Discussions of Book of Mormon issues and evidences, plus other topics related to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Friday, November 07, 2008

Proposition 8 Backlash

LA Photographer T.J. Sullivan documents the Nov. 6 protest march against the Latter-day Saints at the LA Temple for the Church's support of Proposition 8. The protesters descended on the LDS Temple to remind folks how democracy works and how important it is to avoid hate even when people you disagree with win. Or maybe I'm thinking of a different episode - sorry if I'm confused again. Hat tip to Connor Boyack, whose blog offers several videos about the protest.

By the way, those Temple gates don't look strong enough to keep out a mob if they wanted to get it. Reinforcements needed for future controversies? Update: For a report on vandalism against the Church by the forces of love, see BeetleBabee.

To those who are confused by the signs littering the Temple fence and wondering if spending money to support Proposition 8 really is the same as "buying hate," here's a useful video explaining what Proposition 8 was about. Hat tip to the Findelmeyer Proposition.


Anonymous said...

Mormons are an easy target but weren't alone. The anti-8 forces might consider demonstrating in Watts where 7 of 10 blacks voted for Prop 8.

Mark N. said...

One question: how much money did all of the people in Watts contribute to the Yes on 8 campaign, do you think?

Anonymous said...

The left is angry, and their reflex is to shut up opposition. Did you hear the minister speaking on one of those videos at Connor's site? He said it's OK to have an opinion, but the Mormon Church - and implicitly its members - "have no right" to influence others. This is what the radical left's agenda is: shut up opposition.

Andrew I. Miller said...

Mark N.,

It wasn't the money that passed the proposition, it was the votes. Ironically, if it weren't for the African American vote that turned out for Obama, it wouldn't have passed. I guess they didn't realize Obama was opposed to the proposition!

Andrew I. Miller said...


Jeff, I've moved my blog to http://strongreasons.wordpress.com because of google's opposition to prop 8. Just so you know!

Anonymous said...

"Ironically, if it weren't for the African American vote that turned out for Obama, it wouldn't have passed." There's a certain humor in that.

Yep, that's the truth. And no, you won't see them protesting in any predominantly black neighborhoods.

There is nothing wrong with Mormon's contributing to any cause they please. We have something called freedom OF Religion in this country. And no, it's not Freedom FROM Religion.

PS - Nothing would make me happier than to see this blog moved to Wordpress... so much easier to use and keep up with postings. Blogger is a pain.

Anonymous said...

I don't know that Mormon participation in the Yes campaign was as important as everyone is trying to make it. We have about 2% of the population in California and the measure passed 52 to 48. I think Mormons are being disporportionately singled out as being responsible for prop 8's success. On the other hand, their may have been people like my friend's uncle, who cast Satan out of the voting booth while he voted. Now that's influence.

Currently, the No people are calling for a boycott on all things Utah. Specifically mentioned are the Sundance film festival and ski resorts. Satan is raging.

the narrator said...

While Mormons made up a minority of the voting population for 8, they contributed the most money and means to striking down the aspirations of our loving brothers and sisters.

As a single straight active and believing LDS male with no close homosexual friends or family, I have this to say.

The Church deserves everything it has coming to it.

Over the last couple months the LDS church encouraged and mostly funded an effort that struck at, attacked, and defeated something very sacred to the homosexual community: their recently achieved marriage statuses. In doing so, they perpetuated lies and misinformation and used fear and passive hate to hurt many of our brothers and sisters.

If Prop 8 failed, the results would have been NOTHING. We would have gone on out marry ways and life would continue as normal just as it has in Canada and other places that have legalized SSM. But now instead tens of thousands of homosexual were told a few days ago that because of the extensive efforts of the LDS Church their dreams of getting married to the person they love have just been struck down and spit upon by people professing to be disciples of Jesus Christ. Even scarier 18,000 homosexuals today live with the fear that their marriages they have just made might be dissolved within the coming weeks.

Think about it. How would you like to be told that you cannot marry the person you love? How would you feel if you were told that your marriage was potentially going to be dissolved because people who believed differently than you didn’t want you to be married?

They should be angry. They should be very angry.

And for the LDS Church to have the audacity to ask for peace after they ripped the hearts out of so many???

We as Latter-day Saints need to prostrate ourselves before these brothers and sisters whose souls and spirits we have pierced and beg for their forgiveness. We need to apologize to them and do everything we can to fix this mess we have caused.

We belong to the Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints. Christ’s commandment to us was to love one another. We are to love our neighbors. We are to love our enemies. Homosexuality does not hurt us one bit. The only hurt it does is reveal our disgusting pharisaic self-righteousness that we too easily give power to when we begin to fear someone who is different than us.

Do you call this loving one another?

I call it fear and hate.

We need to apologize for our sins.

Anonymous said...

o please, get off your high horse

The Church doesn't believe in this sort of marriage and prob doesn't want it to "spread" to other states further disgracing marriage as it should be. Between a man and a woman.

The backlash is exactly like someone said earlier, liberal backlash. Someone has opposed their wishes to live like normal folks that marry people from the opposite sex. But this right shouldn't belong to same sex couples.

Speaking from a legal point of view. This has been voted on by the people of California. 52% of them don't want it. So guess what? It's going to be law now. Until the liberal judges make up law from the bench later on. Majority rules? Government by the people for the people? Not government for the gays and paid for by society.

tatabug said...


Why am I not suprised you would have a problem with the church's stance on this issue? Yes, I know you from MH's blog. If you think nothing would change if prop 8 had failed, you should read what's REALLY going on in other countries which have legalized same sex marriage, NOT what the gay lobby would like you to BELIEVE is going on. Marriage is losing its meaning, and out-of- wedlock births have skyrocketed to between 50-60% in Scandinavia.

Some exerpts from an article in The Weekly Standard, titled "The End of Marriage in Scandinavia" by Stanley Kurtz:

As Danish sociologists Wehner, Kambskard, and Abrahamson describe it, in the wake of the changes of the nineties, "Marriage is no longer a precondition for settling a family--neither legally nor normatively. . . . What defines and makes the foundation of the Danish family can be said to have moved from marriage to parenthood."

Kari Moxnes, a feminist sociologist specializing in divorce, is one of the most prominent of Norway's newly emerging group of public social scientists. As a scholar who sees both marriage and at-home motherhood as inherently oppressive to women, Moxnes is a proponent of nonmarital cohabitation and parenthood. In 1993, as the Norwegian legislature was debating gay marriage, Moxnes published an article, "Det tomme ekteskap" ("Empty Marriage"), in the influential liberal paper Dagbladet. She argued that Norwegian gay marriage was a sign of marriage's growing emptiness, not its strength. Although Moxnes spoke in favor of gay marriage, she treated its creation as a (welcome) death knell for marriage itself. Moxnes identified homosexuals--with their experience in forging relationships unencumbered by children--as social pioneers in the separation of marriage from parenthood. In recognizing homosexual relationships, Moxnes said, society was ratifying the division of marriage from parenthood that had spurred the rise of out-of-wedlock births to begin with.

A frequent public presence, Moxnes enjoyed her big moment in 1999, when she was embroiled in a dispute with Valgerd Svarstad Haugland, minister of children and family affairs in Norway's Christian Democrat government. Moxnes had criticized Christian marriage classes for teaching children the importance of wedding vows. This brought a sharp public rebuke from Haugland. Responding to Haugland's criticisms, Moxnes invoked homosexual families as proof that "relationships" were now more important than institutional marriage.

Certainly there are other factors which have caused marriage to lose its meaning in this and other countries, such as the welfare state and the increase in cohabitation among couples, but gay marriage is the final stage in bringing forth the final death knell of marriage.

This doesn't even account for the jeopardy that freedom of religion will face if gay marriage is legalized. Do your homework, narrator. Here is a link to a blog page with a large number of articles with reasons why gay marriage is not good for our country. Maybe then you will find a reason to support your own church for a change instead of looking for reasons to bash it.

Jeff Lindsay said...

The post at BeetleBabe needs to be seen for evidence on vandalism: http://beetlebabee.wordpress.com/.

Anonymous said...

I am a pro-gay marriage mormon. But how can anybody say the church "deserves" all of this hate and vandalism?

All the church can do is promote the issue as worthy of the voting public's attention. They can't force anybody to vote a certain way.

I'm sorry, but the people have spoken. They spoke in 2000, and judges opposed their will. Now they've spoken again. Activists need to change hearts and minds with civility and reason. Vandalism, violence, and screaming "bigots!!!" at well-meaning people is not going to help our case.

the narrator said...


what is MH's blog?

As you admit, your appeal to Eastern European countries as an argument against SSM is very problematic because marriage had already been largely destroyed by heterosexuals. If anything, SSM should be embraced as SSM affirms that monogamous loving relationships should be valued. A better comparison would be with Canada which is far more like the Unites States than those eastern European countries. Even though Canada has far less speech and religious protection than we have in the US, they have not encountered any severe issues. Certainly nothing like the doom and gloom prophesied by Prop 8 supporters.

And I have done my research. Trust me, I have not taken an opposition stance lightly. I have looked at the arguments from both sides extensively. After reading both sides back and forth and discussing this with friends and family doing law I have come to the conclusions as did 59 of the top legal scholars in California that the doom and gloom arguments against SSM are just false.

Anonymous said...

The LDS church was very much a part of Yes on Prop 8 and by being so out in public about their opposition to it, are a big target. They certainly do not deserve to have their temples vandalized, nor their members called bigots. Well, bigot would apply to some. :)
This negative image will be hard for the church to repair. LDS Church doesn't really have a history of being on the cutting edge of social issues like race and gender and sexuality. Wasn't it just last year that they changed their wording on homosexuality not being a choice you are born with?

This reminds me of the old saying, Be careful what you wish for, because you might just get it. They got 8 to pass, and now they will suffer consequences of it. Time will tell what the consequences are but I am guessing that as before the church was labeled racists and now it will be labeled as bigoted and hate filled.
Liberal backlash? What nonsense.
Tide is changing in this country, and I don't think it is changing in your direction of the church.

Anonymous said...

BTW, I think the LDS members that were involved in the beating of the protestors are being charged with a hate crime.
Guess the Samoans didn't get the memo on loving their brother.
Nice tats on those Mormon members as well.

nujkwm said...

I am pretty sure that the prophet and the leadership of the church didn't just randomly decide to make a stand on this issue. Just because we can't always understand what will happen in the future doesn't mean that God doesn't. I am sure that God knows exactly what would have happened a lot better than some legal scholars. Perhaps there were more ramifications than we have thought of and that's why they are pushing the issue

Anonymous said...

After reading the comments i have to say I wish the government would make hunting wolves legal in all 50 states. For those who think this is off topic move along there's nothing to see here.

Anonymous said...

As an opponent of Prop 8, I actually have no problem with the church entering the political fray as long as its prepared to accept the consequences of taking sides in a highly emotional, contentious and clearly ongoing issue.

But I understand why the Church is having such a hard time dealing with this.

I'd note that the original strength of the LDS movement was its well-focused radicalism -- Joseph Smith was an astute genius in co-opting not just the revivalists of his time, but the radicals and leftists like Sidney Rigdon and the Campellites or the New Utopians.

By contrast, under Hinckley and his immediate predecessors, the Church seemed to adopt a quite successful and maybe essential strategy of identifying itself, to the outside world, as a benign, even anodyne, slightly right of mainstream standard issue Christian denomination -- as American and unremarkable as Baptists or Methodists.

So Monson's sudden lurch into hard right political activism while well within at least early Mormon tradition, is completely at odds with the brand image the Church has spent several decades and untold billions successfully building. In one move, Monson has remade himself as an LDS James Dobson and placed the Church as a major new antagonist in culture wars.

the narrator said...


I would actually like to know how much Monson is behind this. From various statements by those in the hierarchy, I have gotten the impression that this was largely Hinckley's plans that were being carried out. Beginning with the Church's efforts in Hawaii in 1998 (I was serving my mission there at the time), the Church under Hinckley has been an aggressive force against SSM. It was well known at the time it was given that the 1995 Proclamation on the Family was crafted specifically to counter SSM.

tatabug said...


It isn't about going against or with the mainstream, or being radicals or traditionalists. It's about doing what is right regardless of public opinion.


MH...Mormon Heretic. Does that ring a bell?

For every lawyer who see no serious problems as a result of SSM, I can give you another who does.

So the fact that heterosexuals have been responsible for the decline in the sanctity of marriage means that we should just throw our hands up and stop trying to fight to preserve it? We should just cave in to the final outcome by adopting gay marriage laws to not just tolerate sin but legalize and legitimize it?

And no, Canada does not have much less freedom of speech and religion than we do. In fact, their laws are very similar to ours.

One thing I would like to point out, since you seem to think that Canada is a better barometer to go by as far as the effects of gay marriage on society, is that at this point, it is difficult to document the effects on society because the law has only been in effect for about 3 years now. Hardly enough time to get a good idea of the effects. Scandinavia, however, has had about 20 years to give us a good idea of the situation we may find our own country in if SSM is legalized.

But anyway, since you seem to appeal to Canada as a better indicator for the U.S., why don't we take a look at what Canada is doing or is trying to do. More from Stanley Kurtz in "Beyond Gay Marriage":

In 1997, the Canadian Parliament established the Law Commission of Canada to serve Parliament and the Justice Ministry as a kind of advisory board on legal reform. In December 2001, the commission submitted a report to Parliament called "Beyond Conjugality," which stops just short of recommending the abolition of marriage in Canada.

"Beyond Conjugality" contains three basic recommendations. First, judges are directed to concentrate on whether the individuals before are "functionally interdependent," regardless of their actual marital status. On that theory, a household consisting of an adult child still living with his mother might be treated as the functional equivalent of a married couple. In so disregarding marital status, "Beyond Conjugality" is clearly drawing on the work of Minow, whose writings are listed in the bibliography.

"Beyond Conjugality"'s second key recommendation is that a legal structure be established allowing people to register their personal relationships with the government. Not only could heterosexual couples register as official partners, so could gay couples, adult children living with parents, and siblings or friends sharing a house. Although the authors of "Beyond Conjugality" are politic enough to relegate the point to footnotes, they state that they see no reason, in principle, to limit registered partnerships to two people.

The final recommendation of "Beyond Conjugality"--legalization of same-sex marriage--drew the most publicity when the report was released. Yet for the Law Commission of Canada, same-sex marriage is clearly just one part of the larger project of doing away with marriage itself. "Beyond Conjugality" stops short of recommending the abolition of legal marriage. The authors glumly note that, for the moment, the public is unlikely to accept such a step.

Certainly, these things are not the reality in Canada at this point, but this is where some would like to take it, and it's entirely possible that it could become reality.

Here's some more from various news sources:

In British Columbia, teacher Chris Kempling has been found guilty — and disciplined — for defending male-female marriage in newspaper opinion pieces. Henry himself has been hauled before the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal for promoting traditional marriage in his pastoral letters. “The human rights tribunals have become like thought police,” he says. “In Canada, you can now use the coercive powers of the state to silence opposition.”

A Canadian human rights tribunal ordered a Christian pastor to renounce his faith and never again express moral opposition to homosexuality, according to a new report.

In a decision dated May 30 in the penalty phase of the quasi-judicial proceedings run by the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal, evangelical pastor Stephen Boisson was banned from expressing his biblical perspective of homosexuality and ordered to pay $5,000 for "damages for pain and suffering" as well as apologize to the activist who complained of being hurt.

The activist, local teacher Darren Lund, filed a complaint, and the guilty verdict from Lori G. Andreachuk, a lawyer, was handed down Nov. 30, 2007. The latest decision involved the penalty phase of the trial.

"While agreeing that Boisson's letter was not a criminal act, the government tribunal nevertheless ordered the Christian pastor to [stop expressing his opinion]," Vere reported.

Andreachuk noted that Lund, who brought the complaint, wasn't, in fact, injured.

"In this case there is no specific individual who can be compensated as there is no direct victim who has come forward," she wrote.

However, that did not stop her from ordering the payment anyway.

And as for the future, she wrote:

"Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall cease publishing in newspapers, by e-mail, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the Internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals. Further, they shall not and are prohibited from making disparaging remarks in the future about … Lund or … Lund's witnesses relating to their involvement in this complaint. Further, all disparaging remarks versus homosexuals are directed to be removed from current Web sites and publications of Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc.," the lawyer opined.

Andreachuk also ordered Boissoin to apologize for the original letter in the Red Deer Advocate and told the two "offenders" to pay $5,000.

Christian printer Scott Brockie was fined $5,000.00 in 1999 by the Ontario Human Rights Commission because he refused to print blank letterhead and envelopes for the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives.

Brockie had printed materials for clients with homosexual inclinations, but would not print materials for the Archives because he believed the Archives further homosexual activity, which is contrary to his religious beliefs. The adjudicator claimed that Brockie was free to express his beliefs in his home or Christian community, but ordered him to provide printing services "to lesbians and gays and to organizations in existence for their benefit."

The Court of Appeal recently handed down their decision regarding the awarding of costs from Brockie's time in the Divisional Court. Brockie was initially awarded $25,000 in costs from the Divisional Court, but the Human Rights Commission and the Archives appealed, and the Court of Appeal has reversed that earlier decision and now Brockie is on the hook for $40,000.

"There is a point beyond which the conduct of judicial officers will bring the administration of justice into disrepute," Catholic Civil Rights League spokesperson Sean Murphy said. "That point is passed when a Christian printer is ordered to produce business cards and letterhead for an organization that promotes pro-paedophilia essays, is fined $5,000.00 for having refused to do so, and is left with $40,000.00 in legal bills for daring to defend himself."

As David Warren has recently remarked:

“.. a person openly espousing Christian teachings up here — for instance, on sodomy — can be hauled before the kangaroo court of a “Human Rights Commission”. He can be humiliated, assessed fines, lose his livelihood, be muzzled or ordered to act against his conscience, all without due process. That “midnight knock on the door” can happen, as Fred Henry discovered, even if you are the Bishop of Calgary, addressing your own flock..” … (davidwarrenonline)

Uffe Elbaek, a gay politician from Denmark, was interviewed in the Canadian gay paper Capital Xtra. Here is an excerpt of the article:

“Respect, he says, is demanded in education. In Danish schools - even religious schools - objections to gay rights are dealt with decisively, unlike drawn out Canadian battles over the banning of gay-positive books in Surrey, BC or an Ontario Catholic school board’s refusal to allow Marc Hall to take his boyfriend to his prom.

Elbaek cites a problem with a private Christian school that refused to include gay studies. “City council had to step in and lay down the law. Even if you are a private school, you must promote tolerance.” Denmark has many private religious schools for Christian and Muslim students, Elbaek says, but requirements are clear. “All local schools report to the local city council. Private schools are 75 percent publicly funded. The public can go in and say, ‘Yes, it’s a religious school, but gay curriculum must be present.’”

“Everybody says, for sure I should be able to have sex in a public space.But hey, can’t you at least clean up your condoms so the kids, when they are coming to the playground the day after, don’t have to play in used condoms?” He admonishes, “Sometimes the gay community has to shape up.”

You argue that Canadians don't enjoy the free speech laws that we do in the U.S., but there are instances already in the U.S. where speech against homosexuality has been challenged and prosecuted.

In a paper which was presented at the conference: The Future of Same-Sex Marriage Claims: The Third Generation and Beyond, held at J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University. It presents information about the Canadian legal framework so that the issues pertaining to SSM can be appreciated by Americans. Here is
quote from the extensive paper entitled "The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage in Canada: Law and Policy Considerations, by Jane Adolphe:

Bruce McDougall, law professor and gay rights advocate, takes this position to its logical conclusion when he argues that rules relating to all sexual unions need to be reexamined:

"As gay and lesbian unions are being legally recognized, so rules
respecting other forms of unions, polygamous, incestuous, and so on
will be re-examined . . . such as transsexual and transgendered persons. As some religious institutions are deemed to be government actors, and
thereby made subject to constitutional norms like s. 15 of the Charter, so other ‘private’ institutions and organisations will face the same treatment and teachings and attitudes about sexuality in those institutions will be challenged."

Pedophilia is presently a subject open for debate. In order to advance their agenda for decriminalizing pedophilia, man-boy love advocates have been relying on the deconstructionist type of argumentation when they say that age is arbitrary. And they have received support in the medical community, in which the question whether pedophilia should be removed from the forthcoming edition of the psychiatric manual of disorders was recently debated at a symposium sponsored by the American Psychiatric Association.

Having denounced distinctions between right and wrong, normality and deviancy, and male and female as being hierarchical and socially constructed, that is, artificial and meaningless, those who maintain these distinctions and cling to traditional structures must be challenged and supressed. The suppression of contrary thought is clearly evident in current discourse when those who provide reasoned arguments are dismissed outright for being "homophobic" or for promoting hatred.

Maybe you still don't see that there's a potential for serious problems, but is it wise to legalize and legitimize SSM when its possible effects on our country are uncertain? Should we take that chance, or should we follow the council of our church leaders on the issue, who have direct access to the will of the Lord in such matters central to our religious beliefs?

Anonymous said...

Tatabug -- You're making my point well.

Within the theocratic structure of the church you can claim right or wrong as absolutes without challenge. Once you enter the democratic public square especially in a debate this personal and passionate, you need to have the fortitude to fight, argue and defend your beliefs (As did J Smith). You don't get to run away when the forces you fought come after you. You have to make your case znd challenge the opposition -- and that's a nasty, dirty business in which you and the other side get tarnished and you win and lose supporters. You get attacked (verbally, physically is out of bounds) There sre public demonstrations. You get criticism as well as praise and resorting to "its God's truth" gets you laughed out of the room.

Dobson, Falwell, Robertson, Bauer, Perkins et al understand this. If the Mormon Church is going to take sides in contentious social debates, it needs to as well.

Monson and co. layed down the gauntlet, but I fear its the good decent, membership who are going find themselves thrust, unexpectedly and unprepared, into a divisive, passionate and lengthy political fight.

the narrator said...


I am well aware of all of the arguments against prop 8. In the end, it comes down to 'i don't know what will happen.' I'd rather err on the side of love and equality, then on fear and discrimination. That's me though.

"Should we take that chance, or should we follow the council of our church leaders on the issue, who have direct access to the will of the Lord in such matters central to our religious beliefs?"

When it comes down to this, I say we take it up personally with God. Our greatest gifts are our rationality, agency, and right to personal revelation. I think God would rather have us use them than set them aside and turn our agency over to unquestioning (blind) obedience.

tatabug said...


I have no problem with criticism. The problem I have is that it seems the church is getting the brunt of the criticism when there are plenty of other churches and groups involved. I also have a problem with violence and vandalism as well as intimidation tactics perpetrated on the church during these protest marches. I have no problem with a peaceful disagreement and dialogue, but I think the hate speech is out of line. The church may oppose SSM, but it also opposes hate speech and intolerance against homosexuals and the proponents of SSM. It's funny how hypocritical the proponents of SSM are when they speak out against the church preaching hate. They seem to dish it out pretty well to anyone opposed to their point of view.

Anonymous said...

"I have gotten the impression that this was largely Hinckley's plans that were being carried out. Beginning with the Church's efforts in Hawaii in 1998 (I was serving my mission there at the time), the Church under Hinckley has been an aggressive force against SSM. It was well known at the time it was given that the 1995 Proclamation on the Family was crafted specifically to counter SSM."

That is my impression too. I honestly think that, but for that previously approved strategy, our current First Presidency, Presidents Monson, Eyring and Uchtdorf, would not have decided to take such a strident position.


Anonymous said...

Your church provided the most funding for Prop 8. Your church funded tv ads containing outright lies that was primarily responsible for the change in voters' opinions.(see www.mormonsstoleourrights.com for evidence of lies your church spread). Your church was the driving force behind the removal of something that was SACRED to me...my marriage to my partner of 8 years. Then, your church had the audacity to release a statement complaining about protesters targeting their "sacred places of worship"!!!

Well, your church stuck its nose where it didn't belong, violated federal tax laws (and evidence of this fact is being reported to the IRS from individuals and groups around the US), and used lies to persuade CA voters to remove existing rights from a specific group of people.

Even though I always thought your church was as bizarre as Scientology, I never harbored any ill will towards it, and I have gone to bat for it against evangelical anti-mormons. But now, as far as I am concerned, everything your church holds sacred is fair game since you targeted something WE considered sacred...our marriages. Don't be shocked to see protesters wearing or defacing your temple garments during protests.

Does that offend you? Well, now you have a slight sense of the utter devastation we feel thanks to your church and its lies.

The backlash has only just begun. And it will continue to grow until we get back what your church stole from us. You Mormons always complain about other Christians saying that you are not Christians. Well, the lies, distortions, and dirty tactics you used were not very Christian in your campaign to take away our rights.

We have only begun to fight your church. And we will NEVER let up. Your church chose to fight dirty, so now the gloves are off. You whine about anti-mormon persecution, and then you persecute us? What a joke!

Your church practiced polygamy for years, and you are still required to believe in it and engage in it if your "prophet" gets a new "revelation". Your church therefore technically accepts what most Americans consider to be a deviant lifestyle. And somehow, you cannot see the hypocrisy in the actions of your church. Unbelievable....

Your church has only gotten a slight taste of what is to come. Ultimately, we will win this war.

Meanwhile, my spouse and I are going to get legally married in Connecticut.

I would advise your "missionaries" to think twice about knocking on people's doors from now on. It is an understatement that to say that they will receive a less-than-warm welcome in many cases.

Anonymous said...

I think LDS should be able to go against what the Prophet has asked. It is not wrong Not to follow him in all things. We knew about Steve Young and his opposition to 8 and he is a very public figure where we live.

Anonymous said...

Mormons Stole Your Rights………Huh?
Get the Facts:

1. Mormons make up less than 2% of the population of California. There are approximately 800,000 LDS out of a total population of approximately 34 million.

2. Mormon voters were less than 5% of the yes vote. If one estimates that 250,000 LDS are registered voters (the rest being children), then LDS voters made up 4.6% of the Yes vote and 2.4% of the total Proposition 8 vote.

3. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) donated no money to the Yes on 8 campaign. Individual members of the Church were encouraged to support the Yes on 8 efforts and, exercising their constitutional right to free speech, donated whatever they felt like donating.

4. The No on 8 campaign raised more money than the Yes on 8 campaign. Unofficial estimates put No on 8 at $38 million and Yes on 8 at $32 million, making it the most expensive non-presidential election in the country.


the narrator said...


you seem to have forgot to mention the the Church hierarchy in Salt Lake established quotas for each stake to fulfill (my Stake President was proud to announce that we had far exceeded the $64,000 quota allotted to us.

You also seemed to forget the many affluent church members were pressured to make large donations.

You also seemed to forget to mention that many donations by LDS Church members, came from outside of California.

You also were wrong, the LDS Church did make a (small) donation to cover traveling costs for various leaders and efforts.

You also failed to mention that LDS members made up more than 80% of the volunteer efforts for the Yes campaign.

You also failed to mention that the LDS Church STRONGLY pressured it's members to help volunteer for the Yes campaign.

When you take those things into account, it is quite clear that those who have just had their rights (and spouses) stripped from them have every right to point to the (my) LDS Church for criticism

Anonymous said...

Those of you who talk about "Majority Rules" being the ultimate decision-maker in cases like these, consider the following:

A mob of 99 people want to kill the 100th person. 99 people vote to kill that person. Majority rules, right?

Sometimes, the majority has to stand up for the rights of the minority. California took a huge step backwards in cultural revolution with this.

And as to the church: when you lie down with pigs, don't be surprised when you start smelling like pig slop.

Anonymous said...

Am I correct in assuming the LDS church and its members like Beetle are taking no credit privately and or publicly for ALL their efforts to get 8 to pass? Sure sounds like it to me. I even read some comments from some LDS church members blaming the poor black neighborhoods for that. Hmmm, and who sent out all the Yes on 8 pamphlets with a photo of Barack Obama on them to those neighborhoods?

Anyone see that comment on the KTLA page from the LDS church saying they were being unfairly singled out for their support of 8? Yeah, turn that hate around, spin it brothers. You are the victims of hate and anger now. Pleeeeeeze.
This has not ended here. Reap what you sow.

Anonymous said...

Since when has marriage been a right? How has the passing of Prop 8 changed the life of a homosexual in CA? Can they not vote? Can they not own property? Have they come under increasing scrutiny and public ridicule with the passing of Prop 8?

I fail to see the hate. I fail to see how homosexual's lives have changed one iota since Nov 4.

The opposition says that gay marriage will have no negative impacts on society--well I don't see any negative impact on the homosexual community from the passing of Prop 8.

Why are prerequisites for marriage a bad thing? Having prerequisites equals discrimination?! I suppose all state DMVs should be sued for discriminating against those younger than 16, 18, and 21. As a male I should sue every auto insurance company for discriminating against me and charging me higher rates. How dare the state forbid me buying tobacco and booze if I'm under 18/21! It's blind hate and discrimination I tell you!

We might as well remove all age of consent and child pornography laws while were at it, too.

Anonymous said...

Some commenters like the above anonymous are too ignorant to respond to.
leaps in logic and circular reasoning!

Anonymous said...

44 - 30 - 6 vs. 2 states with one judge votes (4-3)

Forty-four states have passed legislation making clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. More than half of those states, Thirty in all, have done so by constitutional amendments like the ones in California, Arizona, and Florida.

In contrast, those who would impose same-sex marriage on American society have chosen a different course. Advocates have taken their case to the state courts, asking judges to remake the institution of marriage that society has accepted and depended upon for millennia. Yet, even in this context, a broad majority of courts – six out of eight state supreme courts – have upheld traditional marriage laws. Only two, Massachusetts and now California, have gone in the other direction, and then, only by the slimmest of margins – 4 to 3 in both cases.

Democracy is the worst enemy to the gay lobby.

Why doesn't the Gay Lobby attack Black church leaders or the Red Cross for not allowing blood donations.

US white male life expectancy 76
White male Smoker 67
Gay White male 59

Gay teenage suicude rate is 400% higher

Why can I support MADD or in school no smoking programs but if one dares mention a possible physical, mental or spiritual health risk to a gay lifestyle, they are called a bigot.

I have the Right to parent, preach and vote without being targeted.

Anonymous said...

narrator, let's see your sources.

Somehow I think you're just generalizing/making up things.

I wanna see your sources for the following:

"You also seemed to forget the many affluent church members were pressured to make large donations.

"You also seemed to forget to mention that many donations by LDS Church members, came from outside of California.

"You also failed to mention that LDS members made up more than 80% of the volunteer efforts for the Yes campaign."

The rights of homosexuals were stripped away, huh? Which rights are those? Do they no longer have free speech? They can't vote? They no longer can exercise habeas corpus? They can't own guns? They can't own property?

I suppose you voiced your opposition to your bishop and stake president, right? It can be hard to speak to them of such matters when they are so bitterly full of hate.

As for anonymous @ 5:48, "Oh, I was totally tolerant of your church until they supported proposition 8," give me a break! It has been widely known for many years that the LDS church has been against gay marriage. As a former missionary in southern California, anytime we would come across a homosexual couple they were very rude to us because they knew who we were and how their lifestyle did not conform to our church's teachings. So don't pretend like this is some straw that broke the camel's back.

You talk like you are somehow justified in your hate. Is this kindergarten? "He started it." Tell me, how many had their property defaced because they voted no on Prop 8? How many were physically attacked because of their vote? The LDS church acted completely within the realm of the law and infringed on no one's liberties in their support of Prop 8.

Anonymous said...

It ought also to be noted that homosexuals and heterosexuals have exactly the same rights in regard to marriage. Any person, heterosexual or homosexual, can marry another person of the opposite sex. No person, heterosexual or homosexual, can marry a person of the same sex.

Anonymous said...

Some commenters like the above anonymous are too ignorant to respond to.
leaps in logic and circular reasoning!

LOL, you're same logic is used against you and suddenly it is too ignorant to respond to (ironically you still responded, yet didn't address any of the issues).

Anonymous said...

Anyone who thinks vandalism and attacks are deserved by anyone isn't a person guided by the Spirit.

And anyone who makes the choice to ignore the Prophets, isn't nearly as smart as they'd like to think.

I choose to be obedient, not out of fear, but out of love for my Savior, and trust in His Prophets.

I think certain anonymouses haven't read their Scriptures to understand how God feels about homosexuality. Since when does so-called love accept grevious sin?

It's not love to encourage people in something that will rob them of eternal blessings.

If you're acting against the Church in this, you're on the wrong side of both God and history. And if you think violence is an appropriate response to our being engaged in the democratic system, I think you have forgotten what country you live in.

Anonymous said...

"If you're acting against the Church in this, you're on the wrong side of both God and history."

Wrong side of history? Are you kidding me?

Were people on the wrong side of history when they treated blacks the same as whites before 1978?

How has interracial marriage been viewed in the Church over the years? Did your Mormon parents or grandparents approve of it?

This isn't about "imposing" anything on anyone. How does a loving gay couple harm you or your Church?

This isn't about the "left" or the "liberals" or Obama (I notice a lot of sneering at these people here). This is about tolerance and respect for people - people who disagree with you, but do no harm. Mormons, of all groups, should understand what it's like to face discrimination.

Anonymous said...

Also, I think it's important to remember that California is one of the most left States. Most of the country is against gay-marriage.

Also, I've been hearing nothing but praise from evangelicals and other people of faith who I believe will stand beside us in this.

And since when does the Church ever do something for popularity. This is only the beginning and as members we need to gird our loins, put on our Spiritual armor and be prepared for battle. In the last days, all that is evil is going to mount against us. But I believe we're also going to grow faster than ever.

Anonymous said...

Greg - this is not a racial issue, if it were, the majority of people who voted for this, blacks and latinos, would have been for it.

I don't expect you to understand our feelings about this issue and why. You have a right to how you feel. You do not have the right to force those feelings on the rest of us. The people voted.

You're comparing apples to oranges.

Anonymous said...

PS - In California gays have the option of Civil Unions which grant them the same rights as married couples. So there really is no reason to fight to change the definition of a word that has meant the same thing for millenia.

the narrator said...

"the definition of a word that has meant the same thing for millenia."

that is such a myth.

which definition are you referring to? where marriage is a contract of property ownership? where marriage is polygamous? where marriage is between persons of the same race? where marriage is a business/political deal? where marriage is arranged? where marriage requires female submission? where marriage is a merger or two businesses?

Anonymous said...

narrator, you're either 1) not an active Mormon and likely never have been, or 2) an active Mormon with apostate ideas who sticks around due to social pressure, or 3) you don't understand anything the church teaches, or 4) you are simply lying about being a member altogether. Which is it? Let's be honest about this whole "I'm a Mormon against prop 8."

How can you claim to be LDS when your blog is riddled with anti-Mormon (and anti Judeo-Christian ideas for that matter) like,

"before there was marriage men and women simply began cohabiting and raising children together. the institution of marriage began when women became seen as commodities that could be bought and sold in a fashion very similar to slavery."

So I guess as a Mormon you chose not to believe the whole Adam and Eve part, right? I suppose the whole creation idea doesn't fit well with your ideas, huh?

Oh and you never answered my questions. Where's the hate? What rights have gays lost since Nov 4?

Ryan said...

Perhaps the "right" to feel that everyone around you agrees with what you do... or at least is not allowed to burst your bubble by voicing their disagreement?

The California Family Code, Sec. 297.5, doesn't leave many other rights out (see the video, 2:02 for the full text):

"Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights... and responsibilities... under the law... as are granted to and imposed upon spouses."

The complaining comes across as very, very similar to the way so many atheists seem to feel actual pain at the very mention of a being they don't even believe exists.

It's all about shutting up the opposition and imposing "freedom from religion" (and those pesky old-fashioned notions of morality that come with it).

*dons asbestos long johns*

RWW said...

Homosexuality is a grave sin. But as Ezra Taft Benson knew and taught, so is using the government to force people to be righteous. The Church's role in supporting Proposition 8 is nothing short of immoral. The dishonesty of those who blindly follow is disgusting.

emissary said...


Did we force anyone to be righteous? I'm confused. It seems that people can still practice homosexual behavior. In fact, they can do it under a government-recognized domestic partnership. Those domestic partnerships have all the rights and privileges that CA law also bestows upon spouses.

As far as I can tell, the only thing we did was retain "marriage" as the "husband-wife relationship". That doesn't seem like forcing someone to be righteous to me.

Ryan said...



Legislating righteousness: Often bad***
Blindly following orders: Bad

... but neither applies here anyway. Prop 8 imposes no limits whatsoever on the practice of homosexuality. Most people I know of did not remotely support this initiative blindly (if they did at all). The topic is simply too divisive and contentious. Of course there are always some sheeple, but there are plenty of those in any group.

*** This one's not safe to mark as purely "Bad" because it's definite good to make crime (esp. the heinous types) illegal regardless of whether the perpetrator believes he's doing something wrong. The stickness comes up when a majority thinks something is good/bad and a minority tries to legislate the opposite way to further their agenda.

Note that the agenda may be a good thing (depending on who you ask), like for Susan B. Anthony or Martin Luther King, Jr. Were they wrong to push for the laws they pushed? Or is it only when you disagree with the agenda that it's bad?

RWW said...

Then you've done all this for an argument of semantics. Lovely.

Ryan said...

Wow. Did you have that response already typed in and ready to post as soon as somebody took your bait? It takes me longer than that just to get past the captcha...

Anyway, I call BS. This was never about forcing people to be righteous. For me, at least, it's about ensuring that a minority does not impose harmful effects on society. The whole SSM campaign has two purposes: pave the way for adoption by same-sex couples (which is *anything* but harmless if you go read the studies which actually follow the scientific method -- most are pitifully biased and flawed) and to muzzle opponents and/or impose certain ways of life on others (as evidenced by how things are going in places that did not protect the definition of marriage).

As a nice side effect, it also gives the royal smackdown to certain judges who tried to overrule the clear voice of the people in favor of a powerful lobby.

If that's semantics, then apparently semantic arguments matter in this world.

aubreyannie said...

thanks for posting all of this information. i really enjoyed {and was disburbed by} beetle blogger's posts and information on what has been going on in california.

emissary said...

Yes, I'll agree this is about semantics (and definitions). Specifically, what "marriage" means. Right now, it is the "husband-wife" relationship -- it's based on a biological union that can (although it doesn't always) produce children.

Since marriage IS a specific relationship, you can't just redefine it to be three relationships and retain any semblance to the original meaning. In fact, you have to redefine it to be based on behavior (like love and commitment).

As you might guess, a biological definition is much more difficult to change than a behavioral one. The "husband-wife" relationship remains the same through polygamy, interracial, and arranged marriages.

However, once you start basing it on behavior, it's at the whim of the moment. The easiest alteration would be to imagine a bisexual demanding that s/he needs to marry both a man and a woman since they are all in love and want to commit. Otherwise, it's discrimination. Now marriage is not just two people; now it's three.

Yes, it's just a definition, but it's actually so much more than that.

Anonymous said...

I see it as simple as this. God instituted marriage in the beginning (Adam & Eve). He made the rules (man & woman). If you don't like it, take it up with Him.

Jeff Lindsay said...

Thank you for the comments on both sides. Given the powerful emotions, I appreciate most people's attempts to share without name calling and spite.

I am grateful for those members of the gay-lesbian community who recognize that Prop 8 is not about forcing them to change their lifestyle, and that there may be some legitimate reasons why society would wish to protect the definition of "marriage" while still permitting other civil unions. I believe that the militants who are calling for vengeance on the Church represent a small minority of gays. I also believe and hope that most of those who are disgruntled with the passage of Prop. 8 will continue to be accepting of the many who have differing views on the sanctity of marriage and feel that legally defined marriage needs to be preserved in its current form. To link Prop. 8 with hate is the tactic of agitators and demagogues. To use the democratic outcome of Prop. 8 as an excuse for threats and vandalism is shameful.

MarciK said...

In my view, I see a bright side in having the LDS church singled out on this issue. It lets others of faith who support strong families see that it's VERY important to the Mormons. I saw a comment on the news from a Catholic priest who supported his "Mormon brothers" in this fight to uphold traditional "marriage" as between a man and a woman. There are many voices out there of different faiths (Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Jewish, etc.) that all feel the same way. I don't, however, see any reason to deny anyone to be bonded in a civil union, giving them all of the "rights" of a companionship similar to marriage. That is fair and a "right" in my perspective and I would fight to support that cause just as strongly as I feel about the fight to defend "marriage".

Anonymous said...

"And anyone who makes the choice to ignore the Prophets, isn't nearly as smart as they'd like to think."
Guess Steve Young and Wife are not so smart. Wonder why they were so against it, him being the poster boy Mormon and all.
"If you're acting against the Church in this, you're on the wrong side of both God and history. "
Lots of Mormons voted No on 8. Guess they are not the blind sheep that you are.
Sorry to burst your bubble here, but Religion has been on the wrong side of almost every issue since its inception. LDS church is no different.

Anonymous said...

I am grateful for those members of the gay-lesbian community who recognize that Prop 8 is not about forcing them to change their lifestyle, and that there may be some legitimate reasons why society would wish to protect the definition of "marriage" while still permitting other civil unions.

So you are grateful for those that share your thinking?
And for those that don't?
I imagine those Gay and Lesbians have a lot more riding on this and have researched it more than you or most any of us have. Let's not give any of them the benefit of the doubt and just be happy that some see it your way. Ain't life grand always being right and smug?

Anonymous said...

Gotta love the assumption that all obedience is blind.

I obey because I have a witness of the Holy Ghost that this is the Lord's Church restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith.

I obey because I have the freedom to and choose to. Nothing blind about it.

But that is always the 'straw man' argument those in rebellion use to excuse themselves and bash those who choose the right.

And yes, I'll obey a Prophet long before I'll listen and obey 'poster children' Mormons.

Anonymous said...

Always the argument? That is an assumption.
Those in rebellion.. That is an assumption.
Those who chose the right. That is an assumption.
Your whole post is one giant assumption.

I guess all those members that voted for No on 8 Don't have a real testimony or they too would be told by the spirt that they should follow the Prophet and vote Yes on 8.

Ryan said...

Anon, you missed an assumption:

The prophet actually speaks for God.

I think that's the one that actually bothers most people, even though they usually mention others.


Carry on jayleenb.

Anonymous said...

It's easy to understand how LDS people can believe such misleading and ignorant nonsense portrayed in the sophmoric stick figured video since they believe in a "religion" made up by a convicted con man, who denounced Christianity and all other religions, named Joseph Smith who put on magic glasses, put a sheet over his head, stuck his head in a hat and looked at rocks. Shame on you people. Shame on you for being so ignorant as to believe that exposure to anything gay is going to make anyone gay. Homosexuality is not a chosen "lifestyle". Homosexuality is a fact of life, always has been and always will, and no one has ever been harmed by homosexuality. No society has ever fallen because of homosexuality. No sky has ever fallen because of homosexualty. No Earth shattering experience has ever happened because of homosexuality. Please, people, stop making something out of fear and ignorance that doesn't matter, matter. Take your millions and billions of dollars and feed someone, clothe someone, house someone, help someone. Do what Jesus would do.

beetlebabee said...

There are so many sides to the gay marriage issue. Did you know that France rejected gay marriage two years ago?

Anonymous said...

The genders are each beautiful and unique. Each gender has a parental influence that is unique to give to the next generation, modeling what it means to be a mom or a dad. In families where one gender is lacking either by death or divorce, society agrees that it is a tragedy in the life of a child. To intentionally create that situation and celebrate it as equal turns reason on it’s head.

I think one of the strongest points against same sex marriage is that it institutionalizes a situation that by definition creates motherless or fatherless children.

I agree with France's approach. They sent delegations out to the four or five countries that had legalized same sex marriage and studied what it had done to their societies. They decided they didn't want that in their country and ultimately rejected same sex marriage based on the inherent rights children have to a mother and a father.

Children’s rights, they argued, come before an adult’s right to sexual preference.


Anonymous said...

Anon, you missed an assumption:

The prophet actually speaks for God.

I think that's the one that actually bothers most people, even though they usually mention others.


Huh? I didn't list all of his assumptions. Figured he would get the point by listing a few. I could if that would help you though. :)
BTW, He never said God speaks to your Prophet. So how could I list it as an asumption he made?
I fail to see your point.
"I think that's the one that actually bothers most people, even though they usually mention others.
Again, no idea what you are talking about. If you think God talks to your Prophet, Great, Good for you, Doesn't bother me.
What does bother me is that some people are so neck deep in belief, that they can't distinguish between fact and fiction.
A short time ago a missionary was telling me about the confirmation the Spirit gave her when she prayed about Joseph Smith. She said that she had prayed about him obeying the WOW, and that the Spirit had revealed to her that he had not consumed alcohol nor tobacco in his lifetime. She had prayed about this as she lives near our house and I had asked her if she knew that. Of course we all know that one of the last things Joesph Smith drank if not the last was wine that was brought to the jail cell.
So, how can it be that this missionary was testifying to me that the Spirt had confirmed to her a falsehood children learn in Sunday School. You know, the one about Joseph Smith not taking a drink of alcohol when he had surgery on his leg? And from that day forward he never imbibed alcohol.
You will dismiss whatever I have to say as you don't agree with it, which is fine. But, won't change the fact that your belief system is so strong you are not able to see the other side of the issue sometimes.
Now, You carrry on brother. :)

Ryan said...

Anonymous said:
Your [jayleenb's] whole post is one giant assumption.

Actually, no. Everything you mentioned is from one sentence, so the post is at most 20% "giant assumption" (if you insist on being so picky with her choice of words).

The sentence doesn't say that everyone who disagrees with the Prophet is in rebellion. It says "blind obedience!" is a favorite straw man argument of those who *are* in rebellion and who are angry with those who obey -- quite accurate in my experience. Teenagers do it all the time trying to convince their peers to disobey parents.

I fail to see your point. If you think God talks to your Prophet, Great, Good for you, Doesn't bother me.
What does bother me is that some people are so neck deep in belief, that they can't distinguish between fact and fiction.

So in other words, it doesn't bother you... unless they believe God has told their prophet something which you disagree with (for purely rational, fact-based reasons, of course), and they then then act on their belief? At which point it becomes "blind obedience" because you can't see a rational reason for their actions?

That's kind of what it sounds like, which was my point -- the real issue here seems to be that she believes the prophet is right and you don't.

Don't get me wrong, though. As I've said before, there are plenty of sheeple in any organization, and I'm not out to excuse them.

Anonymous said...

homosexuality is a grevious sin?

Does the Church teach that? Or are you just stating your feelings about homosexuality?

I would be careful about that, as it appears that you are saying that something that someone has no control over is a grevious sin.

We had a Bishop once that left his family of 4 children and wife to live with another man. As he was close to our family, he explained that all his life he was homosexual and he had tried so hard to surpress these feelings and thoughts. In the end, he could not live a lie any longer. He came out to what was natural to him. Needless to say, his wife divorced him and he was excommunicated.
I certainly am not going to throw stones at him for the terrible loss he suffered. What an honest and loving man he was as our Bishop, and he still is today. I am also not going to question his integrity to say he is lying and just decided to be 'gay' one day. For that matter, when did you decide to be straight?
Sorry, I won't stand on a hill and point down at these people and be UnChrist like. Too much of that in this world, and too bad it is going on now with this issue. Lots of young gay LDS men in California have ended their own lives because of how they were treated.
I am missing Pres Hinckley at times like these, He truly had a love for all of us. Wish some here would emulate the love he had for others.

tatabug said...


Since when does loving others and treating them with equality mean condoning or endorsing sin? Is this the kind of love that Jesus showed or taught? Did he excuse sin? Did he ever condone or endorse sin in the least degree? Please show me if he did so that I can repent of my evil.

It seems to me that the Lord said in Alma 45:16 and D&C 1:31, "the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance." If the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance, that means that he can't possibly condone or endorse it. If he can't, then can we? Yet that is what you suggest we do.

We should love all men, including, or even especially sinners. But loving them doesn't mean giving them everything they want, any more than allowing my children to glutton themselves on candy just because they love it and want it and can't control themselves is loving. Jesus loved the sinner even while condemning the sin, as evidenced in the case of the woman taken in adultery: treating her kindly, but exhorting her to “sin no more.” Tolerance as a gospel principle means love and forgiveness of one another, not “tolerating” transgression.

Society has changed the meaning of tolerance to mean something other than love. It has come to mean that we must condone or accept wrongful behavior. Jesus taught us to love one another without condoning transgression.

It is right to allow people to make their own choices even if it means their choice is to live a sinful life, but to make sin legal is the same as condoning it. Not only that, but what we are asked to do in this case, is to put SSM on par with traditional marriage, to say that it is just as good as or equal to marriage between a man and a woman. How confused is that?

The thing is, the law in California gives almost identical rights to homosexual unions as it does to heterosexual marriage. It makes no sense that homosexuals would now feel like their rights are being violated because they can't now claim the title of "married." Why do they need this title or description? There are any number of possible reasons why, but some are quite obvious. One possibility is that they want the public legitimization. This has nothing to do with love. This has to do with selfish motives, expecting the state, the country, the world to put their stamp of approval on a behavior which religion teaches is sin. Another possibility is that they want to see marriage lose its meaning. Some activists have professed this very aim. Both of these goals are selfish and have nothing to do with love.

I'm curious to know how far your love and compassion goes, so I have a couple of questions for you. Do you have enough love in your heart for those who wish to enter into plural marriage that you would vote to make it legal?

Unrelated to my above questions, but nevertheless enlightening and relevant to the discussion, the following exerpt is, in my opinion, some wise and prophetic counsel given back in 1978 by Neal A. Maxwell, in a talk entitled "A More Determined Discipleship."

Make no mistake about it, brothers and sisters, in the months and years ahead, events are likely to require each member to decide whether or not he will follow the First Presidency. Members will find it more difficult to halt longer between two opinions. (See 1 Kgs. 18:21.)

President Marion G. Romney said, many years ago, that he had “never hesitated to follow the counsel of the Authorities of the Church even though it crossed my social, professional or political life” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1941, p. 123). This is a hard doctrine, but it is a particularly vital doctrine in a society which is becoming more wicked. In short, brothers and sisters, not being ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ includes not being ashamed of the prophets of Jesus Christ!

We are now entering a time of incredible ironies. Let us cite but one of these ironies which is yet in its subtle stages: We will see a maximum, if indirect, effort made to establish irreligion as the state religion. It is actually a new form of paganism which uses the carefully preserved and cultivated freedoms of western civilization to shrink freedom, even as it rejects the value essence of our rich Judeo-Christian heritage.

M. J. Sobran wrote recently:

“The Framers of the Constitution … forbade the Congress to make any law ‘respecting’ the establishment of religion, thus leaving the states free to do so (as several of them did); and they explicitly forbade the Congress to abridge ‘the free exercise’ of religion, thus giving actual religious observance a rhetorical emphasis that fully accords with the special concern we know they had for religion. It takes a special ingenuity to wring out of this a governmental indifference to religion, let alone an aggressive secularism. Yet there are those who insist that the First Amendment actually proscribes governmental partiality not only to any single religion, but to religion as such; so that tax exemption for churches is now thought to be unconstitutional. It is startling to consider that a clause clearly protecting religion can be construed as requiring that it be denied a status routinely granted to educational and charitable enterprises, which have no overt constitutional protection. Far from equalizing unbelief, secularism has succeeded in virtually establishing it. …

“What the secularists are increasingly demanding, in their disingenuous way, is that religious people, when they act politically, act only on secularist grounds. They are trying to equate acting on religion with establishing religion. And—I repeat—the consequence of such logic is really to establish secularism. It is in fact, to force the religious to internalize the major premise of secularism: that religion has no proper bearing on public affairs.” (Human Life Review, Summer 1978, pp. 51–52, 60–61.)

Your discipleship may see the time when such religious convictions are discounted. M. J. Sobran also said, “A religious conviction is now a second-class conviction, expected to step deferentially to the back of the secular bus, and not to get uppity about it” (Human Life Review, Summer 1978, pp. 58–59).

This new irreligious imperialism seeks to disallow certain opinions simply because those opinions grow out of religious convictions. Resistance to abortion will be seen as primitive. Concern over the institution of the family will be viewed as untrendy and unenlightened.

In its mildest form, irreligion will merely be condescending toward those who hold to traditional Judeo-Christian values. In its more harsh forms, as is always the case with those whose dogmatism is blinding, the secular church will do what it can to reduce the influence of those who still worry over standards such as those in the Ten Commandments. It is always such an easy step from dogmatism to unfair play—especially so when the dogmatists believe themselves to be dealing with primitive people who do not know what is best for them—the secular bureaucrats’ burden, you see.

Anonymous said...

HI All,

Not being from California, I've not followed a great deal of the debate on Prop 8. From what little I've heard though, I think there is a complete misunderstanding of how government works in our country. For example, this morning I heard on the news criticism that the State of California allowed a majority of the people to decide an issue like Prop 8. This seems to have been coming from informed supporters of a "no" vote on Prop 8. What's odd about that commentary is that we have a government that is supposed to be by the people and for the people. Isn't a majority vote of the people in favour of amending the constitution and banning gay marriage a vote that was issued by and for the people? Seems to me it is.

I think what's going on out there is that the Gay/Lesbian Groups are taking the California Supreme Court's decision to be a decisive victory, and therefore the issue is dead and buried and can't be addressed. What I think they've failed to see is that their Supreme Court's, like every other supreme court in the country, role is to interpret the constitutionality of existing law in the context of the existing state constitution. If the people want to vote and amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage, the California Supreme can't stop that, all they can do is uphold the constitution. And if the people of the state are given the opportunity to vote and amend their constitution, then the government has functioned the way it was intended to function.

That said, I do think your church is getting the raw end of the stick in terms of attack. Part of that is brought about by your church's historically strong position regarding homosexuality and treating it as a mental disorder. And before the criticism rolls in, I am aware that my church hasn't been overly welcoming to homosexuals either. There's a disconnect here, in that we are supposed to not judge, yet we do when it comes to homosexuality. It actually isn't our sin, and it isn't our place to condemn someone who's homosexual, yet we do, and our respective churches do. That's God's call, and his call alone. I personally don't believe God is going to condemn someone just because they are gay. He's a totality of the circumstances kind of guy. He's going to look at their entire life, not just that element of it, and then he's going to make the call. Frankly, he's in a much better position to do that kind of judging, since he sees and hears every aspect of our lives. We, on the other hand should just take a kind and loving approach, not judge, and let God do his job.


Catholic Defender

Anonymous said...

Hi Again,

Another thought I had, and I doubt anyone has really considered this, but in our constitution is a small thing called the equal protection clause. My thinking on the whole gay marriage proposition is that allowing gay marriage is actually a violation of the equal protection clause. Consider that everyone of us has the right to get married. What's being requested in terms of gay marriage is more than that, they are asking for the right to marry a same sex partner as well as an opposite sex partner. There's a request for more protection than is already granted under the constitution. My thought on the issue is that allowing gay marriage is actually unconstitutional. There are already other laws available to allow the gay community to achieve what it is seeking by getting married. Wills can be used to pass property rights on. Trusts can be used to pass on monitary rights. It isn't necessary to allow for marriage to accomplish what's being sought. Anyone else share this opinion.

Catholic Defender

tatabug said...


I agree. Homosexuals have equal rights. What they actually want are "special rights."

tatabug said...

...And if the LDS church can't have "special rights" to practice plural marriage, then homosexuals shouldn't have "special rights" to practice same-sex marriage. That wouldn't be fair, tolerant, or loving :)

Anonymous said...

CD, so what you are saying is, that Gays are asking for extra rights? The extra right that they can marry opposite and or same sex partner?
With all due respect, as you are always one of the nicest posters on this blog, but any hetrosexual would also have the right to marry same sex or opposite sex partner. So, not sure that Gays are asking for extra rights.
But, if you think that is the case, then African Americans did the same things during their fight for equal rights. They didn't just want to drink from their water fountain, whose water was just as cool and refreshing as ours. But, they wanted that extra right to be able to drink from ours as well. And get this, they were asking to be allowed to be seated IN THE DINER, not out back to eat or take away. The audacity of those people. Seriously, extra rights for them is just Un American.

To the other poster who mentioned plural marriage. I think the Church has ruined enough lifes with that one that you might want to keep that out of this discussion. Sure, divorce yourself from it now that it is causing all the problems in Arizona and Southern Utah, but make no mistake where all these problems originated.

tatabug said...


Your example of the African-American Civil Rights movement is not hardly the same situation as SSM. That would not count as rights above and beyond what was already spelled out in the law for white people. But SSM would be above and beyond what the current definition of marriage is. Certainly, heterosexuals would have the same rights to SSM as homosexuals, but to say that equal rights are not being currently granted to homosexuals is false. This is why we argue that marriage would have to be completely redefined with the legalization of SSM, with societal consequences we can't accurately predict. But once we go down that path, for better or for worse, there's no going back, and it's a risk we should not take. There's no good reason to do so with the laws and protections already provided to homosexual unions, and to ask the country to take that risk, against its will, is completely and utterly selfish.

While my reference to plural marriage was a bit tongue-in-cheek, it also carries a great degree of seriousness along with it. It wouldn't be fair to my religion and its founders for the government to deny the practice of plural marriage while allowing SSM.

But please, let's not discuss whether or not SSM is a better arrangement than plural marriage. This isn't at all about the merits of either lifestyle. Both are equally debatable. It's about what's fair and equal.

tatabug said...

To whoever said the Steve Young opposes prop 8 is incorrect. Steve Young has not publicly announced his position. His wife has publicly announced her position against prop 8, but he made a statement saying that he would not take a position publicly.

Anonymous said...

I Testify
by President Ezra Taft Benson
General Conference, October 1988

"I testify that as the forces of evil increase under Lucifer's leadership and as the forces of good increase under the leadership of Jesus Christ, there will be growing battles between the two until the final confrontation. As the issues become clearer and more obvious, all mankind will eventually be required to align themselves either for the kingdom of God or for the kingdom of the devil. As these conflicts rage, either secretly or openly, the righteous will be tested. God's wrath will soon shake the nations of the earth and will be poured out on the wicked without measure. (See JS-H 1:45; D&C 1:9.) But God will provide strength for the righteous and the means of escape; and eventually and finally truth will triumph. (See 1 Ne. 22:15-23.)"

I always wondered what the "issues" would be. It appears this might be one of them. It is not only having an effect between the church and the world, but is also is causing members to take a side. I believe some of the "mocking" from the great and spacious building will be those of members to fellow members for "blindly" following the prophet, as it is so often put forth.

I think when the LDS church is seen in a good light, when we get good press, and have celebrities putting being generally accepted, the test is easy. The real test is will the celebrity be willing to give up popularity to take and unpopular position (see "Mormon stars face backlash after gay marriage ban" at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/mormon-stars-face-backlash-after-gay-marriage-ban-1003967.html ). Are we willing to lose popularity among our peers? Are we willing to be painted as the bad guys? "Heeding them not" (those in the great and spacious building) may come with a price. Are we willing to pay it?

Eric the Half-bee said...

If you haven't been follwing this on Article VI Blog yet, you really need to. Here's an exerpt

"The current conflict over marriage is in part a proxy for a larger ongoing conflict about the role of religious people and religious values in public life. As courts come to endorse the principle that sexual orientation is just like race, American government is going to find itself in the position of treating traditional faith communities just like racists. Voters should beware — if they are consulted on the matter. (Exerpted from an NRO article)

"...If [intellectuals and the Left elite] have their way, any church that recognizes only traditional marriage will be seen, in the eyes of the law, just like churches who once opposed interracial marriage. In other words, same-sex marriage proponents argue that there is no difference between society’s protection of a same-sex couple’s right to marry, and its protection of an interracial couple’s right to marry.

"This is a serious issue that needs a just resolution reflecting the will of American society while still protecting the human rights of gays and preserving traditional marriage as the ideal. That is a tall order. Getting to such resolution will require hard work and commitment to ensure that the national debate is taken seriously." - emphasis added

Anonymous said...

something nobody (I read about half) has brought up is--

marriage is NOT just about the "couple"; it is about children, too--

people who are selfish enough not to think about children--

are behind this, I believe.

I have dealt with a lot of adoption issues and a lot of divorce issues in my family and among close friends--and I DO have close family members who have gone the SSA route--

I have seen children suffer from adoption--terrible things . . .

I don't know why a man who is "married" to a man can father a child through a turkey baster with a Lesbian "friend"--

and call that child the child of the "couple"--

there WILL be a hole in that child's heart from not having had his/her mother; it doesn't matter HOW much "love" is received from the surrogate--

adoption is a problematic solution to children who are not "wanted" at birth--

I believe most children who are adopted are GLAD they were born; I haven't met one yet who isn't--

but the absence of the birthparents is keenly felt in the soul--

how people can deliberately do this to children is beyond me, but it IS the product of selfishness--

those longings are very real; they are PRIMAL--

they have nothing to do with culture--

so you can wish away that a man and a man can bear a child that is the product of both--or that a woman can do it, but the fact is that

a man and a woman is necessary, even if the romance of the turkey baster is all that is ever known--

this is about life; this is about the origin of life--

SS "couples" can be domestic partners with all the rights involved therein; they can never, ever, EVER produce a child--

this said with compassion for men and women everywhere who cannot produce children--at least they marry with the idea in mind of the possibility of having children who will know they BELONG--

this isn't homophobic; this is biology--

this sociology--

this is the stuff psychologists who counsel those with holes in their hearts deal with--

so, a little bit of control on the parts of everyone who thinks about having children in their lives--

whether unmarried heterosexuals or "coupled" homosexuals who think they can "have a child"--

would do a lot for the unborn children of the world--


Anonymous said...

my apologies to beetlebabee (sp?)

YOU had brought this issue up--

I didn't read your post 'til I had already posted my comment--

There is more than one voice for the "feelings" and "rights" of a child--

Thank you--

In my post I didn't mention the hurt that comes from not having a father either--

either circumstance deprives the child of at least one parent--

the adoptive parents I know, while legally "guardians" do NOT try to pretend they are biological parents--

which makes an obvious point; I mean, it would be ridiculous--

to "pretend" such a thing--

but, you are right--to create such a heartache out of selfishness . . .

how can anyone call that "love"--

maybe that is why SS "couples" want to be able to adopt, so they can say they "saved" a child--

sadly, there aren't enough babies for heterosexual couples--

thanks to Roe versus Wade, so this is a pragmatic issue, not just a philosophical one--

Anonymous said...

Hi Anon of Nov 10,

What I am saying is that the gay and lesbian community already has the right to marry. They just don't like the limitation placed upon them and do want special treatment. You can't compare this issue with the civil rights movement. That issue dealt with an outright denial of rights that the black community had been given at the end of the civil war. The folks marching in Alabama and the Deep South were being denied thier right to vote, live where they wanted, they were being denied thier right to fair treatment under the law.

Here the gay community is asking for more than they already have under the law. It isn't the same, and it isn't fair. No one is telling the gay community that they can't enter into a contract for marriage, they're just putting limits on what will be recognized as a valid contract. Huge difference though I doubt you'll agree with me.

Additionally, I do want to point out that I am not at all in support of a federal ban on gay marriage. This is an issue that should not be addressed nationally from either side. Its an issue of state rights, and has no place in the federal constitution. All that will do is make a mess for everybody.

My opinion, for what its worth, is that California, and those states that have placed this issue on thier ballots to be dealt with by a majority of the people, are handling the matter the right way. They are giving the people the right to choose what they will recognize as a marriage, by allowing the people to make amendments to their respective states' constitutions. That is how our democracy is supposed to work, and it is the only fair way to deal with the issue. I would support this position if the constitutional amendment was to allow ssm to be recognized, I wouldn't vote for the recognition, but I would support giving everyone the opportunity to vote on the issue.

The problem that folks are having is that the majority of the people don't support recognizing gay marriages. Maybe that's a hold out to more biblical times, maybe its something else. But the fact is, most people in this country, as tolerant as they are, are not ready or willing to recognize ssm's. I think the gay community likely recognizes that, which is why there is this big push to nationalize the issue by getting the matter before the supreme court. The flaw there is that the US supreme court is made up of conservatives who will likely make a mess of the whole matter for all of us, gay or straight. Is that really what people want?

I do think Tatabug is right regarding plural marriages. That was a huge issue in the late 1800's for the LDS Church. It was such a huge issue, there was violence and bloodshed over it. Statehood was denied over it. Ultimately, plural marriages had to come to an end, though I don't agree with the why given by the LDS church. The argument is the same though. LDS members in the 1800's already had the right to marry, what they were fighting for was a right to marry more than one person...how is what the gay community is asking for any different? Its still asking for special treatment; on the one had the LDS Community was asking for Special Treatment to engage in polygamy, on the other the gay community is asking for special treatment to engage in ssm. Its still special treatment.

The laws in this country are far from perfect, but there is an attempt to make things fair for everyone. Giving one group special treatment, no matter what the request is, is still special treatment and patently unfair.


Catholic Defender

Anonymous said...

Funny, wasn't the Church persecuted -- and nearly destroyed -- because of an "alternative" family arrangement?

In light of this, the Church's support of a proposition to render others' "alternative" family arrangements is regrettable at best.

Has anyone considered that marriage is a fundamentally religious ordinance? The government has no place in defining it for that reason. The only business the government has in relation to marriage is ensuring that:
1) no coercion is used to force people into marriage, and
2) that those entering into the marriage are of a reasonable minimum age...

Yes, I'm an LDS member, but I have to admit that I am most disappointed in the church leadership. I think that the men I sustained as "Prophets, Seers and Revelators" have fundamentally missed the whole point. As of now, a precedent has been set increasing the government's role in defining "marriage." One would think that our church -- if no other - would remember what happens when you do this.

Anonymous said...

A link to the Church's Official Press Release concerning Same-Gender Attraction

This is a link to the LDS Church site Jeff. I sure hope my html works.

1 Nephi 8:28 And after they had tasted of the fruit they were ashamed, because of those that were scoffing at them; and they fell away into forbidden paths and were lost.

33: ...And after they did enter into that building they did point the finger of scorn at me and those that were partaking of the fruit also; but we heeded them not.

I choose to 'heed them not.'

Anonymous said...

As for me and my house, we will choose the LORD

Wookface said...

Wow. I have been disgusted over the past few days and weeks over the whole prop 8 issue. It seems ridiculous that people are getting so upset with the church's involvement in supporting prop 8. I just have to ask, what else would the church do? Scripture and prophets, ancient and modern alike, have all condemned the practice of homosexuality. Of COURSE the church is going to come out and support a measure to try and preserve traditional family. Might I also add that it was the MEMBERS of the church, acting on their religious belief that led to their involvement. THEY donated time, means and talent to the cause. I just stumbled upon an amazing talk given by Elder Maxwell in the 70's that depicts the exact situation we are in currently and also gives an amazingly sound perspective on the issue. This talk is prophetic! I encourage everyone to read at least the first part of it and see where they stand!


Anonymous said...

Keith Olbermann put you all to shame tonight. I pray you will read this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27650743/

Anonymous said...

Wow, that was a great link. Thanks for posting that.

All that PR work the LDS church has been doing for years, has been erased by all this. People were finally accepting Mormons as Christians and like minded people.
Not so anymore.

Anonymous said...

If I am living my life worrying what Keith Olbermann thinks of me, I would need to rethink my life.

Anonymous said...

Bible-believing Christians consider homosexual relations to be sinful. So among Bible-believers, the view of the LDS church is coming out ahead in all this.

The Bible predicted all this, about people calling good evil and calling evil good.

The apostle Paul predicted this, in 2 Timothy 4:3-4,

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.

Eric the Half-bee said...

This is just a hunch, but I don't think it's too wild: the next LGBT festival "Pride Week" (the name itself is telling) will feature parades in front of temples - worldwide - and angry (not 'tolerant') people parading around in Garments.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if the boycott of all things Utah includes energy... since California is a major energy importer, especially from Utah.

Anonymous said...

My mother used to tell when a person insulted me to, 'Consider the source.' Personally I think Olbermann is a hate-spittling buffoon toward anything right and good.

If Keith Olbermann is against me and my Church, then I say 'Hurrah for Israel!'

Anonymous said...

Jayleen, you obviously did not read it. What are you afraid of?

tatabug said...

There's no point to reading the Keith Overbite article. I did and it was all very predictable.

Anonymous said...

Yes Keith Olbermann has put us to shame(?!), yet none of you against Prop 8 has dared to answer any of my questions: Where is the hate? What rights have been deprived the homosexual community since Nov 4?

My goodness narrator has disappeared altogether. I guess when the truth comes out about his alleged membership in the church and his apostate ideas, he's too busy to respond. Or maybe you're still here just posting anonymously.

Anonymous said...

It disturbs me that there are some Mormons who seem happy that the Church is being criticized (by the far left media i might add)....Why so happy about this? Something is not right about that...

Those Mormons who disagree with the Church on this issue need to put their money where their mouth is. Basically we are taught the President of the Church is a prophet and receives revelation from God. How can you believe this if they were "wrong" on this issue? Members whining that the Church was wrong, guess what that means the Church is not infallible and we are false. Leave the Church and find one that is. You cannot have it both ways.

Why the disagreement now? The Church has consistently been against gay-marriage...

Another thing is that the Church does not exist to win a beauty pageant. The mission of the Church is to bring souls to Christ, to preach faith and repentance to all nations. The mission is to preach love and denounce sin. It has never been a popularity contest. The world has never liked being told it is wicked and perverse. Have you not read the Scriptures??

The LDS Church stands up for what it believes, a few angry gays get mad and whine, and you fold like a coward and distance yourself from the Church? Who is the real coward..? Who is the one standing on a weak and soddy foundation?

Here is the big question for the Mormons who are against the church? Is gay marriage a sin?

If you answer NO then your morality structure has collapsed. Adultery, fornication, and incest is cool and a not sin as well. Who is God to be telling man what to do anyway you know? It's ok not to listen to God.. We know better... what The apostles say are just suggestions...Better yet maybe there is not a God...maybe the church is just a historical tradition that is out-dated...

If your answer is yes then the Church and Jesus Christ have the unrelenting call to denounce sin and perversion....

Anonymous said...

All the LDS in California that voted No on 8 did it out of there own free will and conscience.
Has nothing to do with Obeying the Lord or Not believing in the Prophet.
It was free agency, and anyone who suggests that we HAD to vote one way or another is following Satan's plan. The Church did not tell us how to vote. Did it?The Lord did not tell us how to vote. Did He?
Someone's self righteous suggestion above that they are following the Prophet and Obeying the Lord by voting yes is hogwash.
We are not told how to vote, or forced to. Satan's plan pure and simple. And statements above like that are why people say we are a brainwashed cult.

Anonymous said...

Free agency indeed.

The Prophet speaks for the Lord and gives us the choice. To obey or disobey. It's pretty clear.

If you used your agency to vote no, that's your business. But mocking those who chose to use their agency to vote yes in CLEAR accordance with the Lord's wishes as voiced through His Prophet, isn't the best road to take.

Rebel all you want. It's not often the Church takes a decided stand in political issues, but when they do, you can bet the Lord has spoken it.

Anonymous said...

Btw, Satan's plan was to save everyone regardless of what they did. In other words, to remove consequences from actions. Not to control everyone and force them not to sin.

There has never been a time in history that God has not approved of laws to govern societies. That's why we have laws such as don't murder or steal or commit adultery. Of course society now approves of committing adultery, but I guarantee you, God has not changed.

Abortion may be legal but participating in an abortion (except where you have consulted with Bishop/Stake President and life of mother is at risk) or encouraging another to have one can get you excommunicated from the Church. So can murder and adultery.

We have free agency, but are not free from the consequences!

Anonymous said...

This is an excerpt from The Family:A Proclamation to the World

"The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.


We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society. "

There it is. There is no way a member of the Church could vote against Prop 8 without being in direct opposition to the Lord Himself. If you voted no, there is no time like the present to repent.

Anonymous said...

Here's a wonderful quote from Olbermann, since some are too afraid to read it, and the implication that they may have made a mistake:
"You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then Spread happiness—this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness—share it with all those who seek it. Quote me anything from your religious leader or book of choice telling you to stand against this. And then tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Simple as that.
Would you have the state of California vote on the rights of Mormons to marry? Or for a Mormon man to remarry in the temple for eternity after the death of a wife?

Leena said...

I am an active member of the LDS (Mormon) church, and I live in the Bay Area, in a community that has a very visible lesbian, gay, and transgender minority. I have homosexual friends and co-workers - and immediate family members. I also have straight friends and co-workers, black, asian, latino freinds and co-workers... and that's just the way it is.

I attend church every Sunday, and I teach 5-6 year olds in sunday school. We talk a lot about Jesus - how he loved everyone, served everyone, and that we should live our lives to be more like him. That is what I teach to the youngest children in our church, and it is what I was taught at church when I was little.

I can't speak for every member of my church, but I do not hate homosexuals. I was never taught to hate them at home, at church, or at any other place. I'm sure there ARE people at church who DO hate same-sex couples, but hate is NOT a part of our religion, and those that choose to express hate towards ANY person are very misguided in their devotion to our religion. But you know how it is - there are always a few judgemental haters who assume they know more than God. But that is not EVERY church member. Our religion has morals and beliefs, but acknowledges that everyone should act with their own free-agency, in deciding what to do in life, and leave it to our Father in Heaven to judge. This is a fundamental teaching.

That being said, as citizens of the United States, each of us has the right to vote based on our own personal beliefs and feelings. I support any Californian who voted NO on 8, because that is their right, to vote in accordance with their beliefs and feelings... but I also support those who chose to vote YES, because that is also their right.

The LDS church is being singled out as the reason Prop 8 passed. Never once did my bishop, or any church leader approach me to give money, let alone make voting Yes a requirement of me. The ONLY thing ever said in church with regards to the election was encouragement for everyone to pray about what they would be voting for, and to vote for what they felt was right. A specific presidential candidate, or prop, was never once mentioned.

If church members invidually decided to fund a campaign they agreed with, they have the right to do so. It does not make it a campaign "funded" by the Mormon church - it is funded by individuals who believe in traditional marriage. And most members of the Mormon church, Catholic church, Jewish and Islamic religions believe in traditional marriage. Members of the LDS religion may have contributed more money, but that does not mean that their votes were the deciding factor in determining the outcome.

I did vote Yes....but honestly, I do believe same-sex marriage will be legal in our state once again. I truly believe that, and will support it when that time comes, as I am a law-abiding citizen. But I voted Yes because that was my right, to vote in accordance with my beliefs. It was not about denying rights to anyone, or hating ANYONE. It was, for me, about voting for what I felt was right for me.

On a final note, when same-sex marriage is legalized, I will not spray paint homes or buildings, shout obscinities at passerbys, harrass or otherwise degrade any LGBT person for acting on their beliefs. I know there are many upset and angry people out there, and believe it or not, I DO understand - I just wish we could agree to disagree - without attacking one another in that way. At least, I hope that's possible.

Anonymous said...

I did watch the Olbermann rant. Happiness and spreading love means something different to me than it does to him. Sin never was happiness. God's plan is the plan of happiness. I can understand why this is so hard for people who haven't tried living it. There is a reason why homosexual depression and suicide rates are so high.

I feel no hate for gays. I have several gay friends. I see them as children of God with other wonderful and righteous qualities that I can learn from, but my gay friends are basically, some pretty unhappy people. To me, it is because of the lifestyle they have chosen to lead. Children of God or not we all curse ourselves when we makes choices that aren't conducive to the spirit.

Anonymous said...

And I feel no hate for heterosexuals. I know several. They are all wonderful people. Quirky at times, but really endearing and typically both cool and wise. I really like most of them, honestly. A roommate of mine was heterosexual, our postal delivery person is hetero, two of the guys at work are, a bunch in my hunting club are "het" (they tend to be real good shots, for some reason), and even I think my parents were, but they kept that private.

Anonymous said...

The church funded almost 75% of the yes on 8 campaign. Campaigns are won by $$$$$ in America. Anyone that doubts that wasn't paying attention to Hillary Clinton's defeat followed by John McCain's.

The church funds it then gets upset that there is a backlash!?! That's absurd. We should be thankful that our Temples and churches aren't burning down in California.

Anonymous said...

With all of the comments and signs that like to discuss polygamy, I am amazed that Obama supporters would be against it--afterall, Barrack's father (Barrack Hussein Obama, Sr.) had three wives at the same time and actually had a fourteen cow woman--his first wife was purchased with 14 cows.

tescon said...

To those who think that receiving packages of white powder sent to temples, the burning and arson of Holy Scriptures at Holy buildings, desecrating Holy Temples and threatening violence (as well as forced resignations and other thuggish behavior) is to be expected, I say, no, it is not expected. The Church took a VERY active role in the Nevada Constitutional amendment for marriage and the mobs did not storm the gates.

The bully mob mentality of the pro-homosexual lobby is truly frightening.
We do need to get ready, but we need to prosecute--for criminal trespass, vandalism, sue civilly for damages to the Temples and sue civilly for defamation.

We MUST have a stiff upper lip and simply take pictures of the haters, the anti-Mormon Bigots and stand up for what is right.

Be prepared. The radical pro-homosexual lobby that fights every day to get its message to your children and to you in school, on TV, etc. will not back down and will not stop. We need to be just as forceful in our efforts to support good, decent, clean lives.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @ 5:15: citation please?

Anonymous said...

5:15, please tell us how someone's dead father plays into this?
Also, What does this mean?
"With all of the comments and signs that like to discuss polygamy"
Comments like to discuss polygamy?
Signs like to discuss polygamy?
No idea what you are talking about.
Maybe you should look up, joseph smith and polyandry.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 1:35 Nov 14,

Campaigns are won by money? Whatever happened to Mitt then? He spent more on advertisements than any of his competitors at the time.

And no the church did not fund 75% of the yes on 8 campaign.

Anonymous said...

I was sorry to see what happened at the El Coyote restaurant owner's daughter was on the list of donorr's. El Coyote is in a gay area, and gays make up about 2/3 of their patrons. The customer's feel betrayed. If I was gay, I am sure I would also. I, for one, will continue to eat there. I voted yes (and I am ashamed of it) because I believed all the lies on the Yes vote advertising. Being that I am from California, I can tell you that most people that to the NO on 8 side will shout it from the rooftops, and don't care who knows because they believe they are fighting bigotry and don't care about the consequences. On the other hand, people that donated to YES on 8 are just trying to hide.

Anonymous said...

I have a question. Why was all this money spent to stop gay marriage, while nothing was said on Prop 4 which would allow a 13 year old to get an abortion without parental notification (this passed). We wouldn't have faced this backlash, and it seems to me that this was a much more important issue.

Anonymous said...

I just wanted to throw in my two cents. First off, I am mormon, and second, I am canadian.

Up here the gov't went ahead and passed same sex marriage on there own, there was no referendum. So far, things haven't fallen apart, and I feel that government was doing its job.

I don't agree with the decision, but I would be really worried if other issues were put to a vote of the people. I know a lot of the YES people say that majority rules, but that only works if you're on the winning side. What if the majority decided that mormons weren't allowed to preach or marry, etc.

I also hesitate at how the anti same sex marriage group went to the constitution to solidify their ban, what do we do if God decides to reinstate polygamy? Ask them to make an exception in the law we created?

All in all, I feel mixed about trying to legislate or ban away same sex marriage, and one of the results I didn't expect to see was so much hatred towards the church. I hope that we don't bring the foretold opposition on ourselves prematurely if you know what I mean.

However. I trust that President Thomas S. Monson is a prophet of God and was acting on His instruction, and ultimately I believe if we follow that guidance, things will turn out for the best.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 4:16 PM, November 15, 2008.

"I, for one, will continue to eat there. I voted yes (and I am ashamed of it) because I believed all the lies on the Yes vote advertising."

Hm. Both sides spent a lot of money on this campaign and put forth their best arguments before the election. What new information did you get after the election that convinced you that you had believed lies?

tatabug said...

Anon. @ 5:20,

So we should not oppose SSM in the off-chance that plural marriage is reinstated?

First of all, if we follow the brethren, we will be blessed. I don't think this issue is any exception. Secondly, if the Lord reinstates plural marriage, we will either not need the government's approval, or the Lord will provide a way for us.

And what if the government didn't allow Mormons to preach or marry? Again, we should accept evil in the off-chance that our rights might be taken away? If our rights to preach or marry were ever taken away, this country, as we know it, would cease to exist. We would be living under tyranny anyway and most people would likely have very few rights either. In any event, the Lord would make a way for us to do and have those things we need for our salvation, either in this or the next life.

We should fear God, not man.

"Do what is right, let the consequence follow....God will protect you; then do what is right."

tatabug said...

Sorry. That last comment was directed to MRI. I don't know why I thought Anonymous made the comment.

beetlebabee said...

They can boycott us, but that doesn't mean they're winning anything. This is a story I picked up just today:

Leatherby’s Boycott Melts–The Inside Scoop

The inside scoop from the front lines on the Leatherby’s boycott is that Leatherby’s loyal supporters pommeled the opposition. Standing in front of the store holding signs and giving away free ice cream, the dozen or so protesters were perplexed by the stream of constant customers.


Anonymous said...

...what do we do if God decides to reinstate polygamy? Ask them to make an exception in the law we created?

No need. The definition of marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman doesn't conflict in the least with polygamous marriage as the Church used to practice it. For example, each and every one of President Brigham Young's dozens of marriages was a joining of one man--Brigham Young--with one woman.

If you don't believe me, and insist that it's really one big marriage between one man and several women, then ask yourself this: When one of his wives was divorced from him--which happened several times--were they all divorced? Of course not. It wasn't one big collective marriage. Each wife had one marriage with one husband. One man, one woman, one marriage. No problem.

simple woman said...

If you don't believe me, and insist that it's really one big marriage between one man and several women, then ask yourself this: When one of his wives was divorced from him--which happened several times--were they all divorced? Of course not. It wasn't one big collective marriage. Each wife had one marriage with one husband. One man, one woman, one marriage. No problem.

That made me laugh. True story.