam B. — October 24, 2008 @ 8:39 am
from what I understand we get sealed in the temple… let the states marry us and the temple can seal us. I know that’s how it is done is some eurpean countries.
marriage is not religious. Two hetrosexual atheists that go to the courthouse will still get… that’s right married.
Comment by DoubleL — October 24, 2008 @ 8:40 am
I was reading an article on the Washington Post website- it said that of the $25 million dollars raised to support Prop 8, 30 to 40 percent of it came from the Mormon church. Even 30% of 25 million dollars is an astounding chunk of change.
Because the Church’s official position is against gay marriage, I would actually be surprised if they didn’t support Prop 8- I mean, temple marriage is a huge part of the Mormon faith and they feel that might be threatened. And you don’t get to choose where your tithing money goes, and so if the ads are deceitful, there is really nothing you can do about it.
But I have to say, if I was a tithing Mormon, and I knew that much money was going to fight gay marriage, in a horrible economic crisis, with people losing jobs, health insurance, their homes, I would be wondering about the priorities. Love the sinner, but hate the sin enough to pay it away with about $7.5 million dollars…. I couldn’t stomach it. Of course, I’m not sure if that money is coming from tithing, but I can’t imagine where else it would be coming from. Maybe that’s a wrong assumption on my part.
Comment by sophia*rising — October 24, 2008 @ 8:45 am
If the church looses its tax exempt status, what does that really mean for the church? Does that dissolve the church? Do we call the missionaries home, close down the temples, and throw up our hands and say we tried but it just didn’t work out? I’m not that worried, are you?
Comment by Anna — October 24, 2008 @ 8:46 am
This is most likely not the right place to even be posting this, considering the topic of todays blog. However, it is the first website I have come across that is - to date - active and not abandoned according to resources I have been in search of for the past 3 years.
I was not raised LDS. I was baptized at the age of 24 and was married just this past year. Not being raised in the church, one is left with a lack of understanding of how to truly live in daily life as a housewife. Last night my husband and I listed out all of my chores of maintaining the home, and after such he looked at me and stated “No wonder why you have considered polygamy in the past!”. Yep… so true. So true…
But seeing that we should obey the law of land and polygamy isn’t an option, I recognize it as an opportunity to become more efficient and more fully grown as a woman in all areas.
After 3 years of searching for resources to help guide me through these challenges and coming to dead ends every which I way turn, I am this close…this close (pinching fingers to a really tiny level) of creating an entire new career beyond my obligations as a wife! With no finishing schools present with real woman guiding the way, with no large active resources and women’s circles to be of daily support in going through the same challenges together, after having a society teach that a house wife isn’t a career and a profession in and of itself, I am thinking really really hard about taking all of this… my process of becoming a real wife, to a national level - using media and the feminist movement to bring back the profession of being a genuine and real wife. I’m talking books, active websites (that are similar too but are not the submissive wife project that is totally insane…as they require pure trust in someone that is inevitable another man that isn’t your husband guiding your life! It is all done in secrecy from your husband and that is insane! ), I am talking a potential broadcast much like “the nanny” but is actually a woman going into the home teaching the wife to be a real wife…
Can you sense my frustration???
Now, if any of you know of such resources that are active daily for women such as myself, I would be so grateful if you would point me in the right direction. And if not, then what do you think about my idea? Do you think it intriguing enough to gather a following?
I am at a cross roads, and determined to find a way. Even if I have to make it in order to help myself, and others.
love,
idahogirly
Comment by idahogirly — October 24, 2008 @ 8:49 am
sophia*rising - I looked up that article. I think it was a bit misleading (or just didn’t word the sentence well). The church hasn’t used tithing dollars to fund prop 8 but has asked individual Mormons to donate. Donor Groups Identified
Comment by Stephanie — October 24, 2008 @ 8:58 am
Theoretically, anything COULD happen, and therefore COULD be true. It might be such a remote possibility that it some might say it is an silly thing to suggest (like “Gentically enhanced killer bees trained by Hugo Chavez could attack our new president on inauguration day”) But ultimately, no “could” statement is absolutely false.
And yes, I do think the argument about tax exempt status probably falls into the silly category.
Comment by Euclid — October 24, 2008 @ 8:59 am
#15 - The money is coming from Mormons, not the Mormon Church. This isn’t tithing we are talking about; it’s money from members.
Mike, I second Sam’s #13. I loathe many of the arguments that are being made as weak and hyperbolic, but there are some that are excellent and others that, given our history with the US Government, aren’t as far-fetched as many are saying. I’m not sure they are likely, but I certainly think they are possible down the road.
The old adage that the only thing that is constant is the certainty of change applies equally to politics and constitutional law. What was unthinkable to most people 50 years ago (even 20 years ago) is accepted today. That alone is an excellent argument for taking things with a grain of salt and realizing that “speculation” and “potential” really do have a legitimate place in this type of discussion. Some of the arguments are a bit like gazing into the future, but if people we believe are prophets, seers and revelators are doing the gazing . . . I tend to cut them a little slack.
Comment by Ray — October 24, 2008 @ 9:06 am
Peter LLC (and others)
Nothing in the link posted supports the claim that the LDS church is in any way liable to lose its tax-exempt status if it refuses to conduct same-sex marriage.
American churches have First Amendment protections as to what rites they do and don’t perform. That’s why some American churches can (and do) refuse to perform interracial marriages, interfaith marriages… and they still keep their tax-exempt status, despite the fact that, for most of us, it’s quite illegal to discriminate against Americans based on race or religion.
That’s also why Massachusetts churches (including the LDS Church in Massachusetts) has been able to legally refuse to conduct same-sex marriages for the past 5 years… again, without the tiniest threat to their tax-exempt status. The 1st Amendment protects the LDS church, and its right to choose what rites it will and won’t perform in its temples.
(Please note that the 1st Amendment religious freedoms and protections enjoyed by churches, such as the LDS Church, are of an order of magnitude greater than those available to commercial businesses–such as wedding photographers and fertility doctors–which are subject to anti-discrimination statutes that are not applicable to houses of faith. Also note that the churches’ right to discriminate according to their faith traditions far oustrip those rights enjoyed by educational institutions–even religious schools, like Bob Jones University–to discriminate without tax implications. For example, at the same time that Bob Jones University lost its tax exempt status (in 1975) for barring interracial dating, the LDS Church was in absolutely no tax danger for refusing to install blacks in its clergy. Then, as now, American churches enjoy unparalleled legal freedom to conduct the rites it wishes to perform, and not conduct the rites it does not wish to perform. The LDS Church is very well aware of this, which, given the contrary ads its running, puts the LDS Church at great peril of violating the Ninth Commandment, as suggested above.)
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
Comment by Patrick Meighan — October 24, 2008 @ 9:06 am
Um……
If the church is really concerned about all the things they claim to be concerned about they should be fighting against the anti-discrimination laws and not prop 8. Not one of these scary cases was decided on the basis of SSM (not even the MA adoption case). And saying so at this point is either ignorance or malice. Take your pick.
Comment by Not Ophelia — October 24, 2008 @ 9:07 am
what’s so bad about the church paying taxes? At least in Utah, the church is a HUGE contributor to economic situations, including being a draw to mo’s who come to the heart of “zion,” not to mention being a fairly huge employer in SLC. I think where the church has as significant an impact on local economy as it does in the jell-o belt, it SHOULD be taxed.
Comment by hero — October 24, 2008 @ 9:09 am
Silverrain, no. Issue marriage licences? Huh? The state issues marriage licenses. Are you saying the state will refuse to issue Marriage licenses to people planning on being married in the temple because the place the marriage will be held won’t marry gay couples? Never happen.
We have precedent. The Mormon church was not ever threatened with this back from, uh what? 63-78 when race was a protected status and black people certainly could not get married in temples, or even participate in any temple rites (maybe baptism for the dead?). In fact, this current issue has pretty much the exact same set of circumstances (protected class–Church pretty blatanly discriminates against same protected class.) What legal fallout was there? None. Well individual actors started refusing to let BYU sports teams play, but that’s not a Governmental matter, and not directly church related. Recall? This whole argument seems to rest on the very shaky ground “things could change…….” uh, yeah. In many unforseen ways.
I just looked at the Prop on 8 ad that has a couple of parents outraged that their child was forced to look at a book about same-sex couples–it acknowledged that such exist. I say, so what! You can still teach your children your own rules, why insist so loudly and forcefully that the state be required to follow along? What’s the matter with a child being told by a teacher that Johnny has two mommies, in book form. SHould the teacher make Johnny with two mommies shut his little mouth in class about his living situation right now? Why? What is the difference in the situation? I say by taking it you’re harming the children already living in same sex households.
As to tax exempt status, Bob Jones University lost its tax exempt status, not the fundamentalist religion that runs it. It lost its status because it accepted state money but wouldn’t play by the state’s rules. (”Public Policy”) So, I do see a scenario where BYU could lose tax-exempt status,–for considering gay married couples to be breaking the honor code, say, by behaving the same as straight married couples; but under the Bob Jones precedent, it would be the school, not, not the Mormon church whose tax status would be in jeopardy. And it would be in jeopardy because it accepts public tax dollars. So, yes, the ads are lying.
THe Yes on 8 people could run ads saying that schools that accepted public funds and discriminated against married gay couples could lose their tax status, but that doesn’t have the same punch.
Comment by djinn — October 24, 2008 @ 9:24 am
Oh, yeah, this whole issue deals with marriage as a protected class, which prop 8 won’t even overturn, as far as I can see.
Comment by djinn — October 24, 2008 @ 9:26 am
Is it so hard to imagine that in 20 years the church might lose it’s tax exempt status if it continues to not allow gay sealings in the temple?
Well, once we get Official Declaration 3 (”The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not start this practice. . . .”), then everything will be hunky-dory.
I think. Sort of.
Comment by Mark N. — October 24, 2008 @ 9:29 am
Also please have a look at the ofiicial IRS pdf (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf) a “tax guide for Churches and Religious Organizations.” On page three there is a brief summary on what qualifies tax exempt status.
One point states, “no substantial part of its activity may be attempting to influence legislation.” Openly supporting Prop 8 definitely puts a church’s tax exempt status at risk.
But even further, another bullet point states, “the organization’s purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy.” When public policy deems “gay-marriage” as appropriate, a church is risking tax exempt status but not supporting it. And I can guarantee you that there will be plenty of gay-marriage advocates trying this in the courts.
Comment by Kalon — October 24, 2008 @ 9:30 am
Thanks for the civilized comments, everyone. Please read #20 carefully because Patrick says it better than I can. Churches cannot lose their tax exempt status if Prop 8 fails. This is simply untrue.
The ads don’t say “Hypothetically, in 50 years, if the First Amendment is repealed, regardless of what happens with Prop 8, churches could lose their tax exempt status…..”
The ads clearly assert this could be a direct consequence of how a No vote on Prop 8.
And that, my friends, ain’t true.
How do you define lie?
Comment by MikeInWeHo — October 24, 2008 @ 9:30 am
Sorry that last “but” should have been a “by”. And the link seems to have messed up. I wish this forum had a preview button. Oh well.
Comment by Kalon — October 24, 2008 @ 9:34 am
Kalon:
How do you guarantee that? Most gay people I know are ok with churches believing what they want because that’s all they want themselves. The issue isn’t “my church won’t let me get married”. It is ” my GOVERNMENT won’t let me get married”.
Comment by DoubleL — October 24, 2008 @ 9:38 am
Re 20, 27:
Yes the first ammendment protects the church from having to perform gay-marriages. But it has nothing to do with taxes. See the irs about that.
Comment by Kalon — October 24, 2008 @ 9:38 am
Lying isn’t very good PR either…….
Comment by Not Ophelia — October 24, 2008 @ 9:39 am
DoubleL:
Just to be clear, I was guaranteeing that somebody will try to strip the church of its tax exempt status, not that he/she will try to make the church accept same-sex marriage.
Comment by Kalon — October 24, 2008 @ 9:43 am
Re 31:
I believe it is the you tube video to which you link that lies. In fact same-sex marriage has already affected school. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,436961,00.html
Comment by Kalon — October 24, 2008 @ 9:48 am
Kaylon,
There’s a huge debate right now about whether churches are tax-exempt by legislative grace of by constitutional fiat. Both sides have good arguments.
And the Church’s involvement in Prop. 8 does absolutely nothing to put its tax-exempt status at risk. “Substantial” is a term of art; even if the Church itself were spending millions of dollars on promoting the amendment, I doubt that would be a significant portion of the Church’s budget. Moreover, as big as California is, it only has a small portion of the Church’s membership. SSM has not been mentioned in my ward, to the best of my knowledge, and I’ll bet that’s true in the vast majority of the wards throughout the Church.
Tax-exempt status is a red herring by both sides. Yes, the Church could (maybe, depending on how the constitutional argument plays out) lose its tax-exempt status, but SSM would not be a proximate cause. It would take a number of intervening steps before that could remotely happen. Patrick’s analysis is pretty spot-on.
Comment by Sam B. — October 24, 2008 @ 9:54 am
re: 33
So? Parents giving permission for their kids to go on a field trip to see their teacher married, isn’t the same thing as prop 8 requiring the schools to teach about gay marriage.
Like I said way back in 21 — if you don’t like the fact that gays do live in our society, maybe you should go for a proposition to change the laws that allow them to exist outside the closet at all. Otherwise, well, they are queer and they are here and they do have kids and do work at jobs and do live in your neighborhood, and are parents in your PTA. And you are going to have to deal with it.
Or maybe the bigots of the world feel second class citizenship is the next best thing to a closet? Because that’s what prop 8 affords them — second class marriage.
Comment by Not Ophelia — October 24, 2008 @ 10:04 am
Kalon: I guess I’m with hero #22. I don’t see an issue with the church losing it’s tax-exempt status.
Comment by DoubleL — October 24, 2008 @ 10:09 am
For the record, I’m not promoting Mr. Ostler’s ideas, just the fact that there is another viewpoint.
Comment by Peter LLC — October 24, 2008 @ 10:19 am
The belief that the church might, possibly, perhaps, maybe lose their tax-exempt status even though there’s no precedence for it and no real reason to believe it might happen and so we have to enforce separate but equal non-rights for a substantial minority citizenship is unbelievably selfish.
Comment by Chandelle — October 24, 2008 @ 11:02 am
Hm…hm…tax exemption versus rights…hm…such a hard one…I guess I better ask myself, What would Jesus do?
Comment by Chandelle — October 24, 2008 @ 11:04 am
re: 34
I agree that both sides have used lies at times (although not in this case — the lesbian wedding in SF has nothing to do with Prop 8 beyond its PR value to the YES campaign.)
However, that’s not the point of this post.
My question is this: Is it a violation of the 9th commandment to propogate false information in an attempt to ban SSM?
That’s all.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — October 24, 2008 @ 11:09 am
Is it a violation of the 9th commandment to propogate false information in an attempt to ban SSM?
In one of these Prop 8 threads (there are so many), I semi-facetiously asked the question if, after having spread one or two of the lies associated with the pro-on-8 group, I could still tell my bishop and stake president in my temple recommend interview that I had been honest with my fellow man.
I got no response. You probably won’t, either.
Comment by Mark N. — October 24, 2008 @ 11:25 am
re: 42
I just wanted to bring that point to the fore. Lies and distortions are being spread by the Yes On 8 campaign. When the people doing it also purport to believe it’s a sin to bear false witness against your neighbor, that’s problematic.
And what are gay couples in CA, if not your neighbors?
The more I ponder these Yes On 8 ads in light of what I know about gay people in California (which is a lot!), the more convinced I am that the 9th commandment is being violated on a massive scale.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — October 24, 2008 @ 11:31 am
41: yes
Comment by DoubleL — October 24, 2008 @ 11:38 am
If that is true, it’s another reason for No on 8. Is it really fair for non-Mormons to be forced to subsidize the Church by allowing those that donate to the Church to skip out on paying some of their taxes?
And I laughed when I got an automated dialer call on my home phone that said to watch out because if we make gay marriage legal, next thing you know polygamy will be legal. Ha ha. What strange bedfellows the church has in the Yes on 8 camp.
Comment by minnie mouse — October 24, 2008 @ 11:47 am
#43, I totally agree. The misinformation and lying, not to mention the mass hysteria and fear about this is just baffling to me. On an email group that I frequent, some LDS women were talking all about how horrible this is and that the gays are taking over the country and that our homeschool freedoms are going to be overtaken now if this affects public schools and thank heavens they don’t have kids in public school, etc, and how evil this is and basically when I tried to disagree politely I was basically attacked and told that I didn’t obey the Prophet and they didn’t know how I could attend the temple with a clear conscience. People in our ward talk about it as if everyone agrees and if you don’t agree with the majority on it, then basically you are a vile sinner. Needless to say, I voice my opinion quietly on the issue. I get emails everyday from LDS family members with misinformation and lies about Prop 8 and how every kid will be forced to learn about gay marriage and that the church will lose it’s tax exempt status and that pretty soon all our temples will be closed if it doesn’t pass… I have done the reading on it and I am not convinced at all that would happen and spreading this information with mass hysteria is ridiculous. A few of the lady’s were so excited that this was happening and that even though they agreed that gay marriage was totally evil, they were ecstatic because that meant that the Savior was probably coming next year… especially if Obama {the ‘Anti-Christ’} is elected President which they feel he is and will… ugh….
I can’t stand it when people try to get others to make decisions by spreading misinformation {yes, lies}. And I really hate it when people believe the lies and make decisions out of fear instead of researching for themselves. Isn’t there a scripture that says something about the Lord not motivating with fear but with faith and that fear is of Satan? Interesting…
Comment by bookwormmama — October 24, 2008 @ 11:51 am
I’ll be very interested to see how the vote turns out. It is also interesting that when this passed a few years ago there wasn”t as much of a ruckus about it. I also find it interesting that although comments should not being calling others unrighteous, they are possibly calling a specific Church unrighteous?
I think that no matter what your opinion that you can always find something to support your opinion and disprove another’s.
And in response to #42 there is also a question in the reccomnend process that asks about your affiliation…..etc. with organizations that are against certain standards. I don’t know the exact wording, maybe those who have had recent interviews could share what they think that means. I am sure someone knows what I am referring to.
Comment by misspiggy — October 24, 2008 @ 11:51 am
I think Ray’s number 20 nails it.
There’s been a lot of histrionics from the Yes-on-8 crowd, but it seems most of the “gotchas” arise from people who are themselves perpetuating faulty assumptions about constitutional law. Given shifting constitutional interpretations, the No-on-8 crowd is simply in no position to tell us what will or won’t happen down the road. At best, they can only guarantee that it won’t happen soon.
It seems indisputable that both sides have told a couple of whoppers. For the present, though, I think the more applicable question is, Is it a violation of the 9th commandment to contribute to a campaign that will probably propogate false information in an attempt to attain its political ends? And that’s a question we all, unfortunately, will have to grapple with–whether we’re donating to the campaigns of McCain, Obama, Huntsman, or (heaven forbid) Superdell.
Comment by JimD — October 24, 2008 @ 11:52 am
Minnie Mouse,
I have a strange feeling that this is one the biggest reasons that the Church is backing Prop 8 but won’t say it… kind of like the true agenda… I have brought up the polygamy angle to it before but have yet to find anyone who will dialogue about it.
Basically you are right… if gays can marry legally, what’s to keep anyone from marrying legally?
It’s a good possibility and it will put the church in a huge quandery. Lots of people will probably petition the Church for polygamy {especially those from countries who still practice polygamy and have to give up their families to join the church}.
Comment by bookwormmama — October 24, 2008 @ 11:53 am
misspiggy, pick and name and stick with it. and if you are the certain jackass that i work with…grow a pair and use your real name.
thanks
Comment by mfranti — October 24, 2008 @ 11:53 am
Two points:
1) The only IRS investigation that has been undertaken in the US was of All Saints Church in Pasadena. So people worried about Their Church’s tax exempt status might want to take a look at how the IRS framed the investigation in that case. The outcome is that All Saints did not lose their 501(c)3 status. Further, I think its worth asking what the impact of loosing 501(c)3 status would be? Many are afraid of this happening but it would indeed mean greater freedom for the Church in terms of political activity.
Information on the All Saints case can be found on their website:
http://www.allsaints-pas.org/site/PageServer?pagename=IRS_Exam_splash
2) I have made the argument a few times already that the Church’s standard of honesty is so clear and so high, there is no doubt that even if one is not bothered by the ethical problems with the pro 8 side, we as Mormons should be very bothered by the misinformation that local leaders and GAs are spreading and by the statements found in pro prop 8 advertising. I realize that it some will take it as pretty inflammatory to say that GA’s and local leaders are spreading misinformation. It is not intended as such but the local leaders in my area have made statement that I know to be false both in private conversations and from the pulpit. Second, in the video of the Prop 8 broadcast and other videos created by the Church there have been a number of highly speculative arguments presented as likely or factual. So I guess it depends upon each individual’s standards of critical rigor. But personally I am very bothered by “the say anything to win” tactics that have been used by the pro prop 8 side.
In interviews I have given that address prop 8 I have had strict predetermined limits about what I would and would not say. Accuracy, and honesty are part of “winning,” the ends do not justify the means for either side.
Comment by Fluxus — October 24, 2008 @ 11:58 am
It’s a good possibility and it will put the church in a huge quandery. Lots of people will probably petition the Church for polygamy {especially those from countries who still practice polygamy and have to give up their families to join the church}.
I don’t see why that would be such a major issue. I doubt that US law is presently a major obstacle to at least tolerating polygamous families in congregations where the practice is legal, so long as the church did not authorize sealing those families or encourage them to emigrate to the US. I suspect the Church’s prohibition on polygamy is currently based (as opposed to originally rooted in) theology or PR concerns.
From a theological standpoint, the church could simply point to Jacob’s sermon and say, “it’s wrong unless God tells us otherwise. And He hasn’t told us otherwise in this particular day and age. So don’t do it.”
As for PR–frankly, the church’s refusal to embrace polygamy even when it became legal could only enhance the church’s credibility among the evangelical Christians it (allegedly) wants so badly to woo.
Comment by JimD — October 24, 2008 @ 12:06 pm
re 41:
34 was in response to 32 not in response to your original post.
To reply:
Yes.
However the point that some people are trying to make is that the ad that you mentioned is not incorrect.
PS How did the comment numbering get messed up?
Comment by Kalon — October 24, 2008 @ 12:09 pm
Mike, you have the patience of… well, I was going to say ’saints’, but somehow in this context I’d like to reach for a higher compliment.
[AND-can corporate entities be self-deceived, as apart from the individuals through which they are governed? ]
But what I’d really like to see is a follow-up post to this one on the psychology of self-deception.
Comment by actualthoughanonlesbian — October 24, 2008 @ 12:28 pm
A Mormon, Mark Jansson, is part of the group that is now trying to extort money out of businesses that have supported gay marriage in California. This thing just keep getting dirtier and dirtier, and the Church can’t relaly be involved without getting a little dirt on themselves.
Comment by jjohnsen — October 24, 2008 @ 12:33 pm
A Mormon, Mark Jansson, is part of the group that is now trying to extort money out of businesses that have supported gay marriage in California.
Ah, but “extort” is such an ugly word.
Let’s just call it “offering encouragement to see the light”, shall we?
Comment by Mark N. — October 24, 2008 @ 12:56 pm
Yup, first lies, misinformation, and now extortion. The whole thing is repugnant.
Comment by Steven B — October 24, 2008 @ 12:59 pm
I don’t he’s just some random mormon, Mark Jansson, he’s the Mormon Church representative for the Yes on 8 campaign, which brings up a rather interesting can of worms…..
Comment by djinn — October 24, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
Here’s the threat letter:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/7496698/Prop-8-Threat-Letter
Feel the love.
Comment by djinn — October 24, 2008 @ 1:21 pm
re: 54
Thanks for the compliment, and that’s a great idea for a later post. What are the psychological dynamics at work here?
My patience no doubt comes from almost two decades working as a licensed clinical social worker, mostly in a psychiatric setting. I’m unflappable.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — October 24, 2008 @ 1:22 pm
Yup, first lies, misinformation, and now extortion.
Highly unseemly, yes. But perhaps it’s worth pointing out that they are “threatening” to do precisely what Nadine Hansen has already done (and is continuing to do) over at mormonsfor8.com.
To paraphrase Ms. Hansen,
Comment by JimD — October 24, 2008 @ 1:32 pm
But, JimD, the two actions are worlds apart. Say Yes on 8 has a (public, accesible) secret that No on 8 knows. No on 8 tells. Yes on 8 may be sad, but, there is no actionable offense.
Now, let’s say that Yes on 8 tells a Businessman Donor to No on 8 that Yes on 8 will tell everyone a secret, that this business has donated to No on 8, and will publicise that this means the business is against traditional marriage, something the business’s clients may be very interested in hearing, (now here is the problematic part), unless the businessmen pays up. Like over $10,000 up. This example is blackmail, pure and simple. And may very well be very illegal.
No one has found any No on 8 people demanding money from Yes on 8 people.
Is Ms. Hanson offering a deal to Yes on 8 contributors to not put them on the list if they pay up? Nope. She’s just publishing.
Comment by djinn — October 24, 2008 @ 1:46 pm
There is a wee bit difference between demanding loads of money or they’ll publish and merely publishing.
Sending demand letters for money to proud contributors of No on 8 isn’t the brightest idea. You’d think they thought being Gay or Gay supporting was a dirty little secret and worth getting some money over.
I wonder what commandment that violates?
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — October 24, 2008 @ 1:47 pm
Yes on 8 is free to say whatever it feels like saying about businesses that have donated money to No on 8. It’s the threat and the proposed payment that is the problem here. And it is a big problem.
Comment by djinn — October 24, 2008 @ 1:48 pm
I just heard that sometime this week, all the phone banks in Utah that were calling for Prop. 8 were shut down and that all the people were immediately released from their prop. 8 callings. I bet this is a direct result of the above letter. The Mormons may be trying to distance themselves from official ties to the Yes on 8 campaign.
THe problem being that if the extortion (or whatever) can be tied to the Mormon church through a church calling of one of the signers, Mark Jansson, uh, let’s just say, things could get interesting.
Comment by djinn — October 24, 2008 @ 1:55 pm
It may be worth noting that mormonsfor8.com and people like Dante Atkins, who blogs for the Daily Kos and who encouraged people to see if donors to YesOn8 have “contributed to . . . less than honorable causes, or if any one of these big donors has done something otherwise egregious,” represent individuals who may be using questionable tactics. But they are individuals, not leaders of the NoOn8 campaign. In the case of the misinformation, it is being promulgated by the official campaign with whom the LDS church is in coalition. And the extortion letters, they were signed by the leaders of the campaign themselves.
Comment by Steven B — October 24, 2008 @ 2:03 pm
You have to wonder what they were thinking.
Comment by djinn — October 24, 2008 @ 2:05 pm
I think it’s ironic that some of the same people who say it is inconceivable that the church could lose its tax exempt status due to not allowing gay marriage, are (ignorantly) demanding that the church should lose its status due its activity supporting the amendment.
Comment by kodos — October 24, 2008 @ 2:31 pm
And who would that be??
Comment by Not Ophelia — October 24, 2008 @ 2:33 pm
Maybe it is time to take a breath a lighten up a little. Check out Kirby’s takeon the issue. He is generally good for some humor and common sense.
Comment by CYCINGRED — October 24, 2008 @ 2:34 pm
Thanks for the link to Kirby’s article. His humorous take is a must read!
Comment by Steven B — October 24, 2008 @ 2:51 pm
By your logic any contributions to any political canidate- or party would also be in violation of the 9th commandment.
I’m glad you’re not in charge of judgement day- or we’d all be going to hell.
Comment by anon — October 24, 2008 @ 3:20 pm
I suppose it is relevant to link to this letter to President Monson.
Comment by Steven B — October 24, 2008 @ 3:22 pm
#9 “From what I understand, it’s about more than tax-exempt status, it could also lose the ability to issue marriage licenses at all.”
Comment by SilverRain
The church doesn’t issue marriage licenses. The state issues them.
Comment by Ruby — October 24, 2008 @ 4:09 pm
I understand saying you disagree, or that you know of some experts who disagree. But if there are experts who support the concerns (which is the reality), then what? This is a matter of differing opinion and different perceptions and projections.
I should say that this is not to say that I agree with everything that has been said to support prop 8, nor do I agree with how some things have been framed. But extremism has come into play on both sides, and while disappointing, that is not unusual for such a controversial issue as this.
This issue is more complex than simply being able to ‘prove’ one way or the other. It’s part of why there is such a split opinion — because there are a lot of unknowns. Gay marriage as a concept, let alone a practice, has not been around long enough to really know what all the consequences (positive or negative) might be.
IMO, we must leave room for the fact that there simply are different opinions on this — and that a differing opinion will most certainly not necessarily equate to deliberate lying.
As for me, there is enough that I am personally concerned about that I support prop 8. That doesn’t mean, however, that I pretend to have a crystal ball and know exactly how things will be if gay marriage stays legal. But I should be able to express my concerns about what I think *could* happen without being labeled a liar (or other things I have been labeled). Such an approach seems more like trying to silence opposing viewpoints rather than being willing to discuss and share different opinions respectfully, which is what should happen at times like this.
Rather than look for the alleged chinks you think you have found in others’ armor, why not talk about the strength of your own? If your position is so strong, share why you think that, rather than trying to undermine those who support prop 8 and lump them all together as liars and whatever else.
Comment by m&m — October 24, 2008 @ 4:21 pm
I doubt they care about distancing themselves from this mess.
Comment by jjohnsen — October 24, 2008 @ 6:05 pm
m&m– with regard to your remark that there are “experts” who share your views about the possible consequences of continuing full equality for gay and lesbian citizens under CA law, and the likelihood of those consquences:
I don’t think that word “expert” means what you think it means.
Comment by actualthoughanonlesbian — October 24, 2008 @ 6:40 pm
During my lunch hour, there was a report on the news about the blackmail letter from ProtectMarriage. Their already spinning it to make it sound like they’re just making a friendly little offer to the recipients of the letter, giving them the opportunity to donate equally to the “yes” campaign, since, no doubt, some of their customers are going to vote yes on 8.
The letter was not read over the air during the story, so the “yes on 8″ person doing the spin wasn’t asked to respond to the actual wording of the letter.
Lies upon lies.
Comment by Mark N. — October 24, 2008 @ 6:53 pm
I don’t think that word “expert” means what you think it means.
OK then, what word do you think I should be using? I think of people with expertise as experts in their particular fields or focuses. What do you call them?
And here’s a question: Do you dispute that there are different opinions among lawyers and others with specific expertise related to this issue?
It seems to me that you can’t really call something a lie if it’s really just a matter of others having different perspectives, understandings, or projections. Mike claims that he knows for an absolute fact that there is no way that the concerns are founded. (How he or anyone could know this with such certainty still escapes me, but….) Others disagree. My point is, who is Mike to say that those who disagree are lying, if they genuinely feel that this could happen?
Comment by m&m — October 24, 2008 @ 7:45 pm
This line of reasoning reminds me of what the opponents of Proposition 102 - Arizona’s Marriage Amendment are saying:
Anti-102: This amendment is unnecessary, same-sex-marriage is illegal in Arizona anyway.
Pro-102: That doesn’t matter, judges in three states have overruled existing law and forced their states to honor same-sex-marriages. That is why the amendment is necessary.
Anti-102: This amendment is unnecessary, same-sex-marriage is illegal in Arizona anyway.
Pro-102: …Are you even paying attention?
Anti-102: This amendment is unnecessary, same-sex-marriage is illegal in Arizona anyway.
Pro-102: …Ok then…have a nice day…
The same goes for the idea of losing tax exemption or having other pressure put on churches to recognize homosexual unions as valid. Legal arguments about why we don’t need to worry about this might be interesting, but the truth is that the law is what 4 out of 7 judges decide it is. And to suggest that we shouldn’t worry about judicial activism on this topic is humorous to say the least.
Those in favor of proposition 8 might be wrong when it comes to their tax exempt status being in jeopardy, but they aren’t lying.
Comment by Aluwid — October 24, 2008 @ 8:11 pm
Oh M&M. Please let me marry the word delicious to irony. Done.
I don’t know why you avoid my questions or me, although I’m sure I could make a good guess. So, let’s try again:
looking forward to hearing from you, m&m.
Comment by crazywomancreek — October 24, 2008 @ 8:21 pm
m&m, if one person says the moon is made of cheese, and other people say it isn’t, would it therefore be accurate to claim that “the composition of the moon is a subject of controversy”?
Arguments can be evaluated on their own merits, and the legal argument here is pretty clear-cut.
Comment by Liz — October 24, 2008 @ 8:25 pm
78
Mark,
I’m not particularly happy about the approach of this letter. As a prop 8 supporter, it actually makes me very uncomfortable, and I have shared my concerns today with some in the campaign.
But if you read the article about it, you will note that they did nothing illegal. Unusual? Yes. Disturbing to many? Yes. Illegal? No. Therefore, words like
‘extortion’ and ‘blackmail’ are painting this as more extreme than it really is, imo.
Nevertheless it has still bothered me all day. Then I got to thinking. Perhaps the idea was more along the lines of, “Hey, we are going to post these companies’ names anyway. Why not see if they would like a chance to avoid the negative press and do something that their pro-prop-8 customers would approve of?”
Again, I don’t like the way it was phrased or approached, but I can’t help but wonder if that was some of the thinking behind it.
And as a side note, customers should have the opportunity to know where their money is being used, esp. when it has nothing to do with the business purpose. Just like some people don’t go to Wal-mart because of its employment practices, or others might support another company because it’s more environmentally conscious, customers should be able to know who has spent money on this cause (even if, imo, they shouldn’t be in the first place).
Comment by m&m — October 24, 2008 @ 8:32 pm
Liz,
You mock because today everyone knows the moon is not made of cheese. But tomorrow, after 4 judges decide that actually yes the moon is entirely composed of cheese, it will be obvious to us all that the moon was always made of cheese, we just didn’t notice it before.
Of course if 4 out of 7 judges aren’t capable of altering the composition of the moon, like they can the law, then I guess your analogy stinks. Like moldy cheese!
Comment by Aluwid — October 24, 2008 @ 8:35 pm
Oh thanks. Liz. I didn’t even have the energy to tackle that.
Comment by crazywomancreek — October 24, 2008 @ 8:38 pm
Arguments can be evaluated on their own merits, and the legal argument here is pretty clear-cut.
No, there is still disagreement from a legal standpoint. It’s not like The One And Only Lawyer has made his/her claim and everyone else is ignoring it. There is no such absolute truth in this kind of thing. Some intellectual honesty is needed here, just to acknowledge that there are differing legal opinions. You may disagree with them but they are still there but to ignore them just weakens your point of view, imo.
This whole issue is full of split opinions and viewpoints. I think we’d actually be able to have more real discussions if more of us were willing to at least acknowledge that rather than speak in absolutes.
For example, if you watch the church’s recent seven videos on this topic, you will see lots of words like ‘could’ and ‘might’ — they leave room for the unknowns. (Although regarding prophets, I personally would trust their view of the future more than anyone else’s but that is beside the point for this discussion. )
I read a post recently by John C. (I think) at BCC that talked about the importance of at least acknowledging the uncertainty inherent in this whole issue, but i couldn’t find it. It was one of the better posts I have read simply because he was willing to say that. Not because he agreed with all the concerns raised about prop 8, because I don’t think he does, but because he acknowledged that there really was no way anyone could be SO SURE that nothing bad would happen if it didn’t pass.
Again, if you want to talk about honesty, intellectual honesty is really important here, imo.
Comment by m&m — October 24, 2008 @ 8:46 pm
Quimby, could you or someone who is or has been a Mormon please ask m&m my question? Then she won’t have to lower her standards by consorting with the infidel. Which, in keeping with a theme, is ironic, but not terribly delicious. Mostly gross.
Comment by crazywomancreek — October 24, 2008 @ 8:47 pm
Quimby, could you or someone who is or has been a Mormon please ask m&m my question? Then she won’t have to lower her standards by consorting with the infidel.
cwc, good grief. What question did you have? I haven’t been here for a while — was sick half the week, and not really wanting to continue the other conversation because it just got too intense and unkind. Me not answering whatever question you had isn’t because “I think you are an infidel.”
But — and this is a big but — if you have already decided that is the kind of person I am, then that might be a reason for me not to respond. Seriously, I’m willing to have a conversation, but if all you are going to do is hurl cheap insults, just know up front that I don’t have the time, energy, or health for that.
Comment by m&m — October 24, 2008 @ 9:31 pm
If it was the blacks and marriage thing, ask me again, because it was at that point that I left the discussion. I did see it, though. Is that the one? Remind me if it was.
Comment by m&m — October 24, 2008 @ 9:32 pm
crazywomancreek,
Banning interracial marriage makes about as much sense as allowing same-sex-marriage: None. The whole point behind marriage has always been to build structure around the process that mother nature devised for our species to survive. Mother Nature could care less about race, but She’s pretty picky when it comes to gender.
Take procreation and family out of the mix and there is not a sufficient benefit for society to bother with marriage.
Comment by Aluwid — October 24, 2008 @ 9:34 pm
I didn’t hear any of you pro 8 people screaming judicial activism when the California Supreme Court led by Ronald George ruled that the Boy Scouts could discriminate against gays.
Perhaps this mostly Republican appointed court actually believes in making rulings based on the State Constitution and not on judicial activism. Have you read the Courts decision regarding gay marriage?
Just because you don’t like the decision, doesn’t make it judicial activism.
Let’s be honest. What do you really believe and feel about gay people?
Could it possibly be affecting the way you are voting?
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — October 24, 2008 @ 9:38 pm
Do you dispute that there are different opinions among scientists and others over whether the earth is flat?
The fact that there are differing opinions is not relevant. The question is whether any of those opinions is honest and credible.
There is no credible, honest argument that Proposition 8 will have any effect, one way or the other, on the tax exempt status of churches. Period.
I know Blake Ostler has tried to advance one. I will assume he is honest. His argument is not even remotely credible.
Comment by obi-wan — October 24, 2008 @ 9:43 pm
It seems to me, the seven attorneys on the supreme court split 4 to 3 on what the constitution says. It is not a very far reach that different attorneys can disagree on the consequences of prop 8. Isn’t that what attorneys do best.
Comment by rich — October 24, 2008 @ 9:47 pm
Great question, Mike. A lot of people have already parsed the issues.
For what it’s worth, my own analysis — though I’m not a tax attorney — is that the church _could_ lose its tax status under Bob Jones. But that would be extremely, extremely unlikely.
Tax status is determined by the IRS, a federal agency. It goes to the federal courts. I find it a vanishingly small possibility that the Scalia/Roberts/Alito/Thomas court will strike the church’s tax status over gay marriage.
I mean, we _already_ don’t ordain women. If we were going to be zapped for something, why not that?
Thus, I’d call it a vanishingly small possibility.
For instance, it is _possible_ that fmh-Janet will be elected President of the United States next month. She’s a natural-born citizen (I think); she’s (ahem) the requisite age (even if she doesn’t look a day over 25). And that’s all that’s required. Thus, it is _possible_ that fmh-Janet will be elected President, next month. We cannot say that it’s impossible.
Is it very likely? No. It’s a vanishingly small possibility.
Comment by Kaimi — October 24, 2008 @ 9:55 pm
Aluwid
There are hundreds of species where there is same sex activity including our close relatives the Bonobos.
Mother Nature did more than create heterosexuals.
There are gay people and they are in relationships. They have children. . Society would benefit from integrating rather than excluding.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — October 24, 2008 @ 10:08 pm
Kaimi,
What if you replace Justice Scalia with a judge that President Obama selects and that is rubber-stamped by a filibuster-proof Democratic Senate majority? Scalia is 72 after all, the same age as McCain, and as we’ve heard time and again during this campaign 72 year olds are liable to kick the bucket any day.
The law is fluid and whomever sits on the bench could impact what direction it takes. The current political winds don’t look favorable to the church when it comes to legal decisions.
Comment by Aluwid — October 24, 2008 @ 10:19 pm
It’s interesting that certainty is criticized here in religious matters while being extolled in political matters. I’ve taught history and government, and, as I said way back in #20, the only certainty in politics is the certainty that things will change radically over time. I don’t mean slightly; I mean radically.
I won’t be contributing to this discussion any further. When people who know argue with others who don’t know (and are willing to admit they don’t know), those who know always win - totally independent of whether that knowledge is correct or incorrect. All I will repeat is that is is fascinating to listen to people who ridicule certainty in religious matters claim unimpeachable certainty in political matters. That simply blows my mind.
Comment by Ray — October 24, 2008 @ 10:28 pm
Suzanne,
Bonobos don’t get married. Besides, given the slippery slope arguments about same-sex marriage are you sure you want to go there?
There are lots of kinds of relationships, there is no need for all of them to be formalized through marriage.
Legally perhaps, but biologically they don’t.
Are we talking about segregated bathrooms or about the parameters of marriage? Using the language of the civil-rights movement is cute but besides the point.
Comment by Aluwid — October 24, 2008 @ 10:30 pm
Aluwid
you write–
Legally perhaps, but biologically they don’t.
Am I misconstruing you? Are you saying children only count if raised by both their biological parents.?
Are a man and a woman only allowed to get married after they successfully produce offspring?
Can you get through your distaste, to see the humanity of gay people?
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — October 24, 2008 @ 10:54 pm
I am a 54 year old woman with two children. I live in California and was married to my partner of 13 years last weekend. I came across your website while searching for the current prop 8 stats. I found your website and visitors comments extremely compelling and wondered, though I’m not Mormon, may I join this blog.
Comment by Debbie — October 24, 2008 @ 11:00 pm
cwc, I’ll assume that that was the question. (And sorry if my earlier comment came across as curt…I’m tired and still recovering from my tummy bug and have a sick hubby and actually heard from others that after I stopped reading, you hadn’t been so kind to me before and I really don’t want to go there. Fair enough?)
First of all, I never like this comparison because gays in CA already have rights. They still will be able to have their families, enter into relationships, and have protection and rights under the law even if prop 8 passes, so it’s not like Prop 8 casts them in a corner as is sometimes portrayed. I don’t see this as being the same as racial discrimination was.
That said, I actually understand that taking a stand on Prop 8 will be perceived by some as unkind and unloving, no matter what I say, or no matter what the specific realities are. And believe it or not, it’s hard to be in that kind of position. It is.
But I just can’t be expected to abandon what I feel I should do and stand up for — to abandon conscience, faith, concern about rights, and so forth — just to ‘prove’ love for those whose views differ from mine, or who may feel prop 8 personally affects them.
I will say again that I am aware of how hard this issue is and how painful it can be for some. I understand that it can feel personal. And I am sorry about that. I know that doesn’t mean much. But I don’t know that there is much more I can say.
In my mind, one of the greatest ways God shows his love is to respect our agency, EVEN WHEN He disagrees with what we are doing, or even though He knows it’s wrong, or even when it hurts. While of course we don’t have that same omniscience, I think His is an important example to follow. We teach or share what we believe, but we allow others the space to figure things out and act according to their consciences. God doesn’t force us to do anything to prove our love to Him. We should show the same respect and love for each other, imo.
I’m not asking you to pretend that my position doesn’t hurt. I know it does. And like I said, I’m sorry it does. But please allow me the same respect you expect — the room to follow conscience, belief, thought, and experience to form your opinion and action on issues such as this. And to be able to do so without being attacked or labeled or dismissed. Like I said elsewhere, prop 8 supporters are people, too.
Comment by m&m — October 24, 2008 @ 11:20 pm
Ray, amen to both of your comments.
And, if I don’t comment anymore it’s because I’m exhausted and need to get to bed and my list of things to do is getting longer by the sentence.
Comment by m&m — October 24, 2008 @ 11:23 pm
Debbie, in my experience here as a lurker/sometimecommenter anyone who wants to be here (and not be an a$$h*le) is welcome. So welcome! And congratulations on your marriage!
Comment by Kerry — October 24, 2008 @ 11:26 pm
Suzzane,
No, I’m just saying that nature is biased towards heterosexual couples when it comes to the survival of the species. Therefore it’s in our interest to encourage and support such couples. Without them, we die. This is why heterosexual marriage makes sense.
Homosexual couples on the other hand are at best of neutral benefit. If a solar flare instantly erased all same-sex-attraction from every human being making all of us 100% straight there would be no negative impact whatsoever to society. It’s not needed and there is no compelling reason for us to encourage it or to spend tax dollars providing stability to it.
That sounds pretty draconian don’t you think? Much easier to just insist that males marry males and females marry females.
Strong words, but I’ll remind you that you’re the one that wants to lock them legally into a relationship that naturally discourages them from reproducing. In your ideal world two members of the same sex get married and in aggregate most of them would remain childless leaving nothing behind after they die. In my ideal world these same individuals would instead pick a partner from the opposite sex, get married, have kids, and leave their mark on future generations.
Comment by Aluwid — October 24, 2008 @ 11:32 pm
Heh…oops. I’m sure you got my meaning.
Comment by Aluwid — October 24, 2008 @ 11:37 pm
Aluwid –
Seriously?
“Homosexual couples on the other hand are at best of neutral benefit.”
How about all the unwanted children they adopt out of orphanages and foster care? You know, the ones that nobody else will take? They provide them love, stability, a sense of worth, and teach them to be accepting of all different kinds of people.
Remind me again how that is not a positive thing for our society?
Comment by Nicole — October 24, 2008 @ 11:46 pm
And another thing –
“In my ideal world these same individuals would instead pick a partner from the opposite sex, get married, have kids, and leave their mark on future generations.”
Right. Because no heterosexual couples have ever gotten married, had kids, and left marks we’d rather not have on future generations. Hetero couples produce only well adjusted, productive, and highly valuable children, and instill nothing but purity, righteousness, and those trusty “traditional” family values we all so desperately need.
Comment by Nicole — October 24, 2008 @ 11:51 pm
Kerry,
Thank you so much for the welcome. This matter about allowing gays to become legally married doesn’t make any sense. It is the State, not the church, that has always issued a marriage license. And it is the State that has the power to dissolve a marriage. Do we really want all forms of religion over seeing our right to marry? How does one decide what religious standard we go by?
As for m&m’s comments about still being able to have our families and and legal rights, this simply isn’t so. A civil union does not a marriage make. Marriage does give legal advantages that a civl union does not. A civil union will not allow a couple to file a joint tax return. I you join into a civil union and move from the state where the union took place, your union may not be recognized. But if a couple gets married, their union under the law has to be recognized in all 50 States.
There is the stigma of not being married as well. We live in a small and wonderful community where 90% of my child’ s classmates parents are legally married to each other. My daughter last year my daughter wanted to know why her mommy’s weren’t married. What if the tables were turned. How would you feel about 90% of the families in your child’s school not being married?
We are very involved in our community. We believe that people should be involved and supportive of their friends and neighbors. Our friends are made up of straight couples, singles, old and young with a few gay and lesbian friends as well. The guests at our wedding were of various religious backgrounds as well as some that may not practice any religion. Our City Manager, and our Fire Chief along with their wives and children attended our ceremony. The best thing about getting married when your 54, you only invite the people you love and who love you back.
There were many tears at our wedding ceremony, happy tears shed for two of their friends who have been together for over 13 years, through thick and thin. Seeing each other through my oldest daughters tough teenage years and the incredible open adoption journey of our youngest daughter. A journey not to different from most families.
Well, I’ve written enough for now. Please forgive me for going on and on, It was my first entry with the feministmormonhousewives.org and I guess I had allot of pent up emotions.
Thanks Kerry for the congratulations!
Deb
Comment by Debbie — October 25, 2008 @ 12:05 am
Nicole,
It’s great when people do this, but what does that have to do with the sexual orientation of the couple or the fact that they are both the same gender?
Having children is a natural consequence of a heterosexual couple. Taking care of unwanted children is not a natural consequence of homosexual couples or even an expected one.
Perhaps I should have been more explicit. I didn’t say that the individuals serve no benefit, that would make no sense. My point is that the relationships themselves are of neutral benefit at best. If the same-sex-attraction which makes them want to pair together were to disappear we wouldn’t miss it in the least.
Comment by Aluwid — October 25, 2008 @ 12:13 am
Congratulations Debbie
Thank you for sharing your story.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — October 25, 2008 @ 12:15 am
Nicole,
Very true. A pure social darwinian would want to discourage undesirable people from reproducing. Logically speaking, we’re better off with them out of the gene pool. But once again, that is a pretty draconian stance to take with horrible implications. A more reasonable approach would be to not implement roadblocks that discourage the desirable people from having kids. That way more of them would have them.
If you find everyone with same-sex attraction to be genetically undesirable then I understand why you would want to legally lock them in childless relationships, but I don’t share that perspective.
Comment by Aluwid — October 25, 2008 @ 12:19 am
Nicole
I’ve got a question. I’m a lesbian and I pay the same amount of taxes as every other straight couple in my State, but I don’t get the same benefits.
I’m a lesbian and our child’s straight birthmother choose us to raise her child. When we decided to adopt we checked many of the challenging boxes, drug exposed, downs, bi-racial but hey, guess what, our birthmother is straight, was not doing drugs, or alcohol and Maddie, our daughter is full caucasian. GO FIGURE!
As well as it is a natural desire to stamp one’s genetic code on future generations, it is also natural to help the species survive under any circumstance. It was Dale Evan’s who said, “any child you take as your own, becomes your own.”
Comment by Debbie — October 25, 2008 @ 12:21 am
Aluwid
The fact that that homosexuality exists in hundred of species shows that there is a benefit to the species or it would as you say it would disappear..
Gays and Lesbians choose to have children which is a benefit to society.
That relationship should be protected by marriage for the benefit of the species and society.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — October 25, 2008 @ 12:29 am
Kaimi — Its beyond extremely extremely unlikely. Bob Jones simply does not apply. The Prop 8 coalition’s claims about this are completely dishonest.
Bob Jones lost its tax exemption due to promoting racial segregation. The Bob Jones opinion goes to some length to demonstrate that eliminating racial segregation in education was a compelling federal interest, rooted in the federal constitution, and implemented by all three branches of the federal government. By failing to adhere to that federal public policy, Bob Jones University lost its federal tax exemption.
There is no federal policy to promote same sex marriages. (If anything, DOMA points the other direction.) A California Supreme Court opinion holding that marriage is a fundamental right under the California constitution does not create a federal public policy on which loss of 503(c) status could be predicated.
Bob Jones does not apply. Period. One can imagine some future case that might apply, but that’s all it is — imagination.
Comment by obi-wan — October 25, 2008 @ 12:40 am
Debbie,
Yes, always to opposite sex pairs until very recently.
A related question that could be asked is what standards should marriage go by at all? What is the point behind it? Why do we as a society even bother with the hassle? The traditional reason was the obvious one: to procreate and provide structure to the next generation. But if we take that purpose away, what do we leave as the core that defines what can constitute a marriage? The whole idea of a couple is heterocentric, if we remove heterosexuality from marriage then I don’t see how we can justify only allowing pairs.
I understand that you want to marry who you want to marry. But so do the FLDS. So do inappropriately related heterosexual couples. Once we move away from the original point of marriage, to have children, we are unable to justify arbitrary restrictions and have to continue expanding the boundaries. At some point it will become unwieldy and we’ll repeat the question “Why do we as a society even bother with the hassle?”. And we’ll discover that the answer has become “I have no idea” and cancel the entire practice.
That is the reason for Proposition 8.
Comment by Aluwid — October 25, 2008 @ 12:47 am
Leaders of the campaign to outlaw same-sex marriage in California are warning businesses that have given money
to the state’s largest gay rights group they will be publicly
identified as opponents of traditional unions unless they
contribute to the gay marriage ban, too.
ProtectMarriage.com, the umbrella group behind a ballot
initiative that would overturn the California Supreme Court
decision that legalized gay marriage, sent a certified letter this
week asking companies to withdraw their support of Equality
California, a nonprofit organization that is helping lead the
campaign against Proposition 8.
“Make a donation of a like amount to ProtectMarriage.com which will help us correct this error,” reads the letter. “Were you to elect not to donate comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage. … The names of any companies and organizations that choose not to donate in like manner to ProtectMarriage.com but have given to Equality California will be published.”
The letter was signed by four members of the group’s executive committee: campaign chairman Ron Prentice; Edward Dolejsi, executive director of the California Catholic Conference; Mark Jansson, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; and Andrew Pugno, the lawyer for ProtectMarriage.com. A donation form was attached. The letter did not say where the names would be published.
This sure disputes the idea that only individual Mormons
Comment by Debbie — October 25, 2008 @ 12:48 am
Aluwid
I think marriage is a social ritual. Over the centuries, as people became more educated, the rituals and laws that surround it have changed. The fight to allow gays to marry is just a timely example of the evolution of marriage. Need I mention some of the barbaric wedding rituals that are obsolete? Gay marriage is just another example that as a culture, we are evolving.
Comment by Debbie — October 25, 2008 @ 12:59 am
obi-wan,
I guess now would be a good time to remind everyone that Senator Obama plans to repeal DOMA. Given his better than 50% odds of being elected this is very important to keep in mind.
I have a good imagination. And I don’t think you’re factoring in the effect that a very liberal Democratic President and overwhelmingly Democratic Congress will have on the issue. New judges will be appointed, new laws will be made, and a new direction will be laid.
Comment by Aluwid — October 25, 2008 @ 12:59 am
Debbie,
You’re proving my point. I could use this exact same language to justify any change in the current marriage requirements. I could then stake my claim to the moral high ground and announce that everyone that disagrees with me is a bigot that is trying to repress the civil rights of .
It’s obviously more than just a social ritual or no one would bother changing the laws. They’d just hold a private ceremony, say they were married, and not worry about what the state thought. It’s the societal structure around marriage that you are seeking, but that structure exists for a reason, and that reason is not to simply serve as a social ritual.
Comment by Aluwid — October 25, 2008 @ 1:07 am
But if a couple gets married, their union under the law has to be recognized in all 50 States.
Actually, fwiw, I believe under DOMA this is not true. 27 states have already passed constitutional amendments that only recognize marriage as between a man and a woman, and more than a dozen more have passed other types of measures.
This issue is so much more complicated than just people showing support to gays, as much as I understand and sympathize with that element of the desire to be married.
And Debbie, when I talked about still being able to have your family, I wasn’t talking about a checklist of specific rights, although I can understand wanting them all. I was talking about the fact that you have the right to have a partner, to bring children into your relationship by adoption or from former relationships, and that prop 8 would not strip that away from you. You would still be a family. I understand you want to be married, you want to tell your daughter that you are married, you want that social and cultural acceptance. I understand and sympathize with that. Were I in your shoes, I’d probably want the same thing.
But still, prop 8 is about what the people want. We have to let the democratic process run its course. The people have already voiced their views on this in nearly all the states of the nation. (They already voiced their opinion once in CA…part of the problem with this in the first place is that it’s not even agreed upon that this should have even been on the table. Even the judges couldn’t agree on that.) But, we’ll see what the people of CA say this time around.
It’s important to realize that there are all sorts of people from lots of different backgrounds, beliefs, and feelings on both sides of this issue. To reduce it *only* to religion misses the broader picture of all that is on the table here. I don’t support prop 8 only because of my faith. In fact, that has not been the focus of my effort to support prop 8. I realize that I can’t simply impose my beliefs alone on others, but this issue goes far beyond my beliefs. I have many other concerns that also relate to rights in the broader scheme of things.
As moving as your personal story is (and it really is), I don’t think it reflects the whole picture of what is going on with this issue. Your rights matter, but so do others’. And to me, I see them potentially on a collision course. I believe the law should consider the big picture, not just one small group’s rights, especially when they potentially would come at the expense of others’.
Hard stuff, this.
Comment by m&m — October 25, 2008 @ 1:08 am
Yes, I can see that. Your claims about the social utility of marriage are imaginative to the point of complete fantasy.
No, I’m not factoring in that effect, because the Prop 8 campaign is not running ads claiming that a very liberal Democratic President and overwhelmingly Democratic Congress will lead to churches losing their tax exempt status. They’re claiming that the California Supreme Court decision will do so, which is flatly untrue.
If they want to run ads about the possible outcomes of the presidential and congressional races, fine. But that’s not about Prop 8 and that’s not what’s under discussion here, despite the fantasies you rant on about.
Comment by obi-wan — October 25, 2008 @ 1:10 am
especially when they potentially would come at the expense of others’.
Drat. That was supposed to say ‘could.’ Really. Harumph. I’m tired, I tell you.
BTW,
For those who are interested, I found this really interesting…why one govt (France) has decided to keep marriage heterosexual, even while providing many rights to gay couples.
Comment by m&m — October 25, 2008 @ 1:10 am
Aluwid,
Since Gay people cannot genetically share their gene’s, and genetic weakness comes from interbreeding, what a wonderful safety net to ensure the health of future generations!
I am legally married, and will remain that way as well as 20,000 other gay couples who have tied the knot so far in the beautiful state of California. Evolution is happening.
Prop 8 will not pass in California, 3 states down, and one by one, just like women getting the right to vote, the remaining states will evolve as well.
The Mormon Church, Catholic Church and the GOP have poured over 20 million dollars into prop 8. 6 times the amount raised to fight it, and yet it’s going down. Why? Evolution, that’s why.
Comment by Debbie — October 25, 2008 @ 1:13 am
m&m
I hate to burst your bubble but that report is over 2 years old and has since been changed.
Comment by Debbie — October 25, 2008 @ 1:16 am
m&m
I agree that the balance between State rights and National rights is a sticky thing. We have such an incredible system. Do you believe in civil rights, the constitution, they all have to be balanced against individual rights. It was this balance that allowed you the right to vote. Left to the individual States, you wouldn’t have that right. Many States wanted to keep slavery, they argued that as a State, if the majority wanted to keep slavery intact, it was their right, or as you said, the peoples right to be heard. Our Constitution and our Civil rights protect us from the mob. From prejudice and ensures and guarantees us that we are all treated equally in spite of our neighbors wish that we weren’t. Should prop 8 pass, it will be overturned because it pulls out a group of people and says that they should not have the same rights as all.
Comment by Debbie — October 25, 2008 @ 1:27 am
obi-wan,
Yes, because what nation needs a next generation? Such a trivial thing to worry about…
This is not just a single battle. Proposition 8 is a localized fight against the overall direction towards same-sex marriage. In Debbie’s words: “3 states down, and one by one, just like women getting the right to vote, the remaining states will evolve as well.” Don’t pretend that this is only about whether California continues to recognize same-sex marriages or not. The ultimate destination is what Proposition 8 supporters are warning against, where those that oppose same-sex marriages are seen as so out of the norm that the state feels justified to take action against them. By supporting and passing Proposition 8 we stem the tide.
Not long ago Gay Marriage was just a fantasy that people ranted about. Forgive us for seeing the writing on the wall.
Comment by Aluwid — October 25, 2008 @ 1:37 am
The think about “traditional marriage” and the Church that I find curious is the fact that the Church (or God, for that matter) recognizes the authority of the state to perform marriages at all. It’s not like there’s some vestige of Priesthood authority residing in the state that allows them to perform marriages that suddenly turn the union of two people into something that achieves a status such that the couple is no longer capable of commiting fornication. I’m having a little trouble putting this into words, but it seems that God recognizes the states authority so that a certain class of sins is now avoided.
Given that the emphasis at church, particularly in the young men’s and young women’s classes, is that the only form of marriage worth shooting for is temple marriage, this emphasis on the blessed status of “traditional marriage” performed at the hands of the state just seems a little weird.
Comment by Mark N. — October 25, 2008 @ 1:42 am
“By supporting and passing Proposition 8 we stem the tide.”
By passing Prop 8, a conflict between the terms “equal protection” and “marriage” will have been forced into the state constitution, thereby weakening the document until the conflict is resolved.
Seems like a mighty strange way to honor and sustain the law.
Comment by Mark N. — October 25, 2008 @ 1:45 am
Mark,
If the intention of the legislature when adding equal protection into the constitution was to allow same-sex marriage then they would have gone ahead and changed that at the same time. Adding it now clarifies that point.
I think working through legal democratic channels to achieve a desired political result is a great example of honoring and sustaining the law.
Comment by Aluwid — October 25, 2008 @ 1:54 am
- -“By supporting and passing Proposition 8 we stem the tide.
Uh, is that a receding tide or a rising tide?
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — October 25, 2008 @ 2:02 am
There is the stigma of not being married as well. We live in a small and wonderful community where 90% of my child’ s classmates parents are legally married to each other. My daughter last year my daughter wanted to know why her mommy’s weren’t married. What if the tables were turned. How would you feel about 90% of the families in your child’s school not being married?
I can’t get this one out of my mind.
Before gay marriage was legal, you decided there were good reasons to adopt your daughter. I imagine they included the fact that you felt you had a stable relationship to offer her, much love to give, etc. You made this choice to bring her into your family before gay marriage was legal. I would hope that you anticipated the questions your daughter would inevitably have. Those are the answers you give her. It seems to me to expect the law to ratify a decision you already made undermines your own decision. I say own that decision and don’t avoid the fact that you made that decision knowing you would put her into a 10th-percentile situation. That doesn’t mean she can’t have a good life, but blaming the state for the questions she might have misses the fact that you made the choice in the first place. And only you can help her feel safe with that. The state can’t and shouldn’t be expected to. This argument that it’s about the children just doesn’t hold up for me because if that were really a concern, why bring them into these situations in the first place?
It also seems to me that even with a relationship called marriage, your daughter will still notice that her life is not in the 90th percentile. Kids notice details, whether it be that the kids down the street get new backpacks each year for school, or that their family makeup is different. So whatever the state calls your relationship, you know that it will still be up to you to define her life and the love you have for her and teach her that she is safe and loved. If you don’t acknowledge the differences that are obvious to her, that could create more problems for her than anything the state decides to do, imo.
In the meantime, people like me can strive to teach their children that others’ lives are different, and to respect them in our differences. And I can do that without the state changing the definition of marriage, too.
Comment by m&m — October 25, 2008 @ 2:13 am
I hate to burst your bubble but that report is over 2 years old and has since been changed.
If anything, Debbie, if this is the case, you only strengthen my case for my concerns. In nearly every state in the nation, the people have already voted on this. Even if prop 8 fails, CA’s vote should not have the power to overturn nearly four dozen states’ votes.
But actually, when I was talking about rights, I *was* talking about individual rights, the potential risk to the civil rights of those who maintain that marriage should remain between a man and a woman, for religious or other reasons. The issue of states vs. nation was not on my mind when I wrote that. FWIW.
I am sorry, but I don’t see this in the same class as slavery. You are not forced to live a life at the will of others. You are able to work, love, parent, think, vote, own property, speak, act, and live as you please. Please don’t compare your situation with those who were truly oppressed, truly in bonds, truly treated as lesser people. “The mob” is not trying to oppress you or take advantage of your existence. I say that not to be flippant but to point out something that I think is important.
Again, if rights are of a concern, and they are, then let’s be sure we talk about ALL the rights that could be affected in the big picture…the possible domino effect on rights (e.g., free speech, religious, parental, taxpayer, teacher) if gay marriage is legal, and as you predict, takes over the nation.
Comment by m&m — October 25, 2008 @ 2:27 am
–You are able to work–,
In most states you can be fired for being gay. Until 2003, in most states you could be arrested for being gay. In most states, committed gay partners are legal strangers, and if one dies the surviving partner can lose their home.
Gays and lesbians are held in a lesser position. And our loving relationships are ridiculed as not being worthy of marriage.
In States where the fundamentalist Christians succeeded in placing anti gay marriage into the state constitution, Gays have lost their health benefits as well as other benefits..I have met lesbian mothers who lost custody of their children due to the fact they were lesbian.
We are well aware of the domino affect, and what fundamentalist christians have in store for us.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — October 25, 2008 @ 2:48 am
Ray (97),
Unintended consequences cut both ways.
By the way, the Daily Universe picked up some of your comments elsewhere for a Prop 8 editorial.
Comment by Peter LLC — October 25, 2008 @ 4:50 am
Debbie,
I went to bed after my last post, and saw your response this morning. I have to admit, I am not quite sure what you are getting at. I was trying to voice my opinion on how ridiculous it was to imply that same sex couples don’t contribute positively to our society (which Aluwid has since clarified slightly, but still…)
I fully support SSM and wish you and your family all the best — regardless of who your family consists of. I don’t care if you have children through artificial insemination, adopt children with special needs, or adopt children without special needs, whatever. If you are providing love and guidance and stability to a child, you are doing a great thing for the world.
Congratulations on your marriage!
Comment by Nicole — October 25, 2008 @ 8:39 am
“But actually, when I was talking about rights, I *was* talking about individual rights, the potential risk to the civil rights of those who maintain that marriage should remain between a man and a woman, for religious or other reasons.”
Are you similarly concerned about the abrogation of the civil rights of those who maintain that marriage should be between two people of the same race, for religious or other reasons?
‘Cause if the mere state recognition of a marriage with which one disagrees amounts to an attack on one’s civil rights, then there are millions of anti-miscegenists across our nation who’re having their civil rights violated at this very moment! Mixed-race marriage is being taught, in our public schools, as just as valid same-race marriage. What message is that sending to innocent kindergarteners whose parents oppose such marriages, and who wish to pass that opposition along to their children? What about the civil rights of those good people of faith whose reading of the Bible compels them to oppose mixed-race marriages, on religious grounds?
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
p.s.: Speaking for myself, I suppose I should note that I don’t think that state recognition of same-sex marriage violates the civil rights of homophobes, any more than state recognition of interracial marriage violates the civil rights of racists. Homophobes remain free to refuse to marry people of their same gender (and instruct their children to do likewise), just as racists remain free to refuse to marry people of a different ethnicity (and instruct their children to do likewise).
Comment by Patrick Meighan — October 25, 2008 @ 9:39 am
“I am sorry, but I don’t see this in the same class as slavery. You are not forced to live a life at the will of others. You are able to work, love, parent, think, vote, own property, speak, act, and live as you please. Please don’t compare your situation with those who were truly oppressed, truly in bonds, truly treated as lesser people. “The mob” is not trying to oppress you or take advantage of your existence. I say that not to be flippant but to point out something that I think is important.”
I wonder, if there were a measure on the ballot to constitutionally bar you from marrying the person you love most in the world, and who loves you in return (say, based on your faith… perhaps a state ballot measure which barred marriage rights to all members of the LDS Church) would you be just as sanguine? Would you say, “Sure, take away my marriage rights, ’cause after all, we could still register at the courthouse as domestic partners with similar sets of rights, and it’s certainly not like the mob is trying to oppress us or take advantage of our existence.”?
Or, alternately, would such a ballot measure strike you as capricious and mean-spirited? A bigoted act, designed to scapegoat Mormons? Perhaps even an example of the mob trying to oppress you?
Speaking as a non-Mormon, I’d consider it the latter. Such a ballot measure would strike me as an evil piece of discriminatory garbage, and I’d feel called to oppose it with every breath in my body… even as a non-Mormon, without any direct, personal stake in the outcome.
And, speaking as a heterosexual, I feel the exact same way about Prop 8. I feel it’s discriminatory and wrong, and I feel called to oppose it with every breath in my body… even as a heterosexual, without any direct, personal stake in the outcome.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
Comment by Patrick Meighan — October 25, 2008 @ 9:49 am
Any form of inequality is treating a group as a lesser people.
My gay brother has endured filthy, unprovoked insults and he and his boyfriend were physically attacked in Washington, D.C. two years ago. (Tell him that it wasn’t a mob mentality.) How about the 2 years he put into a project at work that no one else could pull off without his expertise, only to be looked over for a promotion (which was given to a person with lesser qualifications and experience and was subordinate to my brother) by an openly homophobic boss, who came up with every other excuse than the real one…he loathes gays. Tell him about his so-called choice about being gay- something he tried to pray away for 6 years and almost commited suicide over…all because he really didn’t ask for this additional challenge in life. He takes a chance with his personal and emotional safety every time he lives authentically…this is outrageous and he’s done absolutely nothing but life a good and decent life.
Where is the mercy in people? Where is the compassion and even in the absence of it, where is the logic?
Comment by Kimberly — October 25, 2008 @ 11:14 am
Patrick,
We actually agree Patrick. I would be livid if any State didn’t allow any two people (Mormons included) to marry that are law abiding citizens. I feel very comfortable comparing the plight of African Americans and Woman to the plight of the gay’s. I could exhaust the readers by giving examples of how Gays not to long ago were rounded up like cattle and beaten to death. I could tell you that my best friend who is Gay and black completely disagrees with you on the prejudice comparison.
I believe in separation of church and State. I believe that a person in the U.S. has a right to practice any religion they want, as long as it doesn’t interfere with our human rights. I’m sorry if using the term “mob rule” offends you but it is a perfect term, and I agree, a simple term used time and time again in history to explain the desire of humans to subject their will over others.
The history of the pink gay triangle was a way to mark people who were gay so they could be set grouped for extermination or horrific medical tests.
One can argue that Woman in the U.S. didn’t have the rough treatment that blacks did, therefore they shouldn’t compare their plight to blacks. It’s all discrimination. When Woman were protesting for the right to vote, (of all colors) They were rounded up too, like cattle and on President Wilson’s orders beaten.
Hate is hate. One type of hate is not lesser or better than another.
Comment by Debbie — October 25, 2008 @ 11:14 am
In a conversation that centers around speculation about parental and religious rights some time in the future, I think we should also discuss the uncertain future of various rights for gay people, right now.
Any rights which gay people think they may have now are very tenuous. Some states don’t allow civil unions and others don’t allow gay people to adopt (Utah, take a bow). The Yes on 8 coalition has made it clear that it sees the defeat of SSM as just the beginning of an incremental rollback of rights for homosexuals. In my opinion, supporters of the coalition are aggressively seeking to revoke the rights of others, right now, beyond just the right to marry, while worrying that their own rights might face a challenge sometime in the future.
Comment by Mark Brown — October 25, 2008 @ 11:17 am
If anyone is inclined to challenge my assertion that Prop 8 supporters want to challenge civil unions and get them banned too, please take a look here. The last two bullet points on the last page reveal a lot.
Comment by Mark Brown — October 25, 2008 @ 11:23 am
#134 - Thanks, Peter. I was not aware of that editorial.
Comment by Ray — October 25, 2008 @ 12:16 pm
138
What your brother has experienced is indeed something we should all be concerned about. Gays are people and children of God and they deserve to be treated with kindness and respect.
But I don’t see *not* changing the definition of marriage to be in the same ballpark of what you are talking about. I’m sorry, I just don’t. I don’t see marriage as a civil right that should be available to anyone who wants it. That is a fundamental difference here. Marriage has never just been a free right available to all; it has always had certain requirements and specific limitations. I believe there is purpose in that, and that that is not the same as hate or discrimination.
Debbie, disagree with me if you will, but please do not misrepresent my position as about hate. I have said that before, and I say it again. It is no worse for you to make generalizations about people who support prop 8 than it is for people to make generalizations about gays and lesbians.
If we are to respect the rights of religion and free speech, then there must be space for people like me to have my beliefs and my point of view. Otherwise, you (and others who take this approach) are evidencing part of the problem that will very likely happen if gay marriage passes on a wide scale. My rights are to believe as I will and speak about those beliefs without fear of retribution or discrimination. I don’t believe gays should lose jobs or be labeled or ridiculed or called names because they are gay. I don’t believe I should be labeled or ridiculed because I don’t agree with you on gay marriage. I don’t believe people should be afraid for their jobs because they support prop 8 (but they are!) This definitely cuts both ways. I wish you could see that.
BTW, separation of church and state was never about people not being able to vote their conscience which may be influenced by religious beliefs. (Religious belief was at the foundation of our nation!) Separation of church and state was about never having one church be the church of the state. We are so very far from this (how many churches are there in our nation? How many different beliefs about God?) that this concept seems completely out of place to me in a discussion like this.
The wonder of our country is that we can stand side by side and have different viewpoints. Please let me have mine.
Comment by m&m — October 25, 2008 @ 1:35 pm
Religious belief was never at the foundation of our nation. Am I reading you right, M&M, that you wish that hatred of gays, as long as not supported by, say, physical attacks is just hunky-dory, and to suggest otherwise makes one a bigot. No matter how nicey-nice the language is supporting it? You actually have that right, right now, As do people who hate immigrants, or black people, or whatever. Is what you are calling for the ability to disparage gay people publicly and not have your assertions challenged? Well, challengers have rights too.
I think what you really want is for the Mormon church to spend what? Countless man-hours and millions of dollars to get the Yes on 8 passed and not be labeled homophobic bigots by uh, people regularly encountering the missionaries. Not going to happen. Act like homophobic bigots, (no you can’t be married, but look how nice I am when I say it) and live with the consequences. I don’t remember Mormons being anything but all gung-ho for what was it? Prop 3 a couple of years ago that stripped same sex couples of every imaginable right. I don’t believe for a moment that this isn’t the attitude of most mormons, because if it wasn’t the proposition wouldn’t have passed with such a large majority. The fact that currently Mormons are forced to deal with a situation in California that affords gay families rights does not mean, for one second, that they wouldn’t deny them these rights if given a chance, as shown by the vote in Utah. So there. I’m glad you’re not advocating beating the crap out of gay people. thanks for that.
Comment by djinn — October 25, 2008 @ 2:57 pm
Oh, and the only generalization I’m making about you, m&m is that you support Prop.8. Btw, did you support that anti-same-sex couple bill in Utah? Because if you didn’t I will change my mind about you.
Comment by djinn — October 25, 2008 @ 3:01 pm
But, considering the recent history of the church, vis a vis gay people, it seems perfectly fair to wonder about their attitudes toward same sex couples.
Comment by djinn — October 25, 2008 @ 3:03 pm
“If we are to respect the rights of religion and free speech, then there must be space for people like me to have my beliefs and my point of view. Otherwise, you (and others who take this approach) are evidencing part of the problem that will very likely happen if gay marriage passes on a wide scale. My rights are to believe as I will and speak about those beliefs without fear of retribution or discrimination.” - m&m
This just *isn’t* about freedom of speech though. You are completely free to say whatever you want about gays and gay marriage… but that doesn’t mean others aren’t free to say they disagree with you or that they think your words have real. negative consequences for other members of society. Freedom of speech means the government can’t stop you from saying something and can’t seek retribution against you/discriminate against you for your words - it doesn’t mean others have to respect what you’re saying, give you space to say it (ie, if you said something in my living room I didn’t like, I could kick you out of my living room without infringing on any type of government-provided free speech rights), or not call you out on it. You’re talking about wanting to take away someone’s right to marry - and even if you believe you have good reason for that, it makes sense that that person would see this as hurtful (and you did acknowledge that your position could be hurtful to someone, which I appreciate). But given that you want to take away their rights, I don’t understand why you’re surprised or hurt that people are trying to convince you otherwise, or failing that, confront you with the consequences of your position.
Comment by epi — October 25, 2008 @ 4:06 pm
m&m, I disagree that anyone considering you hateful - you, m&m, specifically, and not just because you’re one of those who wants to ban gay marriage - is making a generalization. I’ve been to your blog. I’ve seen that long list of links you promote opposing gay marriage. I’ve seen what you’ve written and the ideas and organizations you have supported. And they seem very hateful to me. I don’t know of another word for it.
djinn seems hateful to me, too. She’s judging you very harshly. But every time you talk about how “hard” it is to oppose gay marriage, how much “persecution” you face and how much you “love” gay people, I feel sick to my stomach. Those are such empty words placed alongside the links and words and beliefs you promote.
You want to maintain your right to condemn homosexuality. And you will. You can condemn women, and blacks, and biracial children ,and Muslims however much you would like right now, and these folks have had essentially equal rights for a long time. You can’t discriminate against them in housing or employing, but you can tell your children that women, blacks, biracial children and Muslims are dirty, ill-bred people who would be much better off if they had never been born. That is your right as an American citizen. You can also stand on a street corner with a banjo and shout to pedestrians about how much you hate women, blacks, biracial children and Muslims. That is your right as an American. And you can do the same thing regarding homosexuality.
Your fear is that your First Amendment rights will be challenged by gay marriage. But if you look at any oppressed people - like women, blacks, biracial children, and Muslims - or hey, Mormons! - people were afraid that they’d never be allowed to say what they really feel about these groups, and yet they are. Women have had the right to vote for a long time. Blacks have been considered full people for a long time. Various questionable religious groups live amongst us in relative peace and harmony. Biracial children still have it hard in some areas of the country, but we’re making progress. These social experiments have had pretty good results as far as First Amendment rights are concerned.
If you truly have compassion for gays, as you constantly, constantly, constantly express, can’t you see that treating them as the equal human beings they are is a worthy experiment? Can’t you consider humbling yourself and opening your heart to them, allowing them to be treated equally, recognizing that social experiments of the past have resulted in better treatment, better relationships, better inclusiveness for all? And I’m not talking about opening your heart by bringing your gay neighbor a plate of home-baked cookies, like “Hey - no hard feelings, eh?” What a hollow gesture. What condescension. I’m talking about saying to your gay neighbor, “I’m afraid that I won’t be able to condemn your choice to act on your sexual desire to my children and community. I believe that we probably can’t have these rights side-by-side - your right to exist as I exist, and my right to condemn it. But I’m willing to take the risk, because I love you, and you deserve to live as I do.”
m&m, I get it - you’re a person, too. You don’t want to subsume your own opinion just to prove your love. But you can’t have it both ways. I really don’t believe that you can. If you want to maintain your opinion, then do it. But don’t blanket it in the words of love and compassion. You do a terrible disservice to those of us who have opened ourselves to love and compassion and said, “Okay, let’s give it a try. It’s worth it to try to bring more equality and inclusiveness into our communities.” You simply cannot strip someone of rights they already have or prevent them from living the life they deserve - and such a joyful life! such a beautiful right! - and tell them that you’re doing it from love. That sounds really sick. Mentally sick.
I will defend your ability to tell your children whatever you want and to stand on that street corner with a banjo singing about gays bringing about the End of Days. That’s your right. I have no doubt that you will retain it, even in this lifetime when the Bill of Rights seems terribly shredded and weak. You deserve that right. But gays deserve theirs, too. I’m willing to consider the experiment of allowing gays to have equal rights against the possible risk of you not being allowed to stand on that street corner. I think it’s very sad that you don’t believe these rights can exist side-by-side, but I think that authentic compassion demands that we try.
That is all. I don’t have anything else to add to the discussion and I will probably not be able to comment again.
Comment by Chandelle — October 25, 2008 @ 4:07 pm
Thank you Chandelle - you expressed what I was trying to say but couldn’t figure out how to put together…
Comment by epi — October 25, 2008 @ 4:55 pm
Vote “YES” on Prop Marriage
We all know that the future looks scary…especially if you believe in the same beliefs I do. Because we want wonderful lives for our children and these days teaching them all we can is not a guarantee of outcome. How can we teach our children to be steadfast no matter what Government dictates to be acceptable? How confusing it will be for our children to believe that as Latter Day Saints we follow the laws of the land..except that one about gay marriage?
The divorce rate continues to rise nation wide, so how can Government really respect our belief in the sacred covenant of marriage if we don’t? If we don’t give our all to the promise of marriage. It has become to easy to throw in the towel and give up, start over, walk away. Yes, marriage can be hard. Very Hard! My marriage is not always perfect. We have things to work on, but the rewards of working on things together is so much greater than starting over.
I really don’t care if Government allows People to create partnerships that give tax breaks just don’t call it marriage (how about just taxing everyone equally if they are married or not).
The definition of marriage has been defined and ordained by God. Government or even man for that matter have no right to change God’s definitions. Give them a “Union” or a “partnership” tax break, allow them to carry domestic partnerships for medical insurance. Just don’t call it marriage and don’t allow them to adopt children. You do need to be married to adopt children right! Domestic partnership does not equal marriage. Allow churches to exercise their beliefs. If a church does not believe in same sex marriage than they don’t need to allow those types of ceremonies.
I believe that if we want the Government to really believe that we believe in the sacred covenant of marriage than we need to lower the divorce rate. It might take greater sacrifice and greater commitment and focus on our own families, but that’s what we need to do. So don’t just vote YES on Prop 8 (if you live in CA) vote “YES” to your own marriage and give it your all. Do everything you can to make your marriage a great one and stick to if even when it gets tough.
I do believe in divorce as a very very last resort. Just make sure it’s the only resort you have left before throwing in your towel.
Comment by Janene Cook — October 25, 2008 @ 5:37 pm
Chandelle, thank you for your eloquence. m&m talks of fairness and love while you express it in it’s truest form.
m&m
I feel that Jesus would surely not approve of your approach, but, without question, as you said, we all have a right in this Country to our own opinion, we just don’t have the right as a civilized people to impose our own personal moral beliefs on our law abiding neighbors.
Here’s to freedom of speech m&m, freedom of religion and equality for all!
Comment by Debbie — October 25, 2008 @ 5:40 pm
So don’t just vote YES on Prop 8 (if you live in CA) vote “YES” to your own marriage and give it your all.
Unless your own marriage happens to be a gay marriage, in which case you should be in favor of divorce?
For some people, NO on prop 8 means YES to their own marriage.
You do need to be married to adopt children right!
Actually, it’s not illegal for singles to adopt–it’s just not easy.
Comment by Kiskilili — October 25, 2008 @ 5:55 pm
“The wonder of our country is that we can stand side by side and have different viewpoints. Please let me have mine.”
I do. I have no intent to revoke your right to disapprove of my friends’ marriages. And my friends, who are married, have no intent to revoke your right to disapprove of their marriages. All they ask (and all I ask) is that you simply allow them to remain married (despite your disapproval) and let them live their lives, as they (and I) let you live yours.
Is that really so very much to ask?
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
Comment by Patrick Meighan — October 25, 2008 @ 6:19 pm
Great conversation you guys are having, and surprisingly civil !
Mark Brown makes a good point in comments #140 - 141: It’s clear that the people and groups behind Yes On 8 have a MUCH bigger long-term agenda than just banning SSM in CA.
This is hardly a secret. Of course, it’s also a hopeless agenda. Our society isn’t going to return to the days of sodomy laws, raids on gay bars, and overt legal persecution of homosexuals.
All this makes the situation in a place like California very interesting. In a sense, the anti-gay forces here lost the battle a long time ago. So why the big freak out over whether gay relationships are labeled one thing (marriage), or another (domestic partners)? It’s not as if these couples are going to go away regardless of the outcome.
Personally, I would propose strengthening protections for religious people who oppose SSM (and miscegenation, etc). I really do see how threatening all these social changes must be from that perspective.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — October 25, 2008 @ 8:43 pm
You know I’m just trying to get grounded on what the Mormon community wants so I apologize for this next question if it sound ignorant.
Does the Mormon community oppose gay marriage for Mormon’s or do they oppose gay marriage for everyone?
I’m in the business of open adoption. I work with families of all types build their families through adoption. They come from all walks of life and religious backgrounds. They come from every State in our Union. I may not subscribe to the Mormon doctrine but I still help these families with their outreach. Some probably know that I’m gay and still use my service.
I also work with many adoption agency studying numbers and statistics and there is one very clear statistic. Gay families are picked as much or more that straight families as parents by birthmothers.
Here are the numbers:
Gays in committed or civil unions and straight married couples that are seeking to adopt, are the most favored by birthmothers.
Straight couples that are not married come in second, and single woman come in third. Single men, last.
These numbers have stayed a constant for over 7 years. And it is a national average.
The analysis is very clear to the adoption professionals. Marriage culturally means something special. If it didn’t, the straight couple who is not married would rank up their next to gay couples who are not married as well. When asking birthmothers why they chose a gay couple who was in a committed relationship over the straight couple their answer was consistant. They felt the gay couple was being unfairly prevented from being able to marry and if they had the choice, they would. The straight couple could marry, but they chose not to and this bothers birthmoms.
We fully expect that with the passage of gay marriages in California, the adoption advantages for gay married couples will increase even further over straight non married couples seeking to adopt.
I’m in the business of being honest and objective about adoption statistics. If I’m going to help any couple especially a gay couple adopt, I serve no one by blowing smoke up their bloomers about the realities of their challenges. Statistics prove that more than gender, commitment is the most important thing to a potential birthmom placing her child for adoption.
I am gay, I am now legally married and if I want to use that term I will. No one, including the church has a right to that copyright.
Un
Comment by Debbie — October 26, 2008 @ 12:49 am
155 Debbie,
I just visited your site and noticed we live right by eachother. so hi!
The answer is that Mormons oppose gay marriage for everyone. That’s why the church isn’t content to preach against it to its members but finds it necessary to campaign against it legally.
That said, one of the hardest things about this to myself and many of my mormon friends is that the paragraph above doesn’t speak for us at all, and so please, while discussing the church’s institutional actions, please don’t think that any particular member you meet agrees with those actions or opposes your marriage. Plenty of us don’t see things that way and are quite uncomfortable to be put in this position.
Comment by cchrissyy — October 26, 2008 @ 1:09 am
Ahh personal conversations all around. i have been subjected as a straight white woman to people who pretend to “love” me, as m&m professes to “love”her gay neighbors pretty much my entire adult life, but whose actions, like those links on m&m’s site prove something otherwise. m&m hasn’t answered. Was she for or against basic partner rights in Utah? Huh? I disagree with Chantelle here. Why is my action hateful? I just want a bit (just a bit) of evidence, not just nicey nicey words, which I Have heard plenty of in my life. How about the law in Utah that did its best to prevent gay couples from adopting, m&m, for or against? Let’s just find out exactly where you stand. Sweet words with nothing behind them mean nothing.
Comment by djinn — October 26, 2008 @ 1:20 am
cchrissyy
YIKES! I am so sorry, you are absolutely right. I lumped all Mormons together and I know better than that. The reason that I was so attracted to this site in the first place was the diversity of thought. I stand corrected. Some of the most compelling arguments against Prop 8 have been posted by Mormons and I don’t believe that the url of this site is an oxymoron.
Comment by Debbie — October 26, 2008 @ 1:44 am
I, in an entire hour, have reevaluated. I admire you very much, my imaginary pixillated role model, Chantelle, not that I ever hope for anything from you but the occasional indirect answer. What did I do wrong? How can I be forgiven? what shall I do?
Comment by djinn — October 26, 2008 @ 2:34 am
djinn, I apologize for my indirect comment to you. I suppose that, throughout this whole conversation, and the other conversations, and conversations off fMh, and so on, I have become progressively more depressed and irritated and frustrated by the way we speak to each other. I count myself in that condemnation. We’ve gotten nowhere. Nobody has expressed respect for anybody except those with whom they agree. I count myself there, too. It is extremely difficult for me to respect m&m’s argument. It’s extremely hard for me to feel compassion for her, in the way that she feels persecuted. This mean nasty person inside of me wants to say, “Oh yeah? Well, you deserve to feel bad. My heart don’t bleed for the bigot, lady.” But I tried to be civil in my previous comment, and to be kind. I don’t think I succeeded. I don’t know better than anyone how to talk about this issue without becoming angry and self-righteous. Equal rights for all is such a cornerstone for me, of existence, of peaceful, compassionate existence, which is what I want even if I eff it up for myself left and right. And no more do I eff it up left and right than when somebody tries to come up with a lot of reasons why equal rights are not necessary, or important, or relevant, or possible.
djinn, I thought your comments were very hard, harsh, angry, and not conducive to continued conversation. I doubt that m&m will respond and were those comments directed at me, I probably wouldn’t, either. I feel your rage and passion and I feel that for myself, too. It’s hard to restrain oneself when we take the things that others say very personally, when they strike at the core of our beliefs. If I came on here and started spewing vitriol about the church - not the passive judgment of, or deep discomfort with, the church that occurs here on a regular basis, but true anti-Mormon rhetoric - I would expect to be hit with a lot of nasty comments and then banned. Because I would have struck at something very dear, a core belief of most of the people here. m&m has struck at something very dear to me and you - our belief in equal rights for all - and that sprouts all kinds of mean and nasty animals, which then attack. But it’s not productive; it’s not integrative to drive someone off with equally hateful comments, more overtly hateful rhetoric.
I don’t know how to keep this conversation kind and productive. I don’t have any advice for how to move beyond these judgments and speak in compromise-inducing ways. I just don’t know. I’ve been hateful enough myself. So, I’m sorry for my sidelong comment to you, djinn; I was trying to be somewhat equivocal with m&m and indicate that I’m aware that people on my side have serious problems with peaceful discourse as well . I should have just cited myself.
Comment by Chandelle — October 26, 2008 @ 9:22 am
That’s a stretch, keep trying to put lipstick on that pig though if it makes you feel better about how some people are fighting gay marriage. In your eyes the end result must always justify the means.
Comment by jjohnsen — October 26, 2008 @ 9:47 am
Chandelle:
If m&m had spouted racial bigotry, no one here would have thought she deserved respect…. I mean yes, nasty comments don’t get the dialogue anywhere, but i’m starting to think nothing does.
The only reason I can see for engaging her is for others to see the arguments. And to show the ‘world’ that LDS aren’t all so monolithic as they suspect.
Everyone:
FWIW, this is how i see m&m and why I don’t think your words can influence her: she is coming from a place where the base assumption is the church is always right, good, moral, and true. All other facts must be fit into that world view. Even if they can’t logically or morally or realistically do so.
Maybe some real life experience could change that (gay friends or a gay child, or some other direct experience with life’s gray areas) But I’m not optimistic about the power of words here. Sorry.
Comment by Not Ophelia — October 26, 2008 @ 9:51 am
“Shall the Utah Constitution be amended to provide that: (1) marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman; and (2) no other domestic union may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equal legal effect.”
This was the constitutional amendment 3 that passed in 2004 (I got the year wrong) by about 65% in Utah. I don’t recall any official Mormon opposition, and so I feel all the talk about how rights are not being removed in California is a bit disingenuous, as the Mormon church in its official capacity didn’t speak out against rights being removed in this,, much clearer instance.
I was working at the District Court in Salt Lake when the law passed that forbade gay couples to adopt in Utah. The (overwhelmingly Mormon) judges were horrified. The thought of the children that would be left in foster care (gay couples tend to adopt the otherwise unadoptable and give them loving homes–according to my sources at the Utah Courthouse.)
So, long winded comment. Mormons are really really decent people. m&m is a decent person, that, as far as i can tell, is only really against gay marriage because the Prophet told her to be.
The Mormon church is not a monolithic organization. Change can percolate from the bottom up. It seems to me that plenty of actual temple-recommend-holding tithe paying Mormons are either horrified or deeply conflicted by this particular campaign. I, as I don’t go to Church, do not have a voice that will be heard. But others do. There’s so many gay mormon men (it’s a function of birthrate) If the rank and file of the church would let their displeasure at this be known (other than taking a long hike) perhaps things will change. That’s all. But, I suspect, rather than expressing displeasure more people will be taking that long hike. Who wants to be thought a homophobe and a bigot? That’s so four or five years ago.
Comment by djinn — October 26, 2008 @ 1:07 pm
For what it’s worth at this point: The teachers’ union donated $1Mil to No on 8. Apparently this prompted a bunch of Yes on 8 groups to plan on keeping kids out of school as a sign of protest. It was announced over the pulpit that we should not join this protest…a lovely bunch of folks our church has aligned itself with…
Comment by newbie — October 26, 2008 @ 1:07 pm
djinn
This blog is proof that change is inevitable. And if we can look back 10, 20 or even 100 years in the Mormon church, we would all agree that Mormon doctrine has changed imensley. If m&m had the courage to look at the churches history, and if she agreed that at the time, many people within the church were afraid of change, but doctrine shifted anyway, couldn’t she see that that this fight by some of the churches flock to fight to keep gays from legal marriage is the same exact fight to keep African Americans from holding high positions in the church?
Boy I know that was long winded, and simple, but it seams like such a simple topic.
I’m sure the Mormon judges were horrified when they had to vote against civil and constitutional rights.
We are a country of incredible diversity, of nationalities and religions or the choice not to practice religion. With freedom of religion being such a hugh cornerstone for us, what it is really saying is we can choose our religion. But you can’t hold a Country together by flying a religious flag over it, you hold a country together with a flag that represents everyone, in spite of their religious beliefs.
I’m not sure if m&m will log again, but she should take up the challenge. If I’m gay and can read her comments, she should have the courage to read mine. But I have another question which I would love feedback on. What does the “of” in Freedom of Religion mean to every on this blog? It’s not “from” it’s not “under” it’s not “over”. How do you interpret “of”.
Comment by Debbie — October 26, 2008 @ 1:54 pm
djinn, I was around during Amendment 3 and I do remember that, in church, we were encouraged to support it. It was so much more ambiguous than it is with this thing in California, however. Maybe because it was so obviously a non-issue in Utah.
It’s true, you and I don’t have much of a voice in this issue as inactive/ex-members. But I do feel a huge boost to see such an enormous wave of protest in support of gay rights in the church. I do have family members and friends who are 100% anti-gay rights, but I know SO many people who are deeply considering this, asking questions, praying, thinking for themselves, being courageous. That gives me hope.
Comment by Chandelle — October 26, 2008 @ 2:46 pm
Well said NO -
Like Mark Twain said “it ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble, it’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”
Comment by Meredith C — October 26, 2008 @ 3:10 pm
Meredith
Even over our Governments rights? Do you think that m&m would think it a perfect world if the U.S. State and National Government, saw the light and wrote church doctrine into our laws? I would see that as the only solution for her to feel justice as been served.
Comment by Debbie — October 26, 2008 @ 3:25 pm
Hey, guys?
I know m&m personally and have had many conversations with her in person and over the phone. It hurts my heart to hear people talking about her as if she isn’t a person and just a commodity. She’s a strong person that deals with physical and emotional turmoil every single day; she deserves some compassion (compassion, btw, that she shows to everyone in her wake).
Please…could you guys remember that everyone posting comments here are real people? I mean, everyone seems excited about Debbie and her recent marriage –they’re treating her as a real person. Doesn’t m&m deserve the same?In the three years I have blogged, I was always in awe at m&m’s ability to speak with kindness. She is a very kind person –to the core. The fact that she doesn’t agree with SSM doesn’t make her a hater. My gay friends and family know I’m not a hater, even though we disagree about SSM. Why would you guys assume m&m is any different? Because she speaks about what she believes?
Aren’t you doing that, too?
Anyway, that’s all. I just had to jump in and put some humanity on the face of a friend because I couldn’t stand her being labeled a Bigot or a Blind follower (NO–making assumptions is never very wise). She is neither.
Thank you.
Comment by cheryl — October 26, 2008 @ 6:41 pm
Cheryl, I don’t doubt that m&m speaks with sincerity. She may also be, as was once said of a famous queen, nice to mice. Not the issue. As for what are here the issues: if it quacks like a duck…
Comment by actualthoughanonlesbian — October 26, 2008 @ 6:56 pm
And by the way, I do indeed “speak about what I believe”. My beliefs, however, do not include say, the belief that people so credulous as to fall for the load of falsehoods being peddled via widgets and the LDS in favor of proposition 8 ought to be, on account of their credulity, prohibited from obtaining marriage licenses by the state. I am not, that is to say, a bigot against the credulous.
Comment by actualthoughanonlesbian — October 26, 2008 @ 7:00 pm
#169 I think you misunderstood NO’s comment:
She is saying precisely what you are saying.
What is in dispute, Cheryl, is wether one can profess bigoted views and not be a bigot themselves.
I attempted to engage M&M on this question but got nowhere. She answered none of my questions, didn’t even pretend to try. She let me know that she wasn’t avoiding my questions because she wasn’t aware of them but in the next breath let me know that she was aware of them because friends had told her I hadn’t been nice. I think that as nice a person she genuinly seems to want to be, she is talking out of both sides of her mouth.
Those groups she links to on her website? Not nice. Not answering a single one of my questions but questioning my character? Not nice. Seeking to legislate my friends families out of existence? Decidedly not nice.
Having said that, Cheryl, do I believe that M&M is a good friend to you, do I believe that you would call her if you needed help, could trust her with a secret or fear and feel secure that she is a woman who would be both patient and kind to you? Of course I do.
That is not the issue. If I contributed to your believing that it was I apologize, and I’ll watch my tone. The issue is and continues to be; can you promote bigotry and not be a bigot? I think you probably can’t but I’m open to hearing differing views and possibly being wrong. Nothing said by M&M has shifted my thinking on that.
On another (longwinded) note NO has said somethiong else I’ve been thinking- why respond when you know it falls on deaf ears? Others are listening and it may be useful to them. I felt really disheartened after my last exchange but NO’s right. We just keep on keepin on and we try to keep our spirits high and our ethics from slipping out of desperation or fear.
Comment by crazywomancreek — October 26, 2008 @ 7:00 pm
Honestly, cheryl, the fact that m&m is obviously such a deeply kind person just makes it worse, as I addressed in my comment.
My parents are deeply kind, always-got-your-back, super-supportive racists. That’s how it is. I love ‘em, but I don’t have illusions.
Comment by Chandelle — October 26, 2008 @ 7:17 pm
#160 - If we all stopped and evaluated our comments in the light of how we would respond if they were written by someone else about us, and then re-read them with that same frame of mind, I think much of the nastiness would be removed before we hit “Add my comment”.
I also think that if we simply realized that not everyone who disagrees with us is 1) a bigoted, brain-washed fool or 2) a godless tool of Satan much of our stereotyping would cease.
Finally, if we all realized that much (if not most or even all) of our individual perspectives are influenced greatly by our own upbringing, joys, pains, traumas, etc. - and that nothing is as black and white as we tend to see it (that every single one of us sees through our individual glass, darkly) - if we realized that, charity would be much easier to find and grant.
Fwiw, the final counsel Jesus gave before telling us to be perfect (complete, whole, fully developed) in the Sermon on the Mount is interesting:
(Matthew 5:43-47 for the full context)
Comment by Ray — October 26, 2008 @ 7:28 pm
Cheryl,
Thank your for being excited about the people who are excited about my marriage.
Here is an absolute single truth that we can all agree on. Most of us really don’t know each other. We could all be male serial killers in disguise. I not nothing about m&m really other than the political and personal views that she has stated on this website. I now know that she has a website that has links to anti gay beliefs. I can comment on that because it is public like my website. If you visit my website you get an idea of my political beliefs surrounding open adoption. I’m very comfortable with the links that I have included on my site. I feel that it is my responcibility as a publisher of information on the internet, that I only include information that I can morally support. Other than sharing my politcal ideas and what I publish on the Internet, just like m&m that is the only fair way to draw an opion about us.
I can respect m&m’s right to speak her mind and share her opinions, I don’t owe her a friendship. I can listen with respect to m&m’s theory’s, I don’t owe her my conscience.
m&m very politely told me that I was a wonderful person but in order to respect her I needed to let her promote her ideas without a rebuttal. The funny thing about this statement is, I haven’t any power over what she promotes or not. I simple disagreed with her, and like her, gave my opinion in return. This seamed just to overwhelming, and now she has her friend, fighting a fight for her that doesn’t exist. Like us, she can put her big girl panties on, come back to the blog and fight her own fights. As much as she would like to fantasize that her human rights are being trample on by this blog…sister, I can one up her.
Comment by Debbie — October 26, 2008 @ 7:35 pm
Debbie-
M&M has no idea I left that comment.
Thank you, Ray. Your comment is most appreciated.
Comment by cheryl — October 26, 2008 @ 7:43 pm
two things:1) Ray, I think you mean well but, on my end anyway, are not actually helping because you keep framing the debate in such simplistic terms which most of us are trying to avoid. See how that sets up the dynamic as:Ray is reasonable, people engaging in this debate are simplistic and can’t see past their rhetoric?
and two) I am only half-way through the first episode of Firefly on Hulu but I would like to formally apologize for all the times I looked cross-eyed at people who asked me if I watched it and said, “No, nor do I watch Stargate or any other pseudo sci fi b- grade tv shows.” I stand abashed. It’s really good.
Comment by crazywomancreek — October 26, 2008 @ 8:47 pm
oh cwc–wait ’til yu get to the end of firefly!!! THEN you must go get Serenity. so no b grade.
Comment by actualthoughanonlesbian — October 26, 2008 @ 8:52 pm
wait- serenity is a continuation? and do you ever check your gmail?
Comment by crazywomancreek — October 26, 2008 @ 8:56 pm
Ray,
I speak of only “my” ideas or what I feel possible of “your” ideas. While every paragraph in your last blog speaks of “we”. If you speak of conduct Ray, speak of “your” own. “I” will speak for myself, thank you. You have no authority to speak on what “we” feel or “would” feel under any circumstance.
Comment by Debbie — October 26, 2008 @ 9:02 pm
Fwiw, my comment was not directed at anyone in particular. In #160, Chandelle said:
I was trying to provide my perspective on that comment, based on what I have observed over the last couple of years while blogging. I butchered it badly myself when I started and had to learn to do what I suggested in my comment. I really didn’t mean it to be pointed at anyone, since I believe it applies as much to m&m as it does to Debbie - to me as much as Quimby - to Janene Cook (#150) as much as Ruby.
As far as it being simplistic, I disagree. It probably is the hardest thing I have ever tried to do in my life.
Comment by Ray — October 26, 2008 @ 9:19 pm
…because I am extremely sarcastic by nature.
Comment by Ray — October 26, 2008 @ 9:19 pm
Ray, for what it’s worth, I appreciated your comment as well as your effort to keep the peace ’round here; it’s not as easy job and you take a butchering sometimes for trying.
Comment by Chandelle — October 26, 2008 @ 9:25 pm
I hope you realize, however, that some of us are trying to transcend stereotypes even if we persistently disagree with someone.
Comment by Chandelle — October 26, 2008 @ 9:26 pm
#184 - Yes, chandelle, I understand that. I never meant to imply otherwise.
Thanks.
Comment by Ray — October 26, 2008 @ 9:41 pm
Piling on, I asked m&m if she supported the extremely anti-gay marriage prop. 3 in Utah. This affects real people, and their real needs to, for example get health care, It doesn’t make any difference if she is nice or a monster to the person whose partner is dying because they can’t get married. Individual niceness really doesn’t come into it. m&m, come out and play. This is something that I think many current mormons (and quite possibly future ex-mormons) understand quite well. It doesn’t matter how “nice” you are when you curtail someone else’s rights .
Get you act together people. Be kind. Actually kind. not the “i speak in a voice a half octave above my natural voice and pass out cookies occasionally” kind. Oh, and have lace collars and never wear anymore than two earrings.
Comment by djinn — October 26, 2008 @ 11:11 pm
I had some friends from South Africa who were incredibly kind, friendly, loving people. They were protestant Christian (Calvinist, as I recall).
They also happened to be supporters of Apartheid back in the old days. They defended their racial views with reasonable-sounding apologia. They were generous to their neighbors and displayed the fruits of their faith in their segregated communities. Yet they actively supported an evil political system that caused unimaginable suffering for generations.
With no offense intended to anyone here, this is how I view kind-hearted Latter-day Saints who actively work against legal protections for gays, support the excommunications, etc. Wonderful people can make terrible errors that hurt whole groups of people. The righteous can be on the wrong side of history. It’s why I don’t believe the m&m’s offensive website links mean she harbors malice in her heart.
How that idea squares with scriptures like 3 Nephi 14: 16-20, I have no idea!
Comment by MikeInWeHo — October 27, 2008 @ 12:13 am
Mike, if you are ever in the general CIncinnati area, I would love to have lunch or dinner and talk. Send me an e-mail if it happens at the address listed on my personal blog, and we can make the arrangements.
Comment by Ray — October 27, 2008 @ 12:26 am
Mike- But that couple you knew are still blameworthy for having supported Apartheid, no? Judgments of blame here, the judgment of blame implicit in the word “bigot” aren’t judgments about persons motives, but about their conduct. People who believed at the turn of the 20th century that women are too stupid to vote, people who in an earlier era believed that the color of one’s skin could make one literally the property of another human being, people who believed that the color of one’s skin ought to dictate where on a bus or lunch counter one should sit were all absolutely sincere in their beliefs. And they weren’t just wrong– they could have, and they should have, known better. That makes their conduct blameworthy & bigotted. Same here, Mike. And I think you let them (m&m included) off way too easy by not adding this to your generous and true remarks about this not being about malice in one’s heart.
(and btw, in answer to your earlier question, I think the psychology of willful blindess is amazing. I wouldn’t know where to begin analyzing it on a mass basis like this, though)
Comment by actualthoughanonlesbian — October 27, 2008 @ 12:41 am
I’ve read the comments, and see very little purpose to respond to most of them because most people have already decided so much about me that there is no point in trying to explain. I realize that comes with the territory with this issue. It’s obvious that to those who support gay marriage, prop 8 itself to them is about hate, bigotry, etc. The fact that I support that makes me in their minds a hater and a bigot. There is nothing I could say that would change that, and I guess I should have realized that a lot sooner.
Having actually been able to have some civil (yes, even loving) conversations and relationships with people who disagree vehemently with me on this issue, I know it is possible, though. But it takes a willingness to suspend judgment and talk about concerns without personal attacks. Call me a wimp if you want, but I can only handle so much pointed attack about me as a person before I just have to be done. So here are my last thoughts.
If anyone here has felt a personal attack from me, I apologize. I have really tried hard not to do that — I have tried hard to focus on the issues and my concerns only — but I realize I may have goofed, and I’m sorry if I did.
I do want to clarify something, since people are also feeling justified in labeling me because of my blog. I did post a disclaimer on the links post: “I haven’t read all of the links, so I’m not necessarily saying I advocate every thing that is said in the posts below.” I stated clearly my purpose — to share information for people who might be interested in different people’s points of view who support prop 8.
I have also already said more than once that I don’t support everything that has been said to support prop 8, nor do I advocate many of the ways things are said. I think there is extreme rhetoric and unnecessarily and inflammatory language on both sides of this issue, and that bothers me.
Perhaps putting links on my blog that wasn’t the best way to go about it, but my purpose in a lot of that was simply to let people read and study the pro-prop8 side for themselves from different people who support prop 8. I’m certainly not the only one who ever has linked to something for that purpose (information sharing), without necessarily agreeing with all the links’ contents.
A couple of last specific responses:
160, chandelle, thank you for your comment. I agree that there is so much deeply rooted on both sides that it’s hard to have civil discussion. Like I said, I have seen it happen, but it’s really hard. And I respect your willingness to admit that (just as I do — I don’t expect this kind of discussion to be all faith and flowers…this is hard, hard stuff). That, in my awkward way, was some of what I was trying to say when I said it was hard for me to take this stand. It IS hard because I DO know it cuts some people to the core. And I have struggled as I have sorted through my own thoughts and feelings on this. I am not just blindly accepting prophetic position on this. I have thought long and hard about this for years. (That may make some of you all the more upset, but it’s true.) My personal concerns and, yes, beliefs, about this run very, very deep, just as the feelings of those who oppose prop 8 do.
Anyway, chandelle, yours was one of the most respectful comments I have encountered on a blog, though, and I applaud you for that.
cwc says: She answered none of my questions, didn’t even pretend to try.
cwc, I did try to answer the question I saw from that thread…I never went back to read whatever else happened after that. OBviously I have ticked you off repeatedly, and for that I am sorry. But you have to understand if I haven’t really had the energy or time to come back to this kind of stuff consistently. I have also been sick. FWIW.
You are completely free to say whatever you want about gays and gay marriage… but that doesn’t mean others aren’t free to say they disagree with you or that they think your words have real. negative consequences for other members of society.
I wanted to say in no uncertain terms that I have never implied that people can’t agree with me, nor have I expected that, nor have I pretended that prop 8 doesn’t have consequences. No matter what happens with prop 8, there will be consequences either way. There ALWAYS are with anything of this magnitude. And I realize, as I said above, that prop 8 for some cuts to the core of things they feel most deeply about.
That anyone could imagine that that doesn’t in some way affect me really does tell me that you don’t understand me. It affects me more than you know.
And, NO, I do have personal, real-life experience with this, FWIW.
And lastly:
The issue is and continues to be; can you promote bigotry and not be a bigot?
I’ll end where I began this comment. If you see prop 8 as bigotry, I doubt anything I do or say will change your mind about me being a bigot…except change my mind about prop 8.
Obviously there is so much emotion tied to this that the continued interaction ends up getting us nowhere. I see this discussion at stalemate.
FWIW, part of why I stuck around is because if I didn’t answer questions, people get upset (or take advantage of my absence in some way to portray me as a wimp or someone unwilling to engage. If there is anything you should realize from my involvement here or my willingness to engage pretty confrontational comments at my blog (note to djinn, you have come close to pushing my limits there), it’s that I’m not unwilling to engage–to the point that people get annoyed, I’m sure.)
But then, if I do answer questions, people get upset anyway.
So what’s a girl to do?
This girl’s calling it quits. White flag goes up now.
Comment by m&m — October 27, 2008 @ 12:43 am
and in addition to that study on willful blindness/self-deception, a follow up study on the psychology of the use of passive-aggressive behavior in political contexts.
Comment by actualthoughanonlesbian — October 27, 2008 @ 12:52 am
And, NO, I do have personal, real-life experience with this, FWIW.
That looked like I was saying ‘no’ — I was addressing Not Ophelia.
(Maybe I could add that my uncle is gay, my neighbor is gay, other ward members’ children are gay, I have friends who are gay, and friends’ siblings who are gay. If I thought hard enough, I could probably add to the list. I don’t live in a bubble with this issue and it has had an impact on my life in some way for over two decades.)
Comment by m&m — October 27, 2008 @ 1:16 am
m&m, Your blog is now blessedly djinn free, and will stay so (i might have forgotten something, feel free to delete). The reason people act negatively to you is simple,and I’m actually trying to say this nicely, and I can barely spell passive-aggressive, let alone figure out how to do it.
You can’t say something and do the opposite and expect people to do anything other than go ballistic. You have to either tone down the “I’m perfect, this hurts me too in ways that I never ever bother to explain, why are you picking on me” rhetoric or quit offering such specious reasons to be for prop 8–cmon, that blackmail comment was truly over the top “Perhaps the companies that got the just-barely-short-of-the-legal-definition-of-blackmail-letters requesting that they donate to Prop 8 just wanted to pay a huge sum to the other side for reasons that aren’t quite clear. Yeah.
Just say “I’m following the prophet.” It is, as far as I can tell, true in your case, and also is unassailable. End of story.
Comment by djinn — October 27, 2008 @ 1:17 am
One more comment to you m&m, you really know all those gay people and continue to, what, treat them like dirt wrapped up in a pretty package with a bow? I had assumed, incorrectly, that you didn’t actually know any gay people that your were aware of, and so were at least justified for your actions by ignorance. Not anymore.
Comment by djinn — October 27, 2008 @ 1:23 am
Yep, N.O. has Michelle’s number all right.
I’d like to see one of the permas put up a post that claims, oh, let’s say, that Thomas Monson eats puppies for breakfast — just so we could then watch m&m tell us that there are lots of viewpoints on eating puppies for breakfast, and if President Monson is doing it then God must want him to eat puppies for breakfast, and some people think that puppies deserve to be eaten for breakfast, and besides eating puppies for breakfast is so nutritious.
Comment by obi-wan — October 27, 2008 @ 1:26 am
# he Issue
California voters passed Proposition 22 in 2000 by more than 61%, saying that a marriage in California is between a man and a woman. Earlier this year, four activist judges based in San Francisco wrongly overturned the people’s vote, legalizing same-sex marriage.
# The Consequences
The Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage did not just overturn the will of California voters; it also redefined marriage for the rest of society, without ever asking the people themselves to accept this decision. This decision has far-reaching consequences. For example, because public schools are already required to teach the role of marriage in society as part of the curriculum, schools will now be required to teach students that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage, starting with kindergarteners. By saying that a marriage is between “any two persons” rather than between a man and a woman, the Court decision has opened the door to any kind of “marriage.” This undermines the value of marriage altogether at a time when we should be restoring marriage, not undermining it.
# The Solution
Vote YES on Proposition 8 to overturn the outrageous Supreme Court decision and restore the definition of marriage that was approved by over 61% of voters. Proposition 8 is NOT an attack on gay couples and does not take away the rights that same-sex couples already have under California’s domestic partner law. California law already grants domestic partners all the rights that a state can grant to a married couple. Gays have a right to their private lives, but not to change the definition of marriage for everyone else.
Passing Proposition 8 protects our children and places into the Constitution the simple definition that a marriage is between a man and a woman.
Comment by Anna — October 27, 2008 @ 1:49 am
m&m, I looked through every post of yours for over a year, forgive me if I have any comments up. I honestly tried to delete them all. Again, please feel free to annihilate.
Comment by djinn — October 27, 2008 @ 3:19 am
Ahh, trying not to engage, will turn computer off shortly. What were you so upset about my comments, m&m, mercifully in the trash heap of history; that I challenged your version of traditional marriage, which seems to date from roughly “father knows best?” This brings up a different question, do you vacuum in pearls? Too personal, I don’t expect a response. Consider me dead. I will try my hardest to never speak with you again. Goodbye.
Comment by djinn — October 27, 2008 @ 3:43 am
re: 196 That’s boring, Anna. You’re just cut-and-pasting talking points from some Yes On 8 web site. Besides, my point in this post (if we go back almost 200 comments) was not to throw the talking points at each other but to discuss the strategies being used….in particular the content of the Yes On 8 ads on TV.
m&m, fwiw, I very much appreciate the tone of your comments. So don’t throw up the white flag just yet. We should do a guest post together sometime. Seriously!
Comment by MikeInWeHo — October 27, 2008 @ 9:43 am
yes i did cut & paste-that was my point as to NOT HAVE ANY MISLEAdING INFORMATION as to WHY we are voting Yes on Prop 8.
the strategies on both sides are typical…but in order to have a decent conversation (which im assuming now you dont care to have) is to discuss the ACTUAL FACTS.
Comment by anna — October 27, 2008 @ 10:27 am
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5
Comment by anna — October 27, 2008 @ 10:40 am
Anna,
If your going to promote lies and propaganda, you’ve got to at least get the facts right before you attempt to twist them.
Just like slavery and the restriction of bi-racial marriages, the supreme court overturned pro 22, finding it unconstitutional.
It’s very interesting how the people who are pro prop 8. Will not address other state laws that were overturned by the supreme court.
Our school system in California IS NOT and DOSE NOT teach marriage. Nor are they required to. It doesn’t teach shame either. That would be utterly rediculous. I was born and raised, as were my parents in the East Bay of the greater Bay area of CA. The topic of marriage was never even brought up as a topic open for discussion, let alone curriculum. Where do you get this stuff? Doesn’t it concern you that you are being fed lies?
I can tell quite truthfully that the pro prop 8 people are being investigated for using a child’s image for their pro prop 8 commercials. The Mom of this child was on TV last night outraged that her child could be exploited like that without permission. The mother of this child is against prop 8 and was shocked to see her daughter being featured on this pro prop 8 ad. The pro prop 8 people spent millions on this ad. Where did they get the footage? They stole it off of the Internet from our local news station who is also starting their own legal action.
What was the footage of the girl taken from? Her teacher, who is gay got married. The parents of the children wanted to have their kids, who utterly adore their teach, share in her moment. Shameful you may say, beautiful and un-shameful I say.
Comment by Debbie — October 27, 2008 @ 10:58 am
“California voters passed Proposition 22 in 2000 by more than 61%”
I think it’s important to understand that, given the total number of registered voters in California, the total number of votes for Prop 22 only amounted to around 30% of the total registered voting population. When only 30% of registered voters can work up the excitement to go to the voting booth and vote in favor of something, it hardly constitutes a mandate of the people.
Comment by Mark N. — October 27, 2008 @ 11:00 am
The top issue that has emerged in the Proposition 8 campaign is whether same-sex marriage will be taught in California public schools if the initiative is not enacted. Opponents of Proposition 8 are spending millions of dollars on television commercials telling voters that the Yes on 8 campaign’s claim that gay marriage will be taught in public schools is a lie. Yet a review of public records filed with the First District Court of Appeal in Boston shows these same organizations who claim our statement is a lie fought to make it true in Massachusetts. Specifically, they fought to ensure that gay marriage be taught in Massachusetts public schools, even over the objection of parents who sought an “opt out” for their children. Gay marriage was legalized by Massachusetts courts in 2003.
Further, their assurance that parents can always “opt-out” of such instruction when it is taught is belied by the fact that in Massachusetts, they argued successfully that Massachusetts’ parental opt-out provision should not be permitted.
“These damning public records show that it is in fact the organizations leading and financing the No on 8 campaign who are lying to California voters,” said Yes on 8 campaign manager Frank Schubert. “On one coast of the country they tell judges that gay marriage should be taught to children in school at the youngest possible age. But, on the opposite coast, here in California, they have the audacity to tell voters that gay marriage has nothing to do with public schools.”
Lying…who’s really lying?
The Yes on 8 campaign has been airing television and radio commercials factually presenting what happened in Massachusetts where second graders were taught in class about gay marriage using the book, “King and King.” This book is about a prince who married another prince, and includes an illustrated scene of the two men kissing. In response, the No on 8 campaign has purchased at least $1.25 million in television time to run an ad that says, “They’re using lies to persuade you…[Prop. 8] will not affect teaching in schools. Another lie.” (Source: No on Prop. 8 Ad available at www.noonprop8.com)
In the greatest irony, of course, just two days after the No on 8 “Lies” television commercial began airing, a first grade public school class in San Francisco was taken on a field trip to a lesbian wedding at City Hall, officiated by Mayor Gavin Newsom. School officials said they wished to provide their five and six year old students a “teachable moment.”
It should also be noted that the day after the first Yes on 8 ads began running, the Los Angeles Times reported that “Newsom called the (Yes on
ad ‘classic distraction’ and misleading.” Ten days later, he officiated at the above-mentioned and now infamous field trip.
“Not only do the organizations leading the No on 8 campaign want gay marriage, under the guise of ‘diversity,’ taught in public schools, they believe it is important to teach it at the earliest possible age,” Schubert said. Massachusetts begins its “diversity education” to five year old children in kindergarten.
According to legal records on file with the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston, Massachusetts in the case Parker v. Hurley (514 F.3d 87 (1st Cir.2008)), some of the very organizations who are funding and driving the No on 8 campaign have argued vociferously that gay marriage should be taught in the public schools under the guise of “diversity,” and any attempt to prohibit such instruction – or to permit parents to opt their children out of it – must be stopped.
The following are statements filed in amicus curiae briefs in Parker v. Hurley. The statements show how organizations leading the No on 8 campaign are lying to California voters when they say gay marriage will not be taught in California public schools.
These are the facts. This is the truth about the calculated efforts to deliver gay marriage into our public school classrooms, against the wishes of the people of our state. Voters may differ about how they feel about gay marriage, but there is no disputing that the organizations funding and leading the No on Proposition 8 campaign have already revealed, in their own words, their desire to impose this subject on children in the public schools – ‘whether you like it or not.’
yes AGAIN simple copy paste as to not mislead anyone on the REAL REASON WE ARE VOTING yes on prop 8..its not about not wanting them to be happily married its about NOT wanting it being discussed with our children withOUT or knowledge.
Comment by anna — October 27, 2008 @ 11:01 am
What you said is simply not true. The Supreme Court’s decision in Bob Jones spells out that the government can do “whatever it takes” to end racial discrimination, and specifically involves taking tax exempt status from a religious organization that frowned on “miscegenated” couples. If a state court rules that the Sharp decision on “miscegenated” couples applies to same sex couples, then Bob Jones is right on point. Churches and church organizations could lose tax exempt status.
Comment by Christian — October 27, 2008 @ 11:02 am
Lastly, I struggled with this issue for a long time. I have done a significant amount of research on it, including spending an entire summer pouring through a library reviewing dozens of scholarly journals and articles from legal and social scientific experts that reached conclusions supporting both sides of the issue. After doing almost all I can do to become informed on the issue, I have decided to support Proposition 8.
I won’t go into all the reasons why I strongly believe Proposition 8 is good for California and for families, but I will say that it is absolutely not my intent to break up families. And I am convinced that Proposition 8 will not not break up families. It will not alter the rights and responsibilities of registered domestic partners (whether same-sex domestic partners or otherwise) under existing California law. Section 297.5(a) of the California Family Code (passed by the legislature in 2003 - AB 205) states:
“Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.”
Proposition 8 does not change this law. Proposition 8 will also not change the rights of survivorship of domestic partners that is expressly acknowledged in Family Code Section 297.5(c), which states:
“A surviving registered domestic partner, following the death of the other partner, shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon a widow or a widower.”
Finally, Proposition 8 will not change the rights and responsibilites of domestic partners vis-a-vis their children, as stated in Family Code Section 297.5(d):
“The rights and obligations of registered domestic partners with respect to a child of either of them shall be the same as those of spouses. The rights and obligations of former or surviving
registered domestic partners with respect to a child of either of them shall be the same as those of former or surviving spouses.”
Proposition 8 does not change any of these laws, rights, and protections afforded to resgistered domestic partners that are recognized under California law. I point this out with the hope that you will understand that those who support Proposition 8 are not trying to break up families, and my support of Proposition 8 is with the understanding that it will not change any of the laws that give registered domestic partners all the rights and responsibilities of married persons in California. Unfortuantely, a lot of misinformation has been generated. I don’t know who stated that the “ultimate goal” is to take children away from same-sex couples-on behalf of myself and everyone I know that supports Proposition 8, I can emphatically say that nothing could be further from the truth. Proposition 8 purports to do no such thing.
I know we see this issue differently, and I respect your point of view. I hope that you will not see my support of Proposition 8 as an attack, because it is not. And even though we have different opinions on this emotionally-charged issue, I’m confident that we can continue to express our differing opinions while maintaining civility and respect towards each other.
Comment by anna — October 27, 2008 @ 11:05 am
Since Ray and Anna are so upset about being defined as Bigot’s I thought I should look up the term for the definition so we could understand the definition.
bigot
Noun
a person who is intolerant, esp. regarding religion, politics, or race [Old French]
bigoted adj
bigotry n
Comment by Debbie — October 27, 2008 @ 11:08 am
Now I would like to ad that I am starting a gay and lesbian religion. This will help protect me under you laws.
Comment by Debbie — October 27, 2008 @ 11:09 am
Okay,
Here’s another definition. (jump in if you find more Ray and Anna)
2. A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of
religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or
opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable
or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is
intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in
politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to
his own church, party, belief, or opinion.
To doubt, where bigots had been content to wonder
and believe. –Macaulay.
So I think I will call my church, Lesbian Day Saints. Catchy huh.
Only Lesbians and Gays can be members. Our goal will be to spread peace, love and tolerance. We will exercise our first amendment right with passion. We will use this right to politically oppress straight people knowing that it is against our God if we do otherwise.
More to come later.
Comment by Debbie — October 27, 2008 @ 11:18 am
Okay, I changed my mind. You don’t have to be Gay or Lesbians to be members. If you believe our message we will seal you into church.
Comment by Debbie — October 27, 2008 @ 11:19 am
slow down, Debbie! Go back and reread Ray. You misunderstand him. And Anna? Not worth your time. Ease up. Talk to the reasonable people like a reasonable person. We have plenty o religions…
Comment by crazywomancreek — October 27, 2008 @ 11:25 am
There is a topic here. Please stick to it.
Thank you
Comment by Not Ophelia — October 27, 2008 @ 11:26 am
Anna
Spouting propaganda instead of engaging in discussion gets your perilously close to the troll line.
So back off
Comment by Not Ophelia — October 27, 2008 @ 11:26 am
Anna,
Proposition 8 does not change any of these laws, rights, and protections afforded to resgistered domestic partners that are recognized under California law. I point this out with the hope that you will understand that those who support Proposition 8 are not trying to break up families, and my support of Proposition 8 is with the understanding that it will not change any of the laws that give registered domestic partners all the rights and responsibilities of married persons in California. Unfortuantely, a lot of misinformation has been generated.
Ethical (moral to) reasoning for allowing Gays to Marry.
Prop 8 absolutely sends a message our daughter that we are not worthy of marriage. Most of my daughters friends parents are straight, all are married. We, happily are now married too!
Legal reasoning:
I’ve exhausted myself over this one. Marriage has more legal rights that Civil Unions. (not fair)
Comment by Debbie — October 27, 2008 @ 11:28 am
Anna
Do you believe in this statement
” We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff’s argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it.”
or this statement
“But in view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law.”
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — October 27, 2008 @ 11:35 am
The “schools will teach gay marriage” idea has a basis in truth when one keeps in mind the idea that if all marriages are equal, one really can’t exclude benign examples of gay marriage relationships from being mentioned when the intent has nothing to do with teaching the concept of marriage at all.
What I mean by this is that it’s entirely possible that a mathematics lesson word problem might say something like, “David and Jenny have 2 daughters and 3 sons. How many total children do David and Jenny have?” Since both forms of marriage, gay and straight, would be seen as equal under the law, it seems inevitable to me that the following mathematics word problem might be found in a textbook: “Jenny and Rhonda have 1 daughter and 2 sons. How many total children do Jenny and Rhonda have?”
This kind of thing would eventually happen in all places in modern society, beginning with gay-oriented “Dating Game” TV game shows, or the ABC “Total Makeover” shows wherein a gay couple would be provided a “makeover” home. I think this is just a natural and inevitable result of society determining that gay marriages are the equal of straight marriages.
Now, some people will see this as being an exremely bad thing, and others will just see this as the natural course a tolerant society should follow. Children will not, of course, be able to escape the constant exposure to this any more than adults will. So the question all boils down to whether or not one believes that this will contribute to the eventual destruction of human society.
That’s my nutshell take on the whole deal.
Comment by Mark N. — October 27, 2008 @ 12:00 pm
Regarding Not Ophelia’s threats against Anna in #212 and #213:
NO, I don’t see how anyone could pretend that Anna’s post on #206 is “not relevant” or “trolling.”
Mike’s thread is about Amendment 8 and Commandment 9. Ironically, it’s Mike who bears false witness against his neighbor by accusing church leaders of bearing false witness, a position not even supported by Mike’s shallow and conclusory legal analysis.
It hurts the credibility of this forum for you to allow Debbie’s personal attacks against Anna, and not to allow Anna to respond to why her support of Amendment 8 has nothing to do with “bigotry.”
Debbie’s attacks are blatantly against the stated fMh policy of rule 3: “unacceptable to call into question a commenter’s personal righteousness.”
What has happened to this place?
Comment by Christian — October 27, 2008 @ 12:15 pm
Christian, could you point out which church lost its tax exempt status under Bob Jones, or under some other court case? Bob Jones University was a University, not a church.
Comment by djinn — October 27, 2008 @ 12:35 pm
Christian,
I apologize if I broke the rules of the blog. I will try to be more careful next time. I will go and read them right now. I was really much to sarcastic.
Deb
Comment by Debbie — October 27, 2008 @ 1:00 pm
Djinn, do you honestly think that making BYU non-tax exempt would not be tantamount to, and a step towards, eliminating all tax benefits for the church and like minded religions, or are you being intentionally obtuse?
Comment by Christian — October 27, 2008 @ 1:08 pm
Christian
212 wasn’t aimed at Anna. It was aimed at everyone, including Debbie.
And sorry, but cutting and pasting that into the middle of this discussion strikes me as either cluelessness or malice (i.e. trolling) I am assuming cluelessness, but it is really hard to tell sometimes.
And yes, you were right about Debbie. 213 should have been a link to the rules.
So for everyone out there who wants to keep this up
This is a discussion, not a war
This is for opinion, not secondary propoganda
And here are the rules. Read them. Live by them. Give us no reasons to think you are malicious. OK?
Comment by Not Ophelia — October 27, 2008 @ 1:24 pm
I believe churches operate under a different portion of the tax code than schools do, for starters. Also, churches have been given much more leeway than schools (that take public money) in their activities.
Comment by djinn — October 27, 2008 @ 1:31 pm
You said: “And sorry, but cutting and pasting that into the middle of this discussion strikes me as either cluelessness or malice (i.e. trolling) I am assuming cluelessness, but it is really hard to tell sometimes.”
Cutting and pasting what? I ran some of the phrases of #206 through a search engine and found nothing. Anna’s citation of Section 297.5(a) of the California Family Code is not “propaganda.” Please check your email because I’m hoping that I’m simply misunderstanding you and don’t want to make things worse here.
Comment by Christian — October 27, 2008 @ 1:33 pm
Suzanne Nielsen, #215, how can you possibly in good faith construe the “enforced separation of the two races” quote to be on point with the same-sex “marriage” topic?
Marriage, the legal union of man and woman for life, does not “separate” races, sexes, or even sexual orientations. You can only construe a parallel by selectively ignoring the facts. And when you smear Anna and others as bigots parallel to the anti-miscegenists, you bear false witness against your neighbor. It’s the pro-ssm group here that I see here in violation of the Ninth commandment.
Comment by Christian — October 27, 2008 @ 1:40 pm
It’s clear that the people and groups behind Yes On 8 have a MUCH bigger long-term agenda than just banning SSM in CA.
Some of them probably do. But per amici to the Parker case filed by the ADL, HRC, and ACLU, some of the people and groups behind No On 8 also seem to have a long-term agenda.
So . . . each side has moderates in bed with my-way-or-the-highway nutjobs, of whom the opposition is scared spitless. Neither side expects the moderates among its opposition to stand up to the nutjobs, should that side prevail on Prop 8.
Now what?
Comment by JimD — October 27, 2008 @ 1:59 pm
Legal reasoning:
I’ve exhausted myself over this one. Marriage has more legal rights that Civil Unions. (not fair)
Which rights are you referring to specifically? As I understand the Domestic Partnership laws of CA give all rights equal to those that are “married” as stated in legal code.
Comment by Anna — October 27, 2008 @ 2:26 pm
Christian
Where have I stated (or let alone smeared) Anna or others as Bigots.
Your statement is not accurate, so your charge that I bear false witness is false on that grounds alone.
I was in posting those quotes attempting to further more thought on the subject.
The California Supreme Court has ruled that you can’t have a separate system for marrying straights and another for “marrying” gays.. If prop 8 passes it will still violate equal protection. Separate is not equal.
As for who is my neighbor, how exactly is society to treat Samaritans?
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — October 27, 2008 @ 2:32 pm
I feel that many people on this blog have an agenda. Do I know that for sure, no. I however do have a morale agenda in life. Morally supporting same sex marriage is one of them. Legally supporting it, I’m just getting my feet wet. Separation of church and state, is another. Do I believe that church and State are currently separate, no, but over time I believe we are headed that way. I believe that restricting marriage rights for gay couples is morally wrong, and some people believe it is morally wrong for gay couples to marry.
I came to this blog by accident. I stayed because of intrigue. As you can tell I am grossly inexperienced at blogging and I appreciate all of your patience. What I am experienced at is CA laws, the bay area school systems, and what it is like to be a gay citizen in the State of CA. I am personally thrilled that in my lifetime, and my children’s lifetime Gays are now being allowed to marry.
I’m 54, and I have lived several lifetimes. I’ve been married twice. The first time to a man, second to a woman. My first marriage gave me a wonderful daughter, as did my second partnership and now marriage to a woman. My values about marriage have never varied, other than to profess that I take my vows even more seriously now. Marriage to me is not defined by the church, it is defined by a promise. Our consious oversees that promise, as well as the State.
I fell into this blog by accident, but I am making a consious decision to leave it. Don’t get me wrong, this is an incredible blog, filled with incredible people, it validates what I have always believed, in time, love and fairness will prevail…and I’m not much of a blogger.
The Internet takes down walls and this site allows us to hear the individual. To see the individual. To give a face to a person. It is much more that a debate place. If I sound like a naive school kid it’s because I am. I am more than likely old enough to be most of the members mother. I am in awe of the Internet, even though I work on it. I believe the Internet took down the Berlin Wall and I believe it will take the walls down between us.
Okay, I’m just a mushy old broad, thanks for renewing my faith again in State, Nation and World humanity. I’ll check back in after election day to see how you all are doing.
Comment by Debbie — October 27, 2008 @ 2:48 pm
Christian
The US Supreme Court in 1983? ruled the IRS could revoke Bob Jones University tax exempt status. Bob Jones University is still here. The religions supporting Bob Jones as well as their other non-profits are tax exempt. There is nothing “obtuse” about it.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — October 27, 2008 @ 2:51 pm
In #215, where you seem to imply that those who would preserve the meaning of marriage as the union of man and woman for life, are the moral equivalent of those who would stamping certain races as inferior. If that wasn’t an attempt to smeark Anna as a bigot, then I apologize, but unless you clarify I cannot read it any other way.
But there is no such system, nor is any proposed. There’s a set of rules for marrying a man with a woman without regard to sexual orientation. And unless I’m mistaken about California law, a highly similar set of rules for forming a union between two persons of the same sex, which also has no regard for sexual orientation. If you’re gay, straight, or bi, you can enter either a marriage or a same sex partnership, no questions asked about your SxOr.
Every single parallel that I have seen written between Loving v. Virginia (or Perez v. Sharp) is based on false representations of facts and/or law. If one cannot form an argument for one’s position without misrepresenting the underlying facts, then perhaps one should rethink one’s position.
You’ve garbled both the meaning and the wording of that Brown v. Board of Education citation. The facts here, according to Brown terms, are NEITHER separate nor equal.
Not Separate: Brown v. Board of Education was about separate facilities, not separate names. If Brown stood for the proposition that you’re invoking here, then the Supreme Court would have ruled that the Black kids were White. Here, both same sex partnerships and marriages rely on the same facilities, i.e. the court system and the rest of the government. You go to the same office to get your marriage license or same sex partnership forms.
Not equal: A same sex union is similar to, but functionally different than a marriage, since the underlying intent is different, and therefore a few small but significant rules (such as presumption of paternity) must also be different. Not sure what the rules are regarding consummation-based annulments, but in some states, applying those rules to same-sex couples would be a very cruel joke on the innocent party to what otherwise would be a divorce.
Comment by Christian — October 27, 2008 @ 2:54 pm
Anna,
Out of respect for Anna’s question about Civil Union versus Marriage in the State of CA.
#1. A Civil Union will not allow you the same tax benefits as marriage.
Example: Under Civil Union you cannot file a tax return together.
#2. Not all States recognize Civil Unions
Example: If you and your fiance marry in the State of Utah, you can move to any state in the union and you marriage is recognized as legal and binding. You would not need to remarry in every state that you move to. Civil Unions are controlled by the State. If me and my partner have a Civil Union in CA it is not recognized in other States.
Comment by Debbie — October 27, 2008 @ 3:02 pm
#1. A Civil Union will not allow you the same tax benefits as marriage.
Example: Under Civil Union you cannot file a tax return together.
That’s true. But federal tax policy is something that was–and should be–hammered out by the nation as a whole. I’m uncomfortable subjecting federal tax policy to the preferences of any one individual state. It’ll be interesting to see if any cases arise in the US tax courts over the joint filings of all those California couples who got married this year.
**IMHO, the US tax code is long overdue for an overhaul. The way our tax code treats married couples is based on assumptions about family life that were true fifty years ago, but may not be true now. Should we even still be subsidizing married couples at all?
Comment by JimD — October 27, 2008 @ 3:27 pm
Christian
Now who is being obtuse.
I suggest you read The California State Supreme Court ruling overturning the ban on same sex marriage on May 15 2008. I believe is known as–
In re Marriage Cases
Marriage is a fundamental right.
Whatever the system you call marriage for straights, under equal protection must be the same for gays. This applies to Civil Marriage, and the Court stated does not apply to religious marriages.
(And if marriage must be between a man and a woman for life, as you put it, does this mean then that marriage for time and eternity is invalid? I thought they were the only ones that counted.)
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — October 27, 2008 @ 3:40 pm
m&m wrote:
m&m, if you are still around, I am very curious to understand you. To be honest, right now I don’t understand you, but based on what you said, I feel like my misunderstanding is only due to incomplete information. I think much of the heated discussion here stems from what appears on the surface to be irreconcilable points of view within your own statements. You’ve said this affects you more than “we” (as fMh blog readers in general) know, and I honor that, but it opens the door for a learning experience on our behalf, and I hope you can oblige with an explanation.
I’ve heard many stories of people whose opinions of SSM were shaped by their relationships with GLBT friends and relatives. These accounts have (in my limited exposure, granted) ALL been about how people came to support SSM because of the people they know and love. Would you be able or willing to share how the “personal, real-life experience” with your uncle, neighbor, ward members’ children, etc. have led to your ultimate opposition to SSM? This perspective is new and foreign to me, and I am genuinely curious to understand more where you are coming from.
Thank you.
Comment by Lady — October 27, 2008 @ 3:42 pm
I would love to join the Lesbian Day Saints as long as: 1)I can
wear pants and 2) eat snacks during service.
Comment by newbie — October 27, 2008 @ 4:04 pm
I’m SO glad I found your blog today. I’ve been feeling the same way about all of this prop 8 stuff happening in our stake. There have been so many deceptive practices going on here in Orange County, CA, it makes me uneasy to go to Sunday meetings. My husband is just about ready to go inactive to avoid the prop 8 harassment of our stake and ward leaders…it is just way overboard…especially considering that regardles off the election outcome, this topic will be thrown up in the air and appealed on either side for years to come. :-/
Comment by mommyntheoc — October 27, 2008 @ 4:36 pm
#211 - Thanks, cwc.
#228 - Debbie, I hope you don’t leave - or, at least, that you do come back after the election. It’s easy to react in ways that are regrettable in hindsight, and the only way to change that is to continue to practice. However, if this particular topic raises your blood pressure to dangerous levels and has an overall negative impact on your emotional health, I understand completely if you take a break and return later.
Oh, and don’t worry about misreading me. It is very hard to keep comments straight in a post that exceeds 100 comments - so 236 . . .
Comment by Ray — October 27, 2008 @ 4:53 pm
If you’re gay, straight, or bi, you can enter either a marriage or a same sex partnership, no questions asked about your SxOr.
Not true, at least not in California. Civil unions are only for same-sex couples, unless the couple filing for the civil union is over 62. Here’s the official wording:
297. (a) Domestic partners are two adults who have chosen to share one another’s lives in an intimate and committed relationship of mutual caring.
(b) A domestic partnership shall be established in California when both persons file a Declaration of Domestic Partnership with the Secretary of State pursuant to this division, and, at the time of filing, all of the following requirements are met:
(1) Both persons have a common residence.
(2) Neither person is married to someone else or is a member of another domestic partnership with someone else that has not been terminated, dissolved, or adjudged a nullity.
(3) The two persons are not related by blood in a way that would prevent them from being married to each other in this state.
(4) Both persons are at least 18 years of age.
(5) Either of the following:
(A) Both persons are members of the same sex.
(B) One or both of the persons meet the eligibility criteria under Title II of the Social Security Act as defined in 42 U.S.C. Section 402(a) for old-age insurance benefits or Title XVI of the Social Security Act as defined in 42 U.S.C. Section 1381 for aged individuals. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, persons of opposite sexes may not constitute a domestic partnership unless one or both of the persons are over the age of 62.
Comment by Mark N. — October 27, 2008 @ 4:59 pm
Ray
I’m chuckling at your concerns and appreciate your wanting me to stay. My blood pressure is fine thank you. I just needed to get some work done that’s all. Like I said, I’m not much of a blogger, the only other blog I’ve ever took part in was our local papers blog for a few weeks and like the Prop 8 topic, found very interesting .
It was by happenstance that I found this sight. Googled some phrase about the prop 8 numbers and fMh came up. I love this sight but I’m so busy running my own site and building parent profiles for families seeking to adopt, I just don’t have the time, wish I did. I run political campaigns locally as well and it’s a big election year.
I’ll be back. P.S.
newbie
Your comment made my day…and yes, to both of your requests.
Comment by Debbie — October 27, 2008 @ 5:06 pm
I don’t have to vote on Prop 8, and have not spent a ton of time thinking about it because of that. I do have one question however:
How do all of you people (on both sides of this issue) that continually tout your love and acceptance of everyone (by whatever methodology you choose)… justify the amazing amount of hatred and vitriol you express towards each other on this blog?
Comment by BusinessWoman — October 27, 2008 @ 5:24 pm
Several of us have pointed out previously, repeatedly, that this is a lot of hogwash.
Churches are not going to lose their FEDERAL tax exemption due to a STATE constitutional court opinion. The California Supreme Court decision does not create FEDERAL public policy sufficient for an organization to lose 503(c) status. Bob Jones is not on point.
Comment by obi-wan — October 27, 2008 @ 5:30 pm
re: 216
“This kind of thing would eventually happen in all places in modern society, beginning with gay-oriented Dating Game TV game shows, or the ABC Total Makeover shows wherein a gay couple would be provided a makeover home.”
I get the impression that some Prop 8 supporters in the Bloggernacle live in a somewhat insular environment. Those things you fear already exist, Mark. Do you get cable TV? Heck, there’s an entire gay cable network.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — October 27, 2008 @ 5:33 pm
To businesswoman: I prefer “passion” instead of “hatred and vitriol.” SInce you don’t have to vote on it and haven’t considered it, I can understand why you don’t get it. When you go to your place of worship and instead of learning about how you can follow Christ, you get hit in the head repeatedly with politics, then you might get an idea as to why this is so painful on both sides.
Comment by newbie — October 27, 2008 @ 5:45 pm
How do all of you people… justify the amazing amount of hatred and vitriol you express towards each other on this blog?
Um… it’s a zero sum game?
Comment by Mark N. — October 27, 2008 @ 5:45 pm
I get the impression that some Prop 8 supporters in the Bloggernacle live in a somewhat insular environment. Those things you fear already exist, Mark.
I don’t think I fear them, though I believe some people do.
Do you get cable TV? Heck, there’s an entire gay cable network.
Not carried by our system, that I’m aware of. But, then again, we don’t even subscribe to Showtime or HBO or any of them other “premium” wicked streams of ones and zeroes. My vice comes in the form of the Game Show Network. My kids are amused by the fact that I am amused by old reruns of “What’s My Line”.
Comment by Mark N. — October 27, 2008 @ 5:50 pm
I said:
In # 238, Mark stated that what I’d said was “Not true, at least not in California.”
But then Mark went on to cite a number of facts, none of which at all address the issue of sexual orientation, i.e. whether the individuals involved are gay, straight, or bi.
———–
The eternity aspect certainly is invalid to US and California law. Would you have us believe that CA courts recognize that LDS marriages endure beyond death?
But thank you for bringing up yet another an example that disproves your silly argument. It’s not a violation of my civil rights for the US and CA governments to superimpose the universal definition of marriage over my peculiar definition of marriage, for legal purposes. It’s likewise no violation of anyone’s rights to continue to recognize that a “marriage” by definition involves a man and a woman.
Yes, marriage is a fundamental right. Now think about that. Redefining marriage therefore absolutely cannot be not a fundamental right. If there was a fundamental right to redefine another fundamental right, then the original right could not possibly have been fundamental.
Comment by Christian — October 27, 2008 @ 6:27 pm
That’s very true, Debbie. But it wouldn’t be true if the cultural left had focused on obtaining civil unions in the various states, rather than attacking the word marriage itself. Even Bush had made public his willingness to bend on Civil Unions. Instead of bulldozing over a few fanatics, you all took a crazy position that alienates the moderates that would otherwise stand up for your rights. You don’t have a right to rewrite our vocabulary, to make church schools (and eventually churches themselves) into Bob Jones pariahs.
You want rights, then let’s talk about rights. But you’ve tossed the redefinition of language and culture in the mix, and of course you’re going to get kicked.
Comment by Christian — October 27, 2008 @ 6:31 pm
Huh? Yes Marriage is a fundamental right. Loving v. VIrginia.
Then along comes Lawrence v. Texas; having gay sex is no longer illegal, under due process.
Now, marriage (a fundamental right) between same sex people–not committing a crime, under the wording of the CA , constitution is a fundamental right.
If you don’t believe me, read Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence v. Texas.
Comment by djinn — October 27, 2008 @ 6:37 pm
I’ve read Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence, and like the majority of the Supreme Court, I think Scalia was wrong. Scalia is wrong on a lot of things even when he does have a majority, freedom of religion for starters.
The sine qua non of marriage isn’t ability to legally carry out something resembling sexual relations. In other words, it doesn’t follow that if A can legally spork B, that A can legally *marry* B.
If your logic held water, then someone who physically was not capable of sex would not be allowed to marry. If some po-dunk town gets rid of some 1800s rule against masturbation, that doesn’t follow that someone can marry themselves. At some point, folks have got to grasp that a definition is a definition.
Comment by Christian — October 27, 2008 @ 6:45 pm
Christian
No one is attacking marriage, except the advocates of Prop 8 who seek to eliminate my marriage.
The California Supreme Court said that marriage is a fundamental right and that gays were wrongly excluded just like interracial couples were wrongly excluded.
I see that you have not read the Supreme court decision and still display an ignorance of Domestic partnership laws in California. Knowing California law is neither crazy or silly and I’d prefer not to get kicked by people who think their heterosexist viewpoints trump equality under the law.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — October 27, 2008 @ 7:06 pm
Whosa bigger threat to marriage? Ellen Degeneres or Justice Scalia?
Vote on my blog!
(heh. I’m so in love with poll daddy. super fun.)
Comment by Kerry — October 27, 2008 @ 8:12 pm
Go easy on the paranoia there, sister.
No one here AFAIK seeks to eliminate what you call your “marriage.” You can keep your relationship, and I for one would like to see you keep the actual rights associated with it. We simply wish to maintain our freedom to not use that word in the neutered sense with which you are using it.
Kerry: “Whosa bigger threat to marriage? Ellen Degeneres or Justice Scalia?”
Heh. I’d definitely say Scalia, given the dissent to Lawrence, which cultural nihilists everywhere have seized on as an excuse to snuff out the real meaning of marriage.
Comment by Christian — October 27, 2008 @ 8:24 pm
“…But it wouldn’t be true if the cultural left had focused on obtaining civil unions in the various states, rather than attacking the word marriage itself. Even Bush had made public his willingness to bend on Civil Unions. Instead of bulldozing over a few fanatics, you all took a crazy position that alienates the moderates that would otherwise stand up for your rights.’
While I tend to agree with you on that Christian, I think you’re wrong to assume there was ever much room for compromise. The Right has steadfastly opposed the “gay agenda” every step of the way. Even ENDA* languishes in Washington due to an inability to compromise. Do you really believe if liberals said they’d give up asking for gay marriage, the opposition would allow passage of federally recognized domestic partnerships?
Funny thing is, I would support that solution. Britain put this whole debate to rest by establishing Civil Partnerships in lieu of gay marriage. Other countries in Europe are doing the same thing. Tragically, our winner-takes-all political culture doesn’t allow for that. While the pro-gay side is clearly ascendant of late, in the long run everybody loses under these circumstances.
*ENDA
Comment by MikeInWeHo — October 27, 2008 @ 8:29 pm
Amen to Mike’s final paragraph in #253.
If both sides could take a deep breath and do exactly what others have done elsewhere, the issue largely would disappear. Unfortunately, the most ardent on the right won’t accept full and equal rights for civil unions, and the most ardent on the left won’t accept anything except the word “marriage”. What could be a win-win ends up being a lose-lose - and a never-ending, bitter fight.
That simply is sad.
Comment by Ray — October 27, 2008 @ 8:35 pm
Granted. It’s yours, Christian. I am not much at cross stitching but I can give it a shot. Let me know where to send it when I’m done. In return, of course, you’ll need to stop this insane desire of yours to check the genitals of those whom we choose to marry. Deal? Tell me it’s really this easy. Eat your heart out, Bill -I -couldn’t-broker-a-peace-in-the-middle-east-deal Clinton. I just solved the Prop 8 debate; Christian doesn’t have to use the word marriage when he doesn’t want to and we all get to keep our marriages.
Like Margaret Cho says, where’s my freakin parade?
Comment by crazywomancreek — October 27, 2008 @ 8:42 pm
I believe that changing the definition of marriage to include same gender unions will not grant the rights, under California law, that are being sought. California Family Code Section 297.5 provides that “domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections and benefits” as married spouses. The law already provides that domestic partners should have the same rights and protections. California cannot grant any more rights.
If there are areas of our law that need to be changed, then the specific laws should be changed, not marriage.
There are some national laws that may need to be modified to provide the same rights and protections on a national level that California affords her domestic partners. Again, the specific laws should be changed, not marriage.
The essence of the argument is: marriage is between a man and a woman because from the beginning of time, the perpetuation of mankind has been the association between a man and a woman. History and tradition has appointed that association capable of perpetuating us as “marriage”. There is no continuing of mankind possible as the result of an association between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Biologically, they are incapable of fulfilling the primary purpose of marriage - perpetuation of the species. Accordingly, the term “marriage”, as originally and historically interpreted and utilized is limited to a man and a woman. If those desiring to participate in this lifestyle want to use a term other than “domestic partnership” to recognize their special relationship, let them use something original instead of attacking the very relationship and institution which made their lives possible. I recognize that some marriages between men and women do not result in perpetuation because of choice or biological difficulty, but that does not alter the original, and I believe what should be the continuing, intent, understanding, and purpose of the term “marriage”.
All laws, propositions, amendments, etc. are, in fact, the process of distributing or re-distributing rights. Each voter is obliged to consider the short and long-term consequences of each measure. In some societies, the tradition is to try to calculate the impact on the seventh generation.
I understand rights for many parties are at stake. This is not a shallow issue of “it won’t hurt anyone” or “equal rights for all.” There is no such thing…just ask your kids. We all try to be fair, but equality is not an option when so many complex rights are woven into our democracy. Let’s not pretend that prop 8 is a “simple matter of equality.”
Yes, the rights of gays are in question. But this is also a question of religious freedom, and freedom of speech–these are two of our fundamentals. They are worth protecting even if we are no longer as religious as we used to be.
I strongly support Prop 8 because a YES vote on 8 does a better job than a no vote on 8 in ensuring the best, the most fair balance of rights. Sure, there’s more paperwork, there’s more waiting for stuff when your a gay couple. Talk to gun owners to see if they are happy about the hassle of the extra effort required to buy a gun vs. buy a bike. But, gun owners still get their “right”…and gay couples will still get their rights…and a YES on prop 8 will mean that (unlike in Massachusetts) religious folks will keep their religious freedom and freedom of speech.
Nothin’s perfect, nothing is equal. But prop 8 is fair. Let’s be fair.
Comment by Anna — October 27, 2008 @ 10:09 pm
Not really. Throughout history many different cultures and societies have recognised same sex unions or “marriages”.
And comparing gay rights to gun rights? Really? Let’s see, one is a weapon that gives the owner the ability to take a life. The other is, um, not even anything remotely like that. That’s almost as insulting as a previous poster comparing gay people to murderers.
Comment by Quimby — October 27, 2008 @ 10:14 pm
I’d say deal, except that you started with a false premise. I’m perfectly happy with don’t ask don’t tell marriage. If some dude wants to get in a wedding dress and swear to be a loving wife and all that stuff, I have no problem. I can be flexible with the definition of man and woman, since those are simple facts of biology. We can’t pretend them out of existence.
Marriage, on the other hand, is socially construed. If the word comes to mean something else, then the whole idea of what Marriage means is lost, since there’s no way to pass it on to the next generation. With the meaning lost, there’s no such thing as marriage.
Ah. I agree that there’s little room for compromise with the Right. But you’ve forgotten about the center. Look at the numbers. Most Americans oppose ssm, but most Americans would accept SSU legislation. That indicates a moderate plurality that would flip sides if the SSMers would compromise.
If they did so today? Prior to the election? Contract with America style? YES. But they’d have to bind themselves to the principle as firmly as they currently do with Abortion rights. If Obama said that he’d make it as much of a point to pick judges that would protect the meaning of marriage as he does to pick judges who will protect a woman’s right to choose, I’d vote Obama in a heartbeat and sleep like a baby about it.
Comment by Christian — October 27, 2008 @ 10:20 pm
OK, Christian, I confess, you’ve completely lost me. What’s the matter with SSM? You’re saying that just because people aren’t required to have sex they can get married? Yeah, so two gay people can get married, because we all know after 20 years or so, we all stop having sex. No the point was, an act intimitely connected with marriage, sex, was no longer ****ILLEGAL*******
Comment by djinn — October 27, 2008 @ 10:33 pm
“Go easy on the paranoia there, sister. No one here AFAIK seeks to eliminate what you call your “marriage.” You can keep your relationship, and I for one would like to see you keep the actual rights associated with it. We simply wish to maintain our freedom to not use that word in the neutered sense with which you are using it.”
a) You *already* have the freedom to not use the word “marriage” in any way with which you are uncomfortable. You are free to refuse to refer to an interracial married couple as married. You are free to refuse to refer to an interfaith married couple as married. And you are free to refuse to refer to a same-sex married couple as married. No one is attempting to take away that right. We’re simply asking, in return, that you not constitutionally bar people from marrying, simply because their relationship is one that you feel uncomfortable referring to as marriage. Win-win. Gays retain their right to marry, and you retain your right to disapprove!
b) I asked this question way above, and it hasn’t been answered, so lemme ask it again: suppose there were a proposition on the ballot that sought to constitutionally revoke marriage rights for, say, Mormons (assuming, for the moment, that you happen to be a member of the LDS Church). Were this proposition to pass, rest assured, you’d be able to keep your relationship, and you could keep the actual rights associated with marriage. But, constitutionally, your group would be singled out as ineligible to legally marry. Would you be just as sanguine as you are with regard to Prop 8? If someone called such a proposition bigotry and discrimination, would you say something along the lines of, “Go easy on the paranoia there, sister”?
Or, alternately, would such a ballot measure strike you as capricious and mean-spirited? A bigoted act, designed to scapegoat Mormons? Perhaps even an example of the mob trying to oppress you and relegate you (and your peeps) to second-class status?
Speaking as a non-Mormon, I’d consider it the latter. Such a ballot measure would strike me as an evil piece of discriminatory garbage, and I’d feel called to oppose it with every breath in my body… even as a non-Mormon, without any direct, personal stake in the outcome.
And, speaking as a heterosexual, I feel the exact same way about Prop 8. I feel it’s discriminatory and wrong, and I feel called to oppose it with every breath in my body… even as a heterosexual, without any direct, personal stake in the outcome.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
Comment by Patrick Meighan — October 27, 2008 @ 10:34 pm
“Marriage, on the other hand, is socially construed. If the word comes to mean something else, then the whole idea of what Marriage means is lost, since there’s no way to pass it on to the next generation.”
The socially-constructed meaning of marriage has evolved over time, and still means different things to different people.
For some, marriage used to mean a union of one man and several women. For some, marriage used to mean a union of a man and a woman of the same race. For some, marriage used to mean a union of a man and a woman of the same religious faith.
And here’s the kicker: there are plenty of people alive for whom the above archaic definitions still apply! Add to that list your definition of marriage (a union of a man and a woman, period), and *my* definition of marriage (a union of loving adults, whatever their gender, who wish to pledge their loyalty to one another), and we’ve got an awful lot of differing definitions of the word. What’s crazier is that everyone who subscribes to any of those definitions of marriage thinks of their respective definitions as the sole legitimate meaning of the word, to the exclusion of all others. And that’s okay. We’re all entitled to our beliefs. But where it stops being okay is when one group attempts to legally bar every marriage definition which conflicts with their own.
Christian, no one is forcing you to personally believe that same-sex marriage is legitimate, any more than anyone is forcing a racist to personally believe that interracial marriage is legitimate, or forcing an Orthodox Jewish person to believe that interfaith marriage is legitimate. All any Prop 8 opponent wants is the right to have their marriage recognized by the state as neither better nor worse than anyone else’s. Again, for that marriage to be so recognized by the *state*. As to your own personal recognition, Christian… that’s up up to you.
And as for this…
“If the word comes to mean something else, then the whole idea of what Marriage means is lost, since there’s no way to pass it on to the next generation”
…howsabout you simply teach your child the meaning of marriage, as you understand it? Meanwhile, I’ll teach my child the meaning of marriage, as I understand it. And that’s how the idea of Marriage is passed on to the next generation. Cool?
Now, sure, as you can guess, what you teach your child about marriage will differ from what I teach my child about marriage. And, Christian, that’s our prerogative as parents. And if the result is that the meaning of marriage evolves further still… well, that’s what’s happened for thousands of years. Why should the future of the word be any more static than the past?
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
Comment by Patrick Meighan — October 27, 2008 @ 10:58 pm
When the Catholic Church had trouble respecting citizens and state sovereignty, European and Latin American governments instituted obligatory civil marriage.
That would dispose of this can of worms. The lying troubles me. What is more troubling is that some religions are relying on majoritarianism to impose their religious rules on non-believers.
The founding fathers called that the tyranny of the majority.
If Mormons were treated like we treat gays, it would be impossible to exercise our religion in most parts of the world.
Comment by Hellmut — October 27, 2008 @ 11:31 pm
Mmm, I don’t think so, MikeInWeHo. This is essentially what CA already had and what it would go back to if Prop 8 fails. This is what I said I would support at a national level: civil unions that have all the exact same rights, responsibilities, and protections of marriage but are not called marriage. But, I’m still called a Bigot because that is a “separate but equal” position. So, I don’t think that the whole debate would “go to rest” by establishing national civil unions in our country. It appears to be about more than that . And I am honestly a little surprised that while you and I appear to share essentially the same view, I get a textual lashing over it while you get a free pass.
Comment by Stephanie — October 28, 2008 @ 12:06 am
But I’m not doing the lashing, Stephanie! : )
I really do understand the concerns people have about the possible infringement of religious freedom if SSM becomes the entrenched law of the land. Some of the arguments make sense even to me (although oddly enough they don’t seem to make their way into the Yes On 8 ads…go figure)
The solution is not to ban SSM. In a sense that issue is a red herring; it’s mostly symbolism at this point. There IS a need to find a way to protect people of faith who happen to disagree on any number of social concerns. Gays are doing just fine in CA. Conservative religious minorities, on the other hand, understandably feel under cultural siege. The sad reality is that my liberal peers don’t seem to care. And thus we go round and round and round, not unlike this thread!
Comment by MikeInWeHo — October 28, 2008 @ 12:58 am
Christian
You write–
I’m perfectly happy with don’t ask don’t tell marriage. If some dude wants to get in a wedding dress and swear to be a loving wife and all that stuff, I have no problem.
This sounds rather flip to me. If you’d bother to read in re Marriage Cases, that the word marriage is important in order to give gays and lesbian relationships the respect and dignity they deserve. The condescension with which you write illustrates the need for full equality under the law.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — October 28, 2008 @ 1:56 am
OK, now you’re just whining. If you have anything substantive to say, Stephanie, please fax me.
———————–
Agreed. “banning” SS”m” would require acknowledging that it exists, which it doesn’t.
——–
Me too, Hellmutt. It troubles me that folks are lying in order to cast others are lying. You are engaged in a classic violation of the ninth Commandment, but I suppose you’ll justify it as some sort of stress relieving marti gras. Recreational crucifixion of political others is, after all, a classic human passtime.
Now that is one big fat falsehood. I don’t see anyone trying to use the law to force unitarians and other members of the grandstanding Religious Left to stop celebrating same sex “marriage.” Next?
Comment by Christian — October 28, 2008 @ 5:55 am
Listen to this Maoist sister who thinks that all power comes from the point of a gun. She says that I’m not showing enough respect to gays and lesbians, and implies that the strong arm of the state is necessary in order to coerce me to show respect, and that only this will result in “full equality under the law.”
As I see it, in a free society, the government’s only business is LEGAL equality. “Full equality” on top of legal equality, is a product of culture, which isn’t mandated at the point of the gun.
As I see it, our government did away with racist laws, but racism itself was only whittled away by cultural forces, afterwards. So I highly suggest that y’all take your Maoist cultural revolutionary coercion and put it where the sun don’t shine.
Comment by Christian — October 28, 2008 @ 6:01 am
Hence my use of the word “keep,” Patrick.
Comment by Christian — October 28, 2008 @ 6:03 am
“Hence my use of the word “keep,” Patrick.”
Given the fact that the failure of Prop 8 would simply retain the status quo, explain to me how, exactly, you, personally, would lose your freedom to not use the word marriage in the way you are using it, rather than the way I am using it, should Prop 8 fail.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
Comment by Patrick Meighan — October 28, 2008 @ 6:38 am
“As I see it, in a free society, the government’s only business is LEGAL equality. “Full equality” on top of legal equality, is a product of culture, which isn’t mandated at the point of the gun.”
So then, if there were a constitutional amendment specifically defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman who are not Mormons, you’d be perfectly happy with that, provided that LDS church members retained the option to engage in domestic partnerships (with a slate of rights which technically amount to “legal equality”)? Such an amendment could not, in any way, be thought of discrimination against Mormons? Such an amendment would not be an act of bigotry against the LDS faith?
Won’t you, Christian, or anyone *please* answer that question?
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
Comment by Patrick Meighan — October 28, 2008 @ 6:45 am
In many ways, it’s a false “church” testing our Government to see what they can get away with, before they can launch their plan to take over America. Pray to Jesus and you’ll know the real answer: vote NO on proposition 8.
Comment by Reverend Joe BAYTZIM — October 28, 2008 @ 8:30 am
#254 “What could be a win-win ends up being a lose-lose - and a never-ending, bitter fight. ”
Comment by Ray
So get your church to back off. If they and other churches would mind their own business we’d all win.
Comment by Ruby — October 28, 2008 @ 9:01 am
246: “Redefining marriage therefore absolutely cannot be not a fundamental right.”
If we Latter-day Saints hadn’t spent a good deal of effort during the 19th century attempting to redefine “marriage” ourselves, maybe we’d have a little more moral authority on this particular topic.
As it is, if this particular set of judges had been put in charge of deciding the Reynolds case, we’d probably still be performing plural marriages today, which, from the vantage point of the leaders of the Church back then, would have been the correct decision.
Comment by Mark N. — October 28, 2008 @ 9:19 am
I just want to say, as a non-Mormon who is a virulent opponent of Prop 8, that the bigot in Post #271 does not speak for me.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
Comment by Patrick Meighan — October 28, 2008 @ 9:40 am
Hellmut, thank you for your intelligent comments. I would love to be able to express myself that concisely and thoughtfully - well done.
Comment by newbie — October 28, 2008 @ 9:54 am
The point is 61% of CA ALREADY VOTED ON THIS MATTER the 1st go around–
Comment by Anna — October 28, 2008 @ 10:48 am
As has already beem explained to you above, that’s a shamefully foolish analogy, since there is no law or proposed law that would define marriage as a union of one man and one woman who are not gay.
Do you have any arguments that aren’t based on distortions of fact or law?
Comment by Christian — October 28, 2008 @ 10:54 am
Christian
Are you trying to have an actual conversation, or stir things up.
Distortions of law? That really rich coming from who pontificates on California law yet displays no substantive knowledge of it. Before you mock those who are for equality under the law perhaps you should actually read in re Marriage Cases. Instead you make flippant comments.
In the State of California, people who are gay or Mormon or both are equal. No one is pointing a gun at you saying you have to give up your views that heterosexual relationships are superior. However the State will treat people equally.
I am neither Maoist or your sister. And covering Mao in a survey course last semester does not make you an expert on Mao or on my political viewpoints.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — October 28, 2008 @ 11:41 am
The point is 61% of CA ALREADY VOTED ON THIS MATTER the 1st go around–
Of course, when only 50% of the registered voters actually show up at the polls (or mail in their absentee ballots) to vote, that means that in the case of the Prop 22 vote, it’s possible that a minority of 30% of the registered voters managed to pull a fast one on the other 70%.
Seeing as how this time the ballot will have candidates for President on it, maybe the turnout and resulting vote will be a little more representative of what all the voters really want.
Comment by Mark N. — October 28, 2008 @ 11:41 am
Suzanne — It should be obvious by now that “Christian” is not trying to have an actual conversation. He is a troll. Hopefully one of the permas will come and shoo him back under his bridge. In the meantime, it’s best not to feed him.
Comment by obi-wan — October 28, 2008 @ 12:38 pm
sorry folks, i’ve not been following this thread.
christian, if you are not here to have a civilized conversation then it’s time for you to go bug someone else.
have a nice day.
M
Comment by mfranti — October 28, 2008 @ 12:41 pm
Out of curiosity, in your little moral universe, what do you imagine that the business of churches is? Since you evidently don’t think that churches have any business being involved in educational, cultural, or family matters.
Comment by Christian — October 28, 2008 @ 12:42 pm
I’m not one of the folks that’s running around calling those that I disagree with names like “bigot” or “troll.” But I do concede that I’ve been too hard on Patrick, who (unlike Suzanne) has been more polite and respectful than I have.
I will turn down the sarcasm even to folks like Suzanne, since mfranti is one of the hosts. But this enforcement is blatantly one-sided.
Comment by Christian — October 28, 2008 @ 12:46 pm
“It should be obvious by now that “Christian” is not trying to have an actual conversation. He is a troll. Hopefully one of the permas will come and shoo him back under his bridge. In the meantime, it’s best not to feed him.”
Noted, and advice hereby taken.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
Comment by Patrick Meighan — October 28, 2008 @ 12:48 pm
This will be my last comment on this matter:
Proposition 8
Comments relative to my involvement with Prop 8 in California, August through November, 2008.
Sandra and I were invited to a meeting with Hal Williams, the first counselor in the stake presidency. At that meeting we were formally introduced to the provisions of Prop. 8. We had previously been introduced to the cause as a result of the passage by the California Supreme Court of a 4-3 decision making Prop. 22 unconstitutional. Prop. 22 was a 2000 election declaration which stated simply that marriage in California would be recognized only between a man and a woman. That measure passed with a 61% majority. Today, as we talk to people, the vote seems much closer. Much is the result of actions by the opponents of prop 8. For example, the attorney general who has the responsibility of choosing the wording of the proposition on the ballot has dictated on the ballot that the proposition prohibits gay marriages and that the proposition will cost millions of dollars in unrealized sales tax revenues (I guess the lost revenue sales taxes will result from the lack of wedding gifts purchased for gay marriages?? But no one knows for sure why the loss will result). Anyway, there is a lot of speculation and a lot of opposition. My sons, Chad and Todd are heavily involved. Scott and Mark are less involved as they are busy with school or other time-consuming matters. Anyway, at the meeting with President Williams, he ask us to support the measure financially. Accordingly, and after discussion, Sandra and I determined to contribute the sum of … dollars to the prop 8 effort.
The next involvement came as we were ask to participate in door to door contacting to survey our ward boundaries (and surrounding areas) about the people’s feelings about prop 8. We were trying to see if they would vote “yes” of “no” or if they were still undecided. We walked the precinct for two Saturdays and got a lot of yes, no and I don’t knows. The next phase was to phone some of the areas which were more difficult to walk. In one conversation, brief and to the point, the conversation went pretty much like this. Ring . . . “Hello.”
“ Hello, my name is Robert Hales and I am a volunteer for the yes on Proposition 8 campaign. Have you heard of proposition 8?”
And now I quote, “Oh, why don’t you just hang up and quit bothering people.“ Click. The responder was a republican, head of a household with at least four voters in it, and, according to the voter registration sheet, was 52 years old. The response was quite harsh, the tone degrading and belittling, and the attitude harsh and almost hateful.
I would not be truthful if I said the response did not bother me. The balance of my efforts that evening may have been (or I should probably admit “were”) lessened as a result of the response of that single caller. And so, I thought to myself, “Why don’t I just hang up and quit bothering people? That would surely be the easier course of action.”
Pondering the question brought some interesting, and to me enlightening, results. So I decided to make a list of the reasons why I didn’t hang up the phone and quit bothering people. Let me be the first to express my understanding of the fact that while the following arguments may fail to persuade the intellectual, they do rise to victory when considered with both the heart and mind. Thus, we find listed below the problem of attempting to tackle a moral issue from an intellectual standpoint. It is often not reasonable to man for God to do things the way he does. It is often folly to man, foolish to his wisdom, unreasonable to his mind, and illogical to his thought. Yet, it is correct. It is divine. It is understood by the combination of the heart and mind. “Behold, I will tell you in your heart and in your mind by the power of the Holy Ghost which shall come upon you and shall dwell in your heart. Behold, this is the spirit of revelation. This is the spirit by which Moses brought the children of Israel over the Red Sea on dry ground.
First, a divine request: I have been asked directly by my church to participate in the effort to protect marriage by seeking to pass proposition 8. That line of request begins with my ward Prop 8 advocate, through my bishop, through my stake president, to my area representative and from the living prophet of God. I believe there is a living prophet upon the earth today to whose counsel I must be true and who will guide me with much more wisdom than I am personally capable of generating. That request dictates that I “bother” people to help them understand the negative effects which will attend a failure of the passing of Prop. 8.
Second, a personal belief system: I have a personal belief that proposition 8 is good for California. My own personal moral judgments and persuasions convince me that marriage is proper between a man and a woman. It is ordained of God. Examination of the opposition’s position reveals that the movement for gay marriages IS NOT a movement for equal rights. The argument for equal rights fails because the gay community already has all of the rights granted to married couples through the domestic partnership act. This act passed by the California legislature allows virtually every right to a gay or lesbian couple that is enjoyed by the marriage of a man and a woman. So, one must ask the question, “If the issue is not about rights, then what is the issue about?” The answer may well be found in Massachusetts. That state passed the only gay-marriage recognition law in the United States in 2004. Since that time, the courts in that state have eroded the parent’s rights with regard to teaching their children concerning the sanctity of marriage. It is, therefore, an infringement on parental rights and children’s education boundaries. I fear that if prop 8 fails, the unforeseen calamities coming to degrade the family and the basic decency of society will be devastating. I view it much as I see the results of sex education in the public schools. When the issue was first brought before the state voters, most states, including Utah, passed the law with substantial margins despite the prophet’s voice and admonition to reject and not pass the initiative. The result was not foreseen by the voters. The result of that action was that schools almost universally now teach “safe sex” instead of “abstinence” as the proper course to follow. So involved was the government in this degradation effort that when a famous basketball star announced to the world that he had been unfaithful to his wife and had contacted AIDS in an extramarital affair, the action of the government was to place this “admired and honored” athlete at the head of its “safe sex” national education program teaching our youth to have safe sex . . . not to abstain . . . to be safe. I am certain as I write these thoughts that the result of the legalization of same sex marriage will bring great condemnation on the world in ways we do not currently perceive or conceive.
Third, sacred history. Since marriage is ordained of God and has been so since the beginning of time, it defines a special association between a man and a woman which perpetuates the human species. It is the relationship of man and woman which is central to civilized society. Part of the definition of marriage is that of a man and a woman joining together in a relationship for the purpose of bearing a family. That purpose cannot be accomplished by gay relationships. Neither two men nor two women can conceive a child in a relationship. If the gay community wants to name their domestic partnership something other than a domestic partnership, let them come up with another name which does not infringe on the time-honored, history-designated, man-woman relationship of marriage. And thus while some male-female traditional marriage partners choose to not have children and while others are biologically incapable of bearing children, still one of the primary purposes of marriage is the bearing of children to continue our existence as a species. That purpose is frustrated in a gay relationship. Truly, they may adopt children, and under the current laws, they have the right to do so, yet, that relationship need not be titled a marriage as it violates the traditional and historical purpose of that relationship and the very foundation of society.
Fourth, Charity: if I am a true Christian, or if I am seeking to become a true Christian, then I possess, or at least seek to possess, charity. Charity is the pure love of Christ. That phrase has two distinct definitions. The first is the love of God. But it also involves the love Christ has for us. The Love of Christ which he has for us is Charity, and we are commanded to possess it. That means we love our fellow man. If we truly do, we will evidence that charity by doing all within our power to benefit mankind and to save mankind from unforeseen burdens, trials, obstacles, judgments and disintegration. Therefore, I “bother” my brother and I “bother” my sister to let them know that there is a danger. I stand with hundreds of thousands, no, with millions, and raise my voice to let it be known that marriage is sacred, that it is not to be trifled with, that because of my love of mankind, I want them to avoid the pitfalls, problems, and judgments which will certainly befall them if this measure is not passed.
Fifth: I am a parent. While my children are grown, I can identify with parents who have small children. This is made even more relevant as I ponder the fact that I have children who have children. I do not want my grandchildren taught in kindergarten or even at any age that it is expected and anticipated that they should entertain the possibility of a gay lifestyle. While I tolerate that lifestyle for those who choose it, I do believe it is morally wrong. I believe that marriage is ordained of God and that to participate in a relationship which is anything other than a marriage between a man and a woman is a sin. I do not want my grandchildren being taught that it is expected of them to entertain the King and the King doctrine resulting from the prince marrying the prince. It is to me truly an abomination. Thus, while I recognize it as a legal right, I condemn it as a moral principal. I object to its being taught to my grandchildren as an expectation.
Sixth: I am a citizen of these United States and have the rights granted by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Under those laws, I have the right to raise my voice in opposition to that which I determine to be wrong. Therefore, I will exercise my right of speech to seek to persuade others of what I perceive to be wrong. So I will continue to “bother” people because it is my Constitutional right. They also have that right and thus, I will neither condemn them nor their voice, though I will oppose it. I support their right to believe as they do. I let them worship how, where or what they may.
Seventh: It is a Moral Issue: I have heard it argued that those supporting the issue established by Proposition 8 are attempting to impose a moral standard on all of society. However, it is the actual reverse that is true. This is a moral issue, and I fully recognize that. It is not a civil issue. Therefore, those seeking to change the definition of marriage to something it has never been are attempting to legislate to the rest of mankind a redefinition of a moral issue. The four San Francisco judges who overturned Proposition 22 created law by legislation of a moral issue. They declared that tradition, history, and religion have to redefine a basic tenant of their beliefs to include a new definition which opposes that which they believe, that which has always been, and that which is foundational to our society. It is the judges and those who oppose Prop. 8 who are attempting to legislate morality. We are simply attempting to retain that which has always been. For my part, I will seek to do all I can to oppose the assumed right of the court to define a moral issue under the guise of civil rights. This has nothing to do with civil rights. Should I say again that gay couples already have all the same rights as a married couple? It is a moral issue. It is wrong for the courts to determine that this moral right is governed by law and that they can redefine it. When the court extends its power into the moral arena, it imposes upon religion, personal rights, those inherent and inalienable rights promised to those who live in this great nation. When I say God bless America, I back up that prayer with work to retain those moral principles upon which the nation was founded, one of them being that marriage is sacred, between a man and a woman. Vote yes on 8.
Comment by Anna — October 28, 2008 @ 1:17 pm
1. christian, your comment was caught in the spam filter
2. why do people like you insist on coming to this site to pick fights? if you want to prove you are right on the issue, there are hundreds of other blogs that will agree with you.
3. thanks for the apology to patrick
4. sigh.
Comment by mfranti — October 28, 2008 @ 1:38 pm
Nobody redefined marriage. What was basically said was, “Hey, the legislature has done such a good job of making sure that gay couples in civil unions have the same rights as married people, from the state’s point of view, there’s no longer any reason whatsoever to maintain any artificial distinctions between marriage and civil unions; looking at the laundry list of rights accorded to the two groups, they have become indistinguishable. We therefore recognize that they should be united under a single banner.”
Unless you want to withdraw a few rights from either of the two groups so that they are different classes from a legal point of view, the horse is gone, and it’s too late to close that barn door.
Comment by Mark N. — October 28, 2008 @ 1:38 pm
re: 276
I’m not sure that’s relevant at this juncture, although the percentage results of this vote will be fascinating regardless of the outcome. Imagine all the bloggernacle discussions that will take place AFTER the ballot!
Comment by MikeInWeHo — October 28, 2008 @ 1:54 pm
1. & 3. Thank you for unspamming my apology to Patrick, even though I see now that I had other stuff in that post that was less friendly.
2. That’s kind of a loaded question. But thank you for acknowledging my personhood. That’s a start.
If this whole thread wasn’t framed on the premise that “people like me” are liars*, I think you’d find that as persons go, I’m more like you than you realize.
* Given Mike’s later manifestly reasonable approach to the discussion in the posts I suspect that it wasn’t Mike’s intent to frame the discussion in a poisoned well, but that’s how it ended up. “People like me” get a little prickly about being called liars before the discussion even begins, even when we do come to these forums in good faith for a discussion with folks that we disagree with.
& I also apologize to Suzanne for calling her “sister” which wasn’t meant as an insult, and promise not to call her that again.
Comment by Christian — October 28, 2008 @ 1:55 pm
i acknowledge that everyone is an actual person on this site. that’s why i have severe knots in my neck and shoulders and why my anxiety level is at an all time high.
yes. i recognize you are human-but do you recognize that the voices on the other side are human too? or are they just some statement, number, issue that has to be dealt with in order for you to keep your beliefs?
Comment by mfranti — October 28, 2008 @ 2:02 pm
I wish that the church didn’t have to lead this cause, since it’s a costly conflict in so many painful respects. But I’m more interested in whether an assertion is true, than quibbling over who has more moral authority.
Besides, even if I accept your doubtful premise that the LDS church tried to “redefine” marriage, this only applied to a small portion of its members. The LDS church of the 1800s never tried to change the legal or general cultural definitions of marriage. They *wanted* to be different from the rest of the world. They didn’t want the US government recognizing their polygamist marriages.
They wanted to be left alone, and that’s a very sharp contrast to the ss”m” political movement. Look back to #265 where Suzanne makes her belief clear that changing the attitudes of persons like me are a major purpose of “full equality under the law.”
That’s scary to me, since I’d always thought that equality under the law was an end to itself, not a means to brainwashing other people. Suzanne is correct that I haven’t yet properly gone through the CA caselaw, but if it says what Suzanne claims, that confirms all of the fears that I’ve articulated here: that ssm is a cultural revolution program designed to change people’s beliefs. And then some people wonder why the churches have an interest?
Comment by Christian — October 28, 2008 @ 2:12 pm
I am glad Christian is commenting, it is nice to here multiple perspectives, and since most commenters lean left, it is good to get a little something from the right to try to balance things out.
Also, I don’t think he has been any more snarky then those he is arguing with, I think he has actually been quite civil. I definately don’t think he is being trollish (just trying to get a reaction). But maybe I am just biased because for the most part I agree with what he has been saying
Comment by april — October 28, 2008 @ 3:55 pm
I agree that Christian’s perspective is an important one to think about, and agree that his tone as been more than civil. If anyone in here knows how easy it is to get snarky, I do.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — October 28, 2008 @ 5:17 pm
Languages and cultures change or die through the natural course of things, but that’s not a good moral rationale for allowing the government to conduct exercises in Newspeak and other forms of cultural genocide. There is a moral difference between the natural uncoerced evolution of words and ideas, and intentional coercive attempts to extinguish ideas in order to control people’s opinions. See #291 (my discussion of #265). If marriage, without state coercion, comes to culturally signify a mere union of two persons, then my whole argument about cultural genocide would be moot.
Comment by Christian — October 28, 2008 @ 5:49 pm
MikeInWeHo
You write–
Conservative religious minorities, on the other hand, understandably feel under cultural siege.
Any suggestions on alleviating that fear? How does one engage with members of groups like Joel’s Army, Watchman on the Walls,Traditional Values Coalition, (The only thing i can think to do is call 911 and run like heck)
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — October 28, 2008 @ 6:39 pm
Run like heck might be just the right thing when faced with true right wingers, Suzanne. But your implication — that everyone who feels under cultural seige is some sort of right wing nut-job — is part of the problem here. One of the fears of moderates is that a dominant cultural left, armed with SSM law, would essentially classify us with those right wingers whom we don’t like anymore than you do. I don’t my family to have to eke out some marginalized nutball existence like Mr. Phelps’ clack. I don’t want them on the fringes of society like the Indian tribes in Brave New World. That’s just another sort of cultural genocide.
Comment by Christian — October 28, 2008 @ 6:58 pm
re: 294
The evolution you describe is already well underway, Christian. It has been taking place quite organically since the late 60s. In certain areas there are tens of thousands of gay couples who are de facto married no matter what their legal status. Theses families are integrated into the large community and it’s no big deal. Hang out in L.A., or the Bay Area, or greater Boston (etc) and you’ll see what I mean.
That’s the odd thing about these Prop 8 conversations. It seems to me that many of the people who feel most threatened (cultual genocide??!!) are not friends with many gay families. We need a West Hollywood / Provo exchange program to help people on both sides of this divide get to know each other!
Love your comments, btw. You’re no Fred Phelps, my friend!
Comment by MikeInWeHo — October 28, 2008 @ 7:09 pm
Well, since we’re all being nice to each other again…
Christian, thanks for your apology. Gladly accepted, and the best certainly wished back to you.
Okay, having dispensed with the courtesies, I really, truly would like a genuine answer to my genuine question:
If there were a proposition on the ballot to constitutionally redefine marriage such that it would be specifically unavailable to Mormons (and only Mormons), while simultaneously affirming the right of Mormons to enter into domestic partnerships (bearing the rights traditionally associated with marriage) would such a constitutional amendment strike you as bigotry, and as discrimination against members of the LDS church? Or would it be a-okay with you? ‘Cause, after all, you would still have all the same rights.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
Comment by Patrick Meighan — October 28, 2008 @ 7:34 pm
“The evolution you describe is already well underway, Christian. It has been taking place quite organically since the late 60s. In certain areas there are tens of thousands of gay couples who are de facto married no matter what their legal status. Theses families are integrated into the large community and it’s no big deal. Hang out in L.A., or the Bay Area, or greater Boston (etc) and you’ll see what I mean.”
Or come to my church in Santa Monica, and meet the 6 or 7 same-sex couples among our larger (primarily heterosexual) church membership who’ve gotten married in the church sanctuary this year. We all love those married folks (individually, and as married family units), and we’ve celebrated their marriages. Not because the state forced us to, because it didn’t. We’ve celebrated their marriages because we love them, and we want them to be happy, as we are.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
Comment by Patrick Meighan — October 28, 2008 @ 7:40 pm
Patrick, it’s a mistake to conflate a change in the definition with an obvious restriction. We often couch restrictions in the “definition” part of a law, but here, man and woman is part of the inherent universal definition of marriage from the dawn of the agricultural age down until to the waning evening of the postmodern age. The definition itself pre-dates our form of government, and our constitutional case law emphasizes that point.
No, it wouldn’t. Nor would I be OK with a ballot proposition to constitutionally “redefine” marriage to exclude gay individuals.
Put it another way. The Bush administration has “redefined” farmed fish as a form of wildlife. One Bush appointee tried to redefine fast food as a type of manufacturing, but fortunately Congress stopped that.
If I want to reverse the first change and to resist the second, would you say that I’m calling for a ban against farmed fish and fast food? Would I necessarily be saying that I think that farmed salmon are inferior to piranhas or that Tacos Al Pastor are inferior to Japanese manufactured Yu Gi Oh cards?
I’d say rather than I’m standing up for meaning and distinction against politically engineered gibberish.
Comment by Christian — October 28, 2008 @ 7:44 pm
If I congradulate them on their union, rather than on their ‘marriage’ can I still want them to be happy together? Isn’t that what union means?
Comment by Christian — October 28, 2008 @ 7:46 pm
Christian
Thanks for your comments
I don’t want your family marginalized. I also don’t want my family marginalized. I hope that if we lived next door to each other, we could be good neighbors.
Considering that certain religious groups are calling this Armageddon, and they like Mormons not much better than they like Gays, why politically align with them? Why take the fall?
Gays and lesbians (yes, I generalize) are not the enemy. and unlike certain religious groups, believe in a society where we all have a place at the table.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — October 28, 2008 @ 7:48 pm
“man and woman is part of the inherent universal definition of marriage from the dawn of the agricultural age down until to the waning evening of the postmodern age.” Sheesh. No It Isn’t. We humans are flexible lot, and as I seem to keep on saying, marriage has many varied forms. Historically, polygamy is the most common; here in the United States, a large variety of native americans had Berdache–men marrying other men. They win, in North America, if you wish to speak traditionally (ie. timewise). Longer, you know. Woman - woman marriage in Africa, polyandry (one woman, multiple husbands) in early Mormonism and certain areas of Nepal and Tibet, and who can forget the group marriages in Hawaii prior to the Missionaries spoiling all the fun.
Comment by djinn — October 28, 2008 @ 7:51 pm
Also, from studying current hunter-gatherer societies, it appears that marriage doesn’t last much more than about 4 years, — serial monogamy (with polygamy for the extra good hunters) not so different than current marriage standards.
Comment by djinn — October 28, 2008 @ 7:53 pm
MikeInWeHo
—We need a West Hollywood / Provo exchange program to help people on both sides of this divide get to know each other!–
That is one exchange program I’d love to see.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — October 28, 2008 @ 7:58 pm
That’s why I specified “dawn of the agricultural age” for marriage. Because preagricultural societies, i.e. hunter gatherers, have no concept of a lifelong marriage union (or of fatherhood!), unless they learned it from a post-ag culture.
I would oppose legislation for term “marriages,” e.g. fixed for four year periods, at least as vigorously as I oppose neutered marriage. Term “marriages” would also subvert and erase an essential element of marriage, the idea that it’s a commitment to remain together for life.
(I hope that no one is so obtuse as to claim that divorce somehow alters that definition, since divorce is the premature termination of the marriage contract, while the legal marriage contract itself is a contract to remain together until death.)
Comment by Christian — October 28, 2008 @ 8:09 pm
Under Polygamy, marriage is also the union of a man and a woman. The only difference is that under Polygyny, it’s not an *exclusive* union for the man, and under Polyandry, it’s not an exclusive union for the woman. I have a wiccan acquaintance who is married to two different men, which means that she’s in two different marriages at the same time. Doesn’t change the basic universal definition.
That’s a very ethnocentric and culturally imperialist way of describing Berdache. Berdache requires that one of the members be identified as having “two spirits,” i.e. that he’s treated as female for purposes of the legal marriage. the closest western equivalent would be to say in common law parlance that he’s “constructively female.”
The universal definition of marriage remains the union of man and woman — some native American tribes are just a little more flexible about their definitions of woman, while at least one African tribe IIRC is similarly flexible with their definition of man.
Comment by Christian — October 28, 2008 @ 8:16 pm
Trust me, I’d rather make a different alliance, and that’s why I get into these arguments. Give me a better option. Make this about civil unions, and folks like me will fight on your side of the argument, where we are frankly a lot more comfortable.
Certainly not mine. In my experience, the most fanatical folks on the SSM side of the fence are heteros who are eager to prove that they aren’t homophobic, or who have some other agenda. And the most reasonable folks on the SSM side of the fence tend to be gay parents who are involved in long term same-sex relationships. At some point you see your family’s rights and interest in stable legal recognition as more important as winning this endless semantic war with folks that would otherwise be your friends.
Comment by Christian — October 28, 2008 @ 8:22 pm
“If I congradulate them on their union, rather than on their ‘marriage’ can I still want them to be happy together? Isn’t that what union means?”
But they’re happiest together as a married couple, quite clearly. They were given the choice this summer, remember? They could’ve married, or they could’ve registered as domestic partners. And they chose to marry. Every long-term same-sex couple in my church made that choice. They made that choice, the choice to marry, because marriage felt like the fullest public sanctification of their relationships. They chose to marry because they decided that being married to the person they love the most, and who loves them the most in return, would make them the happiest.
If you, Christian, were to offer your congratulations to the 6 or 7 married couples in my church who happen to be same-sex couples while you, simultaneously, endeavored to eliminate their marriages, I imagine that your congratulations would strike them as very hollow. If you were in their shoes, wouldn’t you feel the same? I sure would.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
Comment by Patrick Meighan — October 28, 2008 @ 8:23 pm
Patrick, you are resorting to false analogies and unfair accusations. I am not trying to “eliminate” anyone’s “marriage.” Once again, I ask you:
Comment by Christian — October 28, 2008 @ 8:34 pm
OK, round and round we go. You know your stuff, Christian. But I just don’t believe your allies have any interest in supporting domestic partnerships, or any legal protections for gays whatsoever. So your argument comes across as disingenuous.
“Just stop calling yourselves married and everything else will be fine!” I can’t buy it. If it were politically possible, your side would eagerly ban domestic partnerships as well. How do we know?? Because that’s what has taken place in other states!! In fact, the people behind Prop 8 engaged in a vigorous internal debate other whether or not to add the phrase “or the legal incidents thereof” to the proposal. This has been done elsewhere, and it eliminates domestic partnerships as well. In the end, this was dropped because the coalition felt it would cause the measure to fail in liberal California.
But let’s return to my original question: Are the TV ads truthful? If not, is that problematic for a Latter-day Saint?
So much new stuff pops up every day. I was just at the gym and saw Senator Feinstein over my head on plasma TV denouncing Prop 8 as I did cardio. There’s a huge backlash in the state against the Yes On 8 ads that feature children.
One child is featured in a Yes On 8 ad without her parents permission!
Comment by MikeInWeHo — October 28, 2008 @ 9:21 pm
Damnit, Mike, and here I was trying to give you the benefit on the poisoning the well frame.
Some of them do, some of them don’t. That’s what I just said. I’d be glad to drop some of my “allies” in exchange for a coalition that more favorably reflects my views. And the US Gallup Poll, like I said above, makes clear that mine is the dominant O’Connor plurality in America. It’s up to peopole like you to decide whether we moderates ever end up with an option that protects marriage from neutering, AND provides same sex couples with nationwide civil union protections.
Not many of us are talking, and considering the attacks I get, it’s no bloody wonder. But if you think my position is unusual, then read the bloody polls, and give it some thought.
Comment by Christian — October 28, 2008 @ 9:29 pm
So, Christian, because you interpret “two spirits” as “constructively female” it doesn’t count as a man married to a man? Count me confused. So, if one random set of each gay marriage counts themselves as “Constructively the other sex” it’s ok?
Comment by djinn — October 28, 2008 @ 10:24 pm
An entire class is featured in Yes on Prop 8 without their parent’s permission.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1wM7xb6f1I
Comment by djinn — October 28, 2008 @ 10:26 pm
“Patrick, you are resorting to false analogies and unfair accusations. I am not trying to “eliminate” anyone’s “marriage.”
The same-sex couples in my church *are* married. They are married according to their state. They are married according to their church. They are married according to their friends and family. And they are married according to themselves. The only people to whom they are not married are the people about whom they don’t care… namely, you, and everyone else who would eliminate the state’s recognition of their marriage, thus eliminating it. And make no mistake, you are, indeed, trying to legally eliminate their marriage. You’re simply justifying it to yourself by telling yourself that their marriage isn’t real in the first place (hence the snicker-quotes around the word each time you use it in their reference). I’d really, really like to see you tell Kris & Debbie, Ron & John, Marsha & Laurel, and the rest of ‘em, right to their faces, that their marriage isn’t real, and that you are thus taking absolutely nothing away from them should Prop 8 pass and the legal recognition of their marriages be dissolved. I wish that you could observe, with your own eyes, exactly how well your argument goes over with the married couples in my church who happen to be same-sex couples, and who aren’t doing you the slightest harm, when you take their marriage certificate and rip it to shreds.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
Comment by Patrick Meighan — October 28, 2008 @ 11:01 pm
Patrick,
Thank you…and thank you for using our names in your example. We are real people, with real names. Many bloggers on this site have talked about being to personal and yet I feel that de-personalizing of each other is not the way to go either. So Christian, the next time you give an example about Gays or Lesbians, please feel free to use our names. There isn’t an acronym for straight people, like SL, “straight laws”. Repeatedly you use the phrase, “SSM side” in your arguments. Please feel free to use the phrase, “Debbie and Monica’s side. It’s much more respectful and to the point.
Thank You
Comment by Debbie — October 28, 2008 @ 11:22 pm
Patrick, please don’t take this comment as anything other than what it is - pointing out only the fallacy of the argument you are making.
Invalidating contracts happens all the time in our country. Also, invalidating something that formerly had the stamp of legislative and even judicial approval as a fundamental right has happened regularly throughout our history. After all, taking away the title of “slave” by executive fiat then judicial authority totally smashed millions of people’s livelihoods, culture and traditions - and totally redefined what previously had been considered a “right” of the slave-owners.
I am NOT arguing in this comment that Prop 8 is fine because it does less in this regard than what other legal actions have done in our history. I simply am pointing out that your argument is a compelling emotional one; it is not a solid legal one that applies exclusively to your position.
Comment by Ray — October 28, 2008 @ 11:27 pm
Christian,
WHY wouldn’t you be okay with a constitutional amendment which denied marriage to Mormons (and only Mormons), if Mormons retained the prerogative to enter into civil unions, with all the legal rights traditionally associated with marriage?
If it’s just the prosaic rights, themselves, that are truly of import in a state’s recognition of a romantic union (thus rendering nil any tangible loss to same-sex married couples, should Prop 8 fail), then what would be the harm to Mormons should marriage be specifically denied to them?
Please note: I am not, at the moment, asking you if my proposed scenario is directly analogous to Prop 8. Nor am I asking you if Prop 8 should properly be described as a redefinition, or a re-classification, or a restriction, or a re-confirmation of a traditional classification. What I am asking is for you to tell me, in honest language, how sufficient you would consider these domestic partnerships to be while all others around you retain access to marriage, and whether you’d be okay with having marriage denied to your specific class of California citizens, if you’d get domestic partnership rights as your consolation prize.
Nor would I be OK with a ballot proposition to constitutionally “redefine” marriage to exclude gay individuals.”
I’m not 100% sure what you mean by this, but my best guess is that you’re hinting that Prop 8 would not result in an application of the law which discriminates against homosexuals, because, should Prop 8 pass, homosexuals will still have the right to marry… it’s just that homosexuals will be only be allowed to marry those of the opposite gender, just like heterosexuals can (thus, no discrimination). Am I guessing right on this one? Or am I off base?
‘Cause if I’m guessing right, please note that your implied argument is roughly the same argument that the state made to the California Supreme Court in Perez v. Sharp (1948)… and that court (by a 4-3 margin) found the argument as sophistic then as I find it today.
To quote those arrogant, elitist judges, as they forced tolerance of miscegenation on an unready and unwilling California populace:
“It has been said that (the anti-miscegenation law) does not discriminate against any racial group, since it applies alike to all persons whether Caucasian, Negro, or members of any other race. The decisive question, however, is not whether different races, each considered as a group, are equally treated. The right to marry is the right of individuals, not of racial groups. The equal protection clause of the United States Constitution does not refer to rights of the Negro race, the Caucasian race, or any other race, but to the rights of individuals… Since the essence of the right to marry is freedom to join in marriage with the person of one’s choice, a segregation statute for marriage necessarily impairs the right to marry.”
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
Comment by Patrick Meighan — October 28, 2008 @ 11:37 pm
To All,
Here is a fabulous article on the history of Prop 22 and Pro 8 in California.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-steinberg12-2008jul12,0,4554282.story
Deb
Comment by Debbie — October 29, 2008 @ 12:07 am
*They* don’t construe it as a man married to a man, so the interpretation you’re giving it is culturally imperialistic.
#315 and # 316, thank you for illustrating my point that the ss”m” movement is all about forcing others to change the way that we speak and think. As I see it, there is no fundamental constitutional right to brainwashing your fellow citizens.
Comment by Christian — October 29, 2008 @ 12:21 am
“I simply am pointing out that your argument is a compelling emotional one; it is not a solid legal one that applies exclusively to your position.”
The current argument over what (if any) constitutional restrictions California should apply on those seeking to marry is not a legal argument. It *is* an emotional one.
Given the state’s current constitutional language, the *legal* argument over same-sex marriage in California has has been settled and put to bed by the Supreme Court of California. The court did as much when it ruled (in In re Marriage Cases) that Prop 22 violated the California’s constitution’s equal protection clause, and that, should the state allow opposite-sex couples to enter into marriage, then same-sex couples must be treated equally.
Legal argument over.
Prop 8 is an attempt to amend the state constitution and change the premises for future legal arguments. But, again, the current debate over Prop 8, itself, is not a legal argument. It is an emotional argument over that future legal premise. And so it’s entirely appropriate that Christian be fully aware of the emotional impact he’s seeking to inflict upon Kris & Debbie, Ron & John, Marsha & Laurel, and the other same-sex couples in my church who’ve gotten married to each other over the past five months. He should know that he’s attempting to eliminate the very real marriages of very real married couples. These are good friends of mine who’ve done absolutely nothing to Christian, and who would never do, to Christian, what Christian is attempting to do to them.
In fact, here, how ’bout he and y’all go ahead and take a look at Ron & John’s wedding photo, taken on the chancel steps in our church sanctuary, where I go to worship each Sunday morning…
http://www.uusm.org/newsletters/weddinga.jpg
Ron’s the guy on the center-left. He happens to be the President of the church’s Board of Directors. He fought in Vietnam. He helps teach Our Whole Lives (O.W.L., aka sex-ed) to the teenagers in our church. Bone-dry sense of humor on that one. A buttoned-up, monotone dude who’ll make a deadpan reference to blow-jobs just to break the ice in O.W.L. and get the class of nervous teens talking.
John’s the guy on the center-right. He and I argue about UCLA football a lot. He wanted the previous head coach fired. I didn’t. As the Bruins circled the drain last season, the football arguments between the two of us got more and more heated and emotional. We quickly realized that we had to switch to a happier topic to find some common ground. So now we only talk UCLA basketball.
Ron & John have been together for, I dunno, maybe 15 years now? Their relationship is as committed and strong as any I’ve ever seen (certainly including the one between me and my wife). They never seem to leave each others’ side. Ron joined the church first, and kinda had to drag John along with him, but now that guy’s a fixture there too. They both never miss a service, and they both volunteer uncountable quantities of time and energy toward making our community a better place for all.
I don’t think I could imagine our church without those two, separately or together.
Anyhoo, when California law finally allowed Ron and John the same marriage rights as the rest of us, Ron and John made the same choice as any of us… well, any of us lucky enough to’ve found the person who whom we love more than anyone else in the world, and who loves us back. Ron and John, after 15 years together, decided to get married.
According to them, it was the happiest day of their lives. They’re still glowing. They say it’s even better now. Even more special.
These two guys love being married to each other.
And that marriage is what Christian is attempting to nullify.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
Comment by Patrick Meighan — October 29, 2008 @ 12:23 am
“#315 and # 316, thank you for illustrating my point that the ss”m” movement is all about forcing others to change the way that we speak and think. As I see it, there is no fundamental constitutional right to brainwashing your fellow citizens.”
You keep using that word “forcing”, but you’ve never explained, exactly how that force has been applied unto you.
You’ve been asked before. I’m asking you again. Please explain what applications of *force* you’ve been subjected to, and how exactly those applications of force have gone about requiring you to use the word marriage in reference to something you don’t think of as marriage.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
Comment by Patrick Meighan — October 29, 2008 @ 12:26 am
Christian
Could it be that your definition of marriage as it currently exists and your definition of marriage as it existed in the past is culturally imperialistic?
We all look at things through different lenses.
Same sex activity occurs in hundreds of species. Yet it went unnoticed until someone looked at years of data accumulated by field ecologists and wildlife biologists.
It is only recently that historians have looked at the nature of same sex relationships in the past and yes, they found same sex marriages.
The love we feel for our spouses, is the same love you feel towards yours..
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — October 29, 2008 @ 12:56 am
Thanks for the compliment, Newbie #275.
#266 Christian, Proposition 8 is an attempt to forbid people who are not Mormon to get married. Justifications of that imposition involve a denial of biology such as homosexuality is a sin, i.e. a harmful choice.
Beyond that supporters of Proposition 8 merely invoke tautologies and religious dogma, which would be fine if they were not trying to legislate it.
You are entitled to your faith but you are not entitled to impose your religion on others, not even if the majority were to agree with you. Prohibiting marriage equality is no different than blue laws. In either case, a religious majority prohibits non-believers to exercise their liberty.
Blue laws punished our Jewish neighbors for working on Sundays. That violated their religious freedom even though blue laws did not require Jews to work on Saturdays. Proposition 8 will deny our gay children and neighbors from having a family.
Legislating religious prohibitions to regulate the behavior of non-believers is a violation of religious freedom. As such, Proposition 8 undermines the very foundations of western civilization.
For good reason, the founding fathers referred to majoritarian impositions on the liberty of minorities as tyranny. Majority rule ought to end when it impinges on the humanity of others.
Christians of all people ought to appreciate that. We depend on toleration to enjoy our liberty. By the same token, we ought to extend tolerance to other minorities. That includes non-Mormons and our gay children and neighbors.
Comment by Hellmut — October 29, 2008 @ 1:25 am
Hellmut, are you drunk?
Only when they cast it through a culturally imperialistic description. Look at what the Spartans said about their formalized same sex unions, and it’s clear that they considered those unions DISTINCT from (and morally superior to) actual marriages. And only the most desperate sort of historical revisionist would pretend that this distinction between same sex unions and actual marriage was rooted in homophobia. Kings and rulers through the ages such as James I of England have had power to make forced changes, and were quite open about their LTSSRs, but never mangled them with marriage.
Besides, you’ve already conceded, Suzanne, that the “need” for ssm is about making people like me change our views. That is cultural imperialism. My desire for people like me to be able to pass on our language and culture to our next generation is not cultural imperialism. I’m not the one trying to change someone else’s language and world view. You are.
I never questioned that. But I do not subscribe to the old kindergarden logic that if you love something, “then why don’t you marry it?”
—–
I am paying attention to what you’re saying, but I don’t think you’re paying attention to yourself. FIFTEEN YEARS predates the CA supreme Court ruling. I can’t possibly be trying to nullify their relationship, which you call a marriage, but which I don’t call a marriage. I think it’s a relationship that’s worthy of legal protection, and the CA legislature agreed, but folks like you are willing to throw all those protections and more on the wheel of fortune, all over a word.
Comment by Christian — October 29, 2008 @ 12:42 pm
What you’re saying is irredeemably distorted, Hellmut. My gay clients and friends have families right here in Nevada, where the definition of marriage is the same as Proposition 8 would restore it to in California. I agree that it’s harder for them to secure their rights here in Nevada, but that’s because unlike California, we haven’t yet implemented protections for same-sex partnerships. But what you’re saying is asinine. Gay people had families before the nutball CA ruling, and they’ll have families after the ruling is repealed.
Comment by Christian — October 29, 2008 @ 12:49 pm
300 + comments on this thread and too many to count around the ‘nacle and we still haven’t changed any minds.
GIVE IT A REST!
thanks, your friendly neighborhood moderator.
Comment by mfranti — October 29, 2008 @ 1:02 pm
Yes, Christian, gay people will have families, but those families will not have the protections (Speaking for Nevada, or any state pretty much but CA or MA, health insurance anyone?) that married ones do. Pretty important if your partner gets sick, and there is nothing you can do. Pretty important, in a state like Utah, that has done its best to prevent same-sex couples from adopting, leaving some number of children languishing in foster care, rather than being a family member. The list could continue…..
Comment by djinn — October 29, 2008 @ 1:03 pm
Christian,
Your wording is insulting and attacking. Where’s the blog monitor.
Comment by Debbie — October 29, 2008 @ 1:03 pm
Oh, sorry, Mfranti. We must have cross-posted. Signing off. But, I am *not* tired of this thread!
Comment by djinn — October 29, 2008 @ 1:04 pm
“Homosexual couples on the other hand are at best of neutral benefit”
As a resident of the Bay Area, I can say that gay marriage has two effects:
1. Property values go up.
2. Black and handicapped children that nobody else wants get adopted and are given loving homes.
Oh, and Christian — please change your name. It doesn’t seem to suit you.
Comment by Quin — October 29, 2008 @ 2:01 pm
mfranti, call we call this done yet?
Comment by cchrissyy — October 29, 2008 @ 2:14 pm
Christian
I have not said I want the State ( or that I do) to force you to change your views.You continually misrepresent what I wrote.
California is not stopping heterosexuals from marrying nor is it requiring churches to marry or not marry straights or gays or redheads. Individuals and Churches are entitled to their beliefs, but the State will not discriminate in Civil Marriage.
Imperialistic? Who is insisting that only their View of marriage is the only correct one and the State must enforce it on everyone.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — October 29, 2008 @ 2:27 pm
re: 332 Fine by me to shut this down now, permabloggers!
I do want to speak on behalf of Christian. Personally, I’ve appreciated his comments and perspective. While I don’t agree with him, I think his is a valuable voice in this discussion and I hope he continues to feel welcome here. But lose the “nutball” stuff, OK, Christian? — believe me, I know the temptation to start slinging that description around in here!
Comment by MikeInWeHo — October 29, 2008 @ 3:10 pm
“I am paying attention to what you’re saying, but I don’t think you’re paying attention to yourself. FIFTEEN YEARS predates the CA supreme Court ruling. I can’t possibly be trying to nullify their relationship, which you call a marriage, but which I don’t call a marriage.”
You’re not trying to nullify Ron and John’s relationship, but you *are* trying to nullify Ron and John’s marriage, which is called a marriage not just by me, but by Ron and John themselves, and by their family, and their friends, and their church, and the state in which they live. The fact that *you* don’t happen to call Ron and John’s marriage a marriage doesn’t change the fact that all of those people, and the state government which represents them, do and does. That’s just a fact, Christian. It’s not a matter of opinion.
Having said all that, I want to reaffirm your right to not call their marriage a marriage.
And now, having reaffirmed that right of yours, I want to ask you, Christian, for the third time: how, exactly, are you being “forced” to personally refer to same-sex married couples as married? It’s a genuine, dead-honest question, Christian. What applications of force have been pressed upon you which have physically and/or legally required you to alter the words which you’ve personally chosen to use in reference to same-sex relationships that happen to have been recognized, by the state of California, as marriages?
Please, Christian: please answer.
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
Comment by Patrick Meighan — October 29, 2008 @ 3:15 pm
“I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.” 2nd Tim 4:14
Comment by KingOfTexas — October 29, 2008 @ 3:52 pm
Wow — its not very often you see a prophecy fulfilled, but who would have thought Paul could foresee the Yes on Prop 8 campaign nearly 2000 years ago?
Thanks for sharing that.
Comment by obi-wan — October 29, 2008 @ 4:13 pm
mfranti, I do not expect to persuade anyone here to adopt my views; my goal here is to understand others’ positions and to get them to understand mine. So far I think we’ve had some success, and most who want to understand, are understanding. I’m not convinced that length of a thread indicates failure of dialogue. We’ve had tense moments, and there are still a few folks who want to use procedural trickery to shut down the discussion, but otherwise I think we’re doing pretty good.
#333, Suzanne, if that’s not what you meant in #265 where you said that changing the attitudes of persons like me are a major purpose of “full equality under the law,” then what exactly did you mean by that?
Mike, Please note that I said that the CA Supreme Court *ruling* was “nutball;” I certainly didn’t attribute such a term to anyone else. Out of courtesy to you, I’ll heed your request that I not use the term here, but please consider the fairness of your request. Would you criticize me for using the word “nutball” to describe Bush Administration policies?
In my own personal profession, it means that
(1) I could be denied the opportunity to ever serve as a judge, since professional rules of conduct prohibit a judge from making statements in support of an “invidious” law. The Goodridge atrocity and the recent CA ruling establish an assumption that objecting to neutered marriage is invidious, like the laws in Loving and Perez.
(2) I could be held in contempt of court or sued for employment discrimination for refusing to use the term “marriage” out of quotes to refer to a formalized same sex relationship.
You might say that I should just use the term and remember what I really believe in, but that’s the logic that sent some Christians to the lions, since they were only required to make a gesture of submission to the Roman gods.
Other professions would see other types of coercion. Employers everywhere would face the same risk I described in (2). Printers, like in Canada, could be sued for discrimination for refusing to use print the word “marriage” referring to a formalized same sex relationship. Teachers could also be fired for declining to use the term in the neutered sense, etc.
Comment by Christian — October 29, 2008 @ 7:22 pm
Patrick, since third time questions seem to be charmed, I would like to ask you this unanswered question for the third time:
The Bush administration has “redefined” farmed fish as a form of wildlife. One Bush appointee tried to redefine fast food as a type of manufacturing, but fortunately Congress stopped that. If I want to reverse the first change and to resist the second, would you say that I’m calling for a “ban” against farmed fish and fast food?
Comment by Christian — October 29, 2008 @ 7:25 pm
I agree that it’s not a matter of opinion; what you said is objectively false. If it’s not already obvious, the falsity of what you said will become obvious when you answer the following simple question: WHAT IS A MARRIAGE?
Answer that question, and then tell me how what I’ve proposed would nullify Ron and John’s “marriage.”
Comment by Christian — October 29, 2008 @ 7:29 pm
#338 Much like your desired martyrdom, that whole Christian-lion thing is a myth. Bummer, because it’s a good story, but untrue. See here.
Comment by crazywomancreek — October 29, 2008 @ 7:37 pm
To clarify, I ma not being snary and saying, “bummer- I wish Christians were tossed to the lions” ! Rather, I am commenting that it is truly a powerful story and as a woman who spent a good part of her (Bahai) childhood wistfully daydreaming about martyrdom, I can realte to a good, “death first,” narrative. This one just happens to be untrue.
And on the other point, if they’re not allowing judges to be bigots, they should let someone in the know, know, where I live. We missed that memo.
Comment by crazywomancreek — October 29, 2008 @ 7:47 pm
snarky, not snary! and realte not, realte. nursing+typing=hard!
Comment by crazywomancreek — October 29, 2008 @ 7:48 pm
relate
relate
relate
goodness!
I am going to go watch I movie I’m sure to loathe (Choke) in exchange for not having to have the Sunday Obama call party at my house. Don’t ask…
Comment by crazywomancreek — October 29, 2008 @ 7:50 pm
Christian
Perhaps you should go after the Food Channel. They’re constantly talking about the flavors MARRYING! Turmeric and Cumin– sounds neutered to me.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — October 29, 2008 @ 8:10 pm
Let’s see, some Christians got into trouble for not recognizing the Emperor as a god.
Here in California, we have freedom of religion
If you don’t recognize Arnold Schwarzenegger as deity, we promise not to turn you into lion chow. .
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — October 29, 2008 @ 8:18 pm
Christian
You asked
#333, Suzanne, if that’s not what you meant in #265 where you said that changing the attitudes of persons like me are a major purpose of “full equality under the law,” then what exactly did you mean by that?
What I wrote was– If you’d bother to read in re Marriage Cases, that the word marriage is important in order to give gays and lesbian relationships the respect and dignity they deserve. The condescension with which you write illustrates the need for full equality under the law.
I don’t want to write a dissertation but very briefly,if the State has two different systems then one will be valued more than the other So the State will have the same system and full equality.for all. This is not about changing your attitude, but how the state will treat it’s citizens.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — October 29, 2008 @ 8:44 pm
Doesn’t look like much of a scholarly website, cmc.
The real historians do acknowledge that the stories have been exaggerated in that Christians weren’t the ONLY ones to meet such fates, and that it didn’t happen as often as the myths would have us believe. Here’s one such scholarly source. http://www.rainsnow.org/wod_roman_games_part_two.htm
If you read the article, and the many scholarly sources that the article (unlike your fairly worthless unsourced quote) provides, you’ll see that while the frequency of such persecutions is exaggerated, the actual intensity of what was done to Christians is, if anything, understated. The myths don’t report, for example, that Christian women were publicly raped by trained baboons. The fact that Christians weren’t the only persons to face such horrors doesn’t change the fact that they were singled out for them, specifically for their refusal to submit to the forms of Roman worship, among other reasons.
Comment by Christian — October 29, 2008 @ 9:38 pm
Really? Does the state value marriages or corporations more?
When the differences are functional, as with marriages/corporations or marriages/civil unions, your dicto simpliciter cannot apply.
Comment by Christian — October 29, 2008 @ 9:40 pm
First, the flavor channel isn’t a state court. If the flavor channel or any other private organization wants to call same sex unions “marriages,” that’s their right.
Second, they are using the word marriages in a figurative sense, which is different than the faux literal sense that you’re asking that the state embrace.
Comment by Christian — October 29, 2008 @ 9:44 pm
I assure you that I have no interest in pursuing martyrdom, for myself or for my family. Hence my opposition to ssm.
Comment by Christian — October 29, 2008 @ 9:45 pm
Christian
You have convinced me of one thing. Five thousand years from now when the federation of planets has spread across the galaxy and millions of gay and lesbians have benefited from State sanctioned Civil Marriage, you will still be arguing that it not marriage. But all those millions of marriages over thousands of years will have not demeaned or denigrated your marriage.
I have observed that you are quick to put fancy labels on other viewpoints, even when the label does not apply. I guess if you can put a label on it, you don’t have to consider it. Of course I have my biases, so if I am wrong–sorry.
You pop off on the “nutcase” in re Marriage Cases, yet haven’t read it.
I wonder if you have even read the “atrocious” Goodridge.
Fortunately I live in California where you can be married to the one you love, and I can be married to the one I love and both our Marriages are valued and recognized by the State.
Comment by Suzanne Neilsen — October 29, 2008 @ 11:01 pm
We’d like to thank MikeinWeHo for his post as well as thread participants for their contributions. Inasmuch as the topic has been thoroughly parsed and argumentation has become somewhat redundant, we’re closing comments.
Sincere thanks for your participation.
Comment by fmhpermabloggers — October 30, 2008 @ 12:22 am