I regret the implications of this for religious folks who are not haters. There was a good piece on last night where Lisa Bloom was making the point about why heterosexual couples are so intent on interfering with someone else’s marriage. She was strong on the point that what she called Con Law 101 teaches us that one does not discriminate. How apparent that this is not over.

Can eight-to-ten thousand people in San Diego be wrong?

Religious folk will believe what they will believe based on their interpretations of thousand year old texts (that they usually don’t understand).

Whatever they believe shouldn’t serve as the basis for US policy

I hope the LDS suffers big time for this. I hope they lose the tax status. I would like that to happen. I’m just not holding my breath.

Young people voted overwhelmingly against Proposition Hate, and it’s probably unconstitutional.

I like that. “Proposition Hate”, that’s good. And it probably is unconstitutional too.

The Mormons have a long history of gay bashing.

Reap what you sow.

This is a Human Rights issue and I know the Courts will rule against Prop 8.

Ian, I hope that Canadian Legal Eagles are looking at this, I expect the NeoCons up here will make Gay marriage an issue to get a majority for Harpuh …

For someone who (in the previous thread) claims longtime involvement in gay issues, you’re a little late to the party if you’re reading the sobriquet Proposition Hate for the first time….

to Teddy, at #2–”Damned Straight!”

I don’t know that the LDS will lose their tax status. However, economic boycotts of Mormon owned businesses is a great start and can be very effective. Boycotts of tourism in states that would not honor the MLK holiday brought attention/pressure to pass that legislation.

As an example, I will not be staying at any Marriott property …. ever again.

This is just another cult that must be exposed for its weird, fanatical nature before it’s innocent victims are forced to drink the Kool Aid mixture concocted by its hate-filled leadership.

i’m going to be the contrarian here and go way out on a limb, but the “no on 8″ campaign has to take some of the responsibility, because they ran the lamest campaign this side of of mccain. in fact, their strategy made mccain look like douglas macarthur.

their commercials were the lamest and quite ineffective. i couldn’t believe they didn’t get any celebrities to speak out on their behalf. oh, sure, i saw the ellen degeneres spot on line, but only online, and the majority of voters got their info from the tv.

yes, i saw the samuel l. jackson-narrated spot, which was effective, but rather late in the game, and even then, jackson wasn’t on camera, nor was he even identified. for the majority of tv watchers, his was just an anonymous voice narrating a spot.

i actually posted a press conference held by the principal and parent of one of the little girls being used in the “pro-prop 8 ad” about the kids who were “forced” to go to a gay wedding for school. it turns out of course that the kids were not forced, and it was voluntary, and in fact two school children indeed “opted out” of going to the wedding.

why were these people and these facts not used in tv spots?

the pro-prop 8 spots, altho morally represensible, unfactual and misleading, were effective and emotionally engaging. the anti-prop 8 ads were boring and uninteresting.

even worse, (and i admit this is anecdotal), the nite before the election, i was walking thru my neighborhood in westwood (near ucla). there were about 3 dozen mormons on the corner of westwood & santa monica holding a rally w/signs urging people to vote yes on 8.

a few blocks away in front of the mormon church, there was a measly half a dozen anti-prop 8 ralliers holding their own rally. it was pitiful.

i know it was anecdotal, but there was no energy for the anti-prop 8 forces.

there was a huge rally against prop 8 a few nites after the election in front of the mormon church. there was a huge outcry and a huge outpouring of emotion.

what i want to know was, where was this energy before the election?

We are lucky enough to have an explanation from Politicgal on Oxdown.

One Mormon’s story about not agreeing the Mormons being against Prop 22

it’s a long audio file

During the campaign for California’s Proposition 22, a Church spokesman stated members were not required to support the effort and no one would be disciplined over the issue. After my family publicly opposed the proposition, however, I was threatened with excommunication and was made to feel an outcast. Still, many members expressed support or respect. How have these events influenced the way I live, rear my children, and understand the Church and religion?

One concern troll went to a social worker about his impending adoption. The social worker replied that it’s not against the law for an adoptive parent to be gay or to have gay friends in CA. The social worker went on to say she hoped all of this man’s hetro and gay friends would consider adopting.

Crikey!

Digg it

Reap the whirlwind, Mormons, reap the whirlwind.

Sorry for the OT but just heard that Arizona had 9,000 new unemployment benefits last month, double from September….. usual wait for benefits to start is 2 weeks now they say it will be 4 or more weeks before the benefits start as there are not enough employees to process the claims.

I love Hillcrest.

Had a Mormon approach my house this morning while I was washing my car. I held up by 12″ x 14″ Obama sign when he was in my driveway. He turned around and left. I cannot believe that Obama won here in California, and that Prop 8 passed. (And that Issa was re-elected)

The Mormans are not victims. They have made their organization into a powerful political force, and used it to victimize others. They should be treated accordingly.

Damn! Usually I make sure to wear boots before wading into bullshit that deep.

As people responded with varying degrees of politeness, she seems to lack any understanding of the injury she is happy to have inflicted on many of the people who come here. Her emphasis on her need to control the education of her children is also puzzling.

Crikey- “I simply disapprove. My good, sweet neighbors know of my beliefs – and I know of their lifestyle choice – but we can still be friends. They are very fine people. I, too, am a fine person. We all get along nicely. I don’t wish to remove anyone’s rights – simply to define and defend an institution I believe to be religious and sacred in nature.” from the oxdown link.

Like it is not okay to be able to visit a dying partner in hospital, or have other sacred stuff honored? What a “nice” take on things. Like, hey why does that diarist feel that feel that her particular view of marriage needs to be defended? Uh, like… I can think of an answer…

Well, as an active Mormon and a liberal (as well as a longtime FDLer), all I can say is that not all Mormons were for this. Most I am friends with (admittedly a self-selected group) were aghast that our church would get involved in this at all. A fair number of them — active, straight Mormons — joined the protests outside of their own temple.

From the inside, this whole thing seemed culturally, historically, and doctrinally wrong. Plus it puts us on the wrong side of history again. You only get so may bites at that apple before you become irrelevant to your own members at some point. I get the sense that the church may have started that process. Good.

Marriage belongs to society not religion.

Is there a list of companies owned by Mormons ?

It simply reflects the incoherence of her positions. She is convinced that if we allow gay marriage, then she personally has to publicly endorse it, that her church has perform gay marriages, and that she has to teach her children that homosexuality is a normal part of human behavior (as it actually is). This grotesque overreaction is at the heart of the opposition to gay marriage.

Perhaps you should start a new sect. Church of Future Day Saints?

I know a number of Mormons here in Montana (one of my Ph.D. students is one) and they are much like you. I realize that not all Mormons support these efforts, but the church leadership has inserted itself into the political process and must now face the consequences. My sympathies to you and other innocent bystanders caught in the middle.

I DO believe that homosexuality is not something God approves of and that it is unnatural

I missed that post and comments are now closed. Too bad, I was really kind of hoping that since she knew God’s mind, politicgal could ask him/her/it for tonight’s lottery numbers and email them to me.

http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon410.htm">here is a list of some

go to http://www.exmormon.org and learn a lot more

Yeah, I actually attempted to engage and ask questions but politicalgal spent so much time whining about being the victim and how the meanie libruls were calling her names and mocking her religion, I guess she just plumb forgot to answer my questions.

DING! As a cultural anthropologist, I can confidently state that in most cultures in the world (including Christian Europe until after 600 AD), marriage is simply not a religious sacrament. A number of cultures do perform ceremonies to bless the couple and their union, but the marriage itself is not sacred. Likewise dozens of cultures around the world (including many indigenous to this continent) do or have allowed persons of the same sex (though different gender) to marry.

I think one kind of ad that would do BETTER than this one would have been to show an OLD gay couple. Not a couple young hot ladies, but just a couple old regular gals. It’s my gut instinct that it would look like the two LDS guys were really ripping up old roots. Next time, for the bringing this down and killing this hate legislation, the emphasis needs to be on less beautiful, looks like your own neighbors, type of people. Does this make sense?

Yes, let us hope such a list is generated. I didn’t know Marriott was a Mormon company. I will never set foot in one again. Other companies? Also, folks in California need to generate lists for small Mormon companies in that state. Grocery stores, dry cleaners, etc.

One of the posts….

July 2008 A Mormon man was excommunicated for his calendar of shirtless male Mormon missionaries. The Marriott corporation and its Mormon owners are one of the largest purveyors of hard core pornography in the US. The Marriotts have never been reprimanded. Instead, they are held in high esteem by the Mormon hierarchy due to the large amount of tithing they pay.

God doesn’t mind about gay marriage but he is really against gambling. /s

Thanks katymine, I’ll forward these lists to my friends in Canada as well … let’s get a worldwide boycott going if necessary !

How does he feel about marriage as a gamble ?

((( Margot )))

I suspect the sume way as she feels about gambling on heterosexual marriage.

Why is it that the Morman Church is allowed to push politics? Am I missing something here?

Hasn’t it been the law all along that churches will lose the non-profit status if they speak up about politics?

How do they get away with this to begin with???

yes, the no campaign sucked. Still, without the mormons, they would have won.

… they make marriage a religious issue, something that’s worked very well for too long …

((Petro)) lol!

The rise of the Catholic Church and it’s influence on the Roman Empire at that time outlawed same sex marriages. Previous to that same sex marriages were allowed if recall.

They absolutely were winning, by a large margin, before the church intervened. My guess is that is why they did so.

… tee hee hee …

Raises my 3rd glass of Chianti to toast ya !

I do believe you are correct. I would have to check my sources to be sure.

They’ve had a hand in it for a long time, from 1998.

Mormons join Alaska campaign to ban gay marriage

ANCHORAGE, Alaska — The Salt Lake City-based Mormon church has donated $500,000 to the campaign for an amendment to the Alaska constitution that would ban same-sex marriages, a group seeking passage of the measure said Thursday.

Do you want a list of big money donors to Prop 8? Here you go, courtesy of Mormons For Proposition 8:

http://spreadsheets.google.com…..wYX5qWeoIw

I never understood why gays insist on arguing for marriage rights only as a civil rights issue and not as a religious rights issue. Nobody would stand for registering their religious affiliation with the government, or getting a permit from the town clerk to take communion. So, if marriage is a religious sacrement, why should anyone get a license from the government to partake in it? Argue instead for the “deregulation of marriage.” Get the government out of the individual’s religious choices. Marriage and divorce should be handled by the church. (Use the conservatives language.) When the church sees the chance to grab that power to control their followers lives they will get a whole new attitude. Hell, get a couple hundred gays in a compound in East Bumfuck, Idaho with more guns than the Bolivian army, get some whack job preacher to scream about how Jesus sent him to oppose the commies and the taxes and the opponents of marriage deregulation and the black helicopters and the tracking devices in the new dollar bills and soon the right wing nuts will be pissing all over themselves trying to figure out which way to turn. And, BTW, the population of Utah is only about 2.6 million. There must be enough gays with nothing better to do than to just move there and vote for gay marriage in Utah. That’ll teach them.

I’ve done some research about the early Catholic Church and came across that. It wasn’t related to what I was researching, and it just stuck with me.

I had seen that referenced, but could not remember if it was from a credible source.

Have to disagree about marriage and divorce. They are primarily about the apportioning of rights and duties and as such an inherently secular, state matter, not a religious one. This is true in all societies in the world. FWIW, marriage in Islam is simply a civil contract with no religious overtones at all.

It’s pretty basic:

Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

What part of this do the Morons and Fundies not undertand?

I found it in a text in library at a Catholic University. I was researching a particular saint. I don’t recall the source. As a gay man reading that for the first time it struck a chord. At the time, the notion of gays/lesbians ever been allowed to be married was so remote.

Yes… why IS the government pushing one particular religious stance, or “regulating” a religious sacrament? Of course, we’d have to return to permitting polygamy for the Mormons. Maybe they are still bitter about THAT old thing, and this is why the LDS are picking on gays.

In nearly all Christian sects, it’s heresy to proclaim to know what God wants.

…new post—->

I was being silly over there as well … *g*

Did you see Michael Palin’s Join the Silly Party?
http://www.michaelpalinforpresident.com/

“If you’re going to be bigots, stand proud in your bigotry. Take responsibility for your actions.”

Ian, thank you for saying that. It also needs to be said to many other people, on a range of issues.

My $$$ is on Levi running fer office !

Since The Supremes have ruled that private sexual activity is none of the states business, and it still amazes me that the ruling was even neccesary, then why shouldn’t polygamy, or gay marriage, or threesome marriage, or whatever feels right to the consenting adult participants, be legal? Whenever some jerk tells me that it somehow threatens traditional marriage I ask them, “Oh, do you mean that if you had the option of marrying another guy that it would change the way you feel about your wife?”

Spot on. I volunteered for No on 8 in LA and my time was completely wasted. I worked the polls (tee hee) with another guy in a district that was wealthy, liberal, and had had voted nearly 80 percent absentee. Our time was wasted there. The phone scripts sucked, there was little to no outreach to black, Asian or Hispanic areas, to my knowledge. And the Yes on 8 TV ad lies were allowed to run unanswered for weeks and weeks. Polling on 8 in July was about 60 percent against – the biggest blown lead since Michael Dukakis. This is a textbook case of campaign incompetence.

AND, while I was rallying against 8 last weekend, the bars were full of gays drinking appletini’s. Not hatin’ just sayin.

When these “Christians” start endorsing stoning, killing disobedient children, and avoiding pork, I’ll at least entertain the thought of taking them seriously. I’m not aware that Jesus said ANYTHING about homosexuality. Picking and choosing the items that you think are icky and jumping up and down about God’s Laws, while ignoring anything inconvenient, is not “Obeying God”, but bigotry, pure and simple. All they are missing is the hoods.

Remove the tax exempt status of this cult.

This is so typical. In Canada, religious groups argued in court that gays and lesbians should not be allowed to marry because it would lead to greater social acceptance and then they (the religious groups) would be perceived to be bigots. Seriously! You gays can’t marry because we will get called names. We said, “Hey, if the shoe fits…”.

They have a history of discrimination, period.
Minorities – they only stopped that officially in the late 1970s. I wouldn’t want to be that it’s completely gone.
Women – still aren’t allowed to have any authority above Sunday school teacher for the younger kids and the girls.
(Note that these apply also to the RC Church and the Southern Baptists.)

I understand that there are still mainline LDS who are polygamists, although it isn’t talked about in public. One of the reasons they’re against same-sex marriage is that they think it might lead to [oh, the horror! /s] legalized polygamy.

Well there should be some constraints…as it is a contract with legal obligations to one another and to the state….which intercedes to assure the contract is maintained by all parties. Obviously the age of the parties (underage individuals) should be an aspect to the contract. Interesting that California allowed contracted marriages of children as young as 8 years old to adults until about 1880! Polygyny has generally posed too complex for states to manage, with multiple obligations between spouses and children.

Nothing in the State allowing marriage between two adults would injure in any way a particular church having it’s own sanctification ceremony, or expecting members to follow certain rules to have a “church wedding”. Some religions forbid re-marriage, others insist that both parties belong to the faith, others insist that marriages fall within certain clans and prohibit those that are in other clans, some have prohibited intermarriages between castes or “races”. In no way should the state itself incorporate these “rules” into it’s own laws, but neither should it prevent groups from restricting their own ceremonies. If members disagree with the rules of that church they can leave that particular faith…or attempt to change it.

My former co-worker Herb adopted one of a pair of foster kids he’d had for some time (the other was too old to adopt by the time it went through).
In the process he had to deal with a Xtianist social worker who put both of those kids in a Xtianist home in a different county (probably illegal), the background check for adoption having to be done three times because it kept getting lost (twice is more common, and it shouldn’t happen at all), and generally slow processing. It took him two years to go through the adoption process, where it should have taken no more than 6 to 8 months.

If the LDS thinks same-sex marriage is such a threat to society, they need to come up with a reason that also explains why so many couples still want to get married at all, whether same sex or different sex.
Otherwise my feeling about the Council of 12 and all the other guys at the top of their church is ‘may your children and grandchildren all be GLBT’. (It’s more polite than FOAD.)

Marriage is only a sacrament in churches that say it is.
The government regulates marriage as a civil contract, not as a (possible) sacrament.

I saw a bumper sticker,” God said, I believe it. That settles it.”
Sort of lets you know what yer up against when you try to have an intelligent discussion with a religious radical.
WayneC

Marriott’s are owned by Mormons?

As a believer, I always thought what bothered me about that bumper sticker sentiment (and it’s been around for decades) was the idea that one person’s interpretation of Scripture is “what God said”, while everybody else’s interpretation of Scripture is just an opinion.

But it dawns on me, that there’s a more fundamental problem with it. The genuine fundamentalist formulation would be, “God said it, that settles it.” What the bumper sticker is really saying is, “What settles it is, that I believe it. My beliefs rule. When you come right down to it, even God is irrelevant.”

you don’t get to play the discrimination card anymore.

There’s been a trend of late among Christian churches generally to play the “discrimination” and “hate crime” cards whenever someone criticizes them in the least bit publically or vocally. Google “PZ Myers cracker” for an idea what I’m talking about. Playing the victim gets their worshippers to rally round, rather than ask themselves whether their church might be going too far. It’s a great tactic, if you own lots of TV and radio stations.

Yeah, Marriott is owned by mormons, and I believe that the Church owns a substantial block of stock in Marriott.

The intrusion of churches into the civil aspect of marriage is a curious American institution. Does anyone know how we happened to do that particular stupid thing? In most of Europe, if you want to marry to have to visit the registrar’s office and handle the civil contract. At that point, it’s a done deal as far as the government is concerned.

If you need to go have symbolic intercourse in front of goD [sic] and everybody, well, that’s your deal and you have to make arrangements with the parish bosses.

The really curious thing about CoJCLDSers is that their marriage sacrament is so holy and especial that it has to happen in a Temple, and blaspheming unbelievers like me can’t go. Why do they want to soil such an especial chingadero with a tacky license from the same government that denied them their right to marry 27 wives if goD told ‘em to?

The Mormon Church should lose its tax exempt status. It has become a political action group, not a church. I’m sure the IRS would love to get its cut of the millions of dollars that flow through that organization on a weekly basis.

In fact, if all churches lost their tax exempt status, mega-churches and television ministries would disappear overnight.

These boycotts will indeed have an effect. Groups like the Mormons live in the fantasy that they can pour huge resources into vicious, inhuman political campaigns and then return to quiet piety. Sorry, guys – not this time. And the Mormons care very intensely about money; if they see their bottom line is being threatened via boycotts of Marriott, Utah, the Sundance Film Festival (relocate it please!), and ongoing protests in front of their big ugly temples, they’ll have to do something radical, as they did when they were forced — I mean, agreed after divine visitation — to allow black elders.

Just playing devil’s advocate here. What if the Mormons (except for the Mormons like Steve Young) are really being helped by those protesting against them.

This could be the bizzaro world version of the gay themed Angels in America play that was protested by the religious right, who demanded funding be cut to arts organizations that supported it. Ironically, the opposition was was made the play so newsworthy and successful.

I think the Mormons would happily take a financial hit if they could be seen by more Christian’s as fellow Christian soldiers. Unlike most religions, Mormons do almost all the work for the Church for free, so they may see this as another self righteous sacrifice.

DrDick, I think I disagree with you here.

In New York State, Satmar Jews marry within their church but remain single in the eyes of the law. They cohabit but the women and children collect state and local services as if they were single.

The group along with the Lubbovitch sect are a huge constituency for Chuck Schumer and they are encroaching on other areas in upstate New York.

Like everything else, individual contact serves to get past initial impressions, but as a whole the group votes as a bloc and is very determined to get their own way in the long term which is a lot longer than most people realize, I’m talking decades.