Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Rights and Liberties

The Mormon Church Is Leading the Fight Against Gay Marriage in California

By Ray Ring, High Country News. Posted October 22, 2008.


California's Prop. 8 has exploded into an expensive, extensive battle between religious conservatives and gay rights advocates.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

REXBURG, IDAHO -- America's Family Community." That's the motto of this Mormon college town, displayed on street-side monuments and in tall letters on the movie-theater marquee. Apparently, it's a formula for success. Rexburg thrives on a burst of construction and population growth. More than 30,000 residents occupy a grid of wide, orderly streets, amid vast potato fields that unfurl toward the majestic Teton Peaks. Plenty of Rexburg parents, following the Mormon prescription for big families, have six or seven children. One guy tells me his next-door neighbors have 13 children, and a family on the other side has 16. The newly expanded hospital maternity unit is already crowded with new babies. If Rexburg is any indication, Mormons are taking over the world.

They certainly run this town. An estimated 97 percent of the locals belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- making Rexburg possibly the most Mormon of all towns. The brilliant white-stone 57,000-square-foot Mormon temple, opened eight months ago, looms on a hilltop, glowing day and night; intense floodlights make Mormon temples the brightest objects in the Western nights. The college that sprawls beside the temple -- Brigham Young University-Idaho -- now boasts an annual enrollment of 21,000 students, more than double what it had eight years ago.

Mormon mores -- some written into local laws -- permeate the community. Rexburg has no real saloon and no supply of hard liquor; only four restaurants are licensed to serve beer or wine. There is only one coffee shop, and it keeps up with the meager caffeine demand by brewing each cup individually. When I cruise town on a pleasant Saturday night in mid-September, the hottest action comes down in a bowling alley: Balls crash down all 16 lanes while the spinning pins and the bowlers' teeth glow even whiter under the ultraviolet lighting.

But something louder and bigger draws me to Rexburg: the religious culture wars, which heat up every election season. Prophets who run the Mormon Church -- the church president, his top counselors and a dozen top apostles, based in the headquarters in Salt Lake City, Utah -- encourage all Mormons to be active in politics. The prophets are said to be relaying the word of God, and while they generally don't endorse candidates, they take stands on issues such as abortion and homosexuality. As a result, most Mormons vote very Republican. In the last presidential election, nearly 92 percent of the votes in Madison County (Rexburg is the county seat) went to George W. Bush -- securing Rexburg yet another title: the nation's most Republican town.

On the most critical issues, the Mormon prophets go all out, urging their followers to conduct targeted campaigns. That helps explain why, Thursday evenings in the downtown building of a health-products company owned by one of Idaho's richest Mormons, groups of Rexburg college students and townies get together. They're using the company's call center to make call after call to California voters, trying to persuade them to pass a ballot measure in the November election. It's titled Proposition 8 -- the California Marriage Protection Amendment -- and it aims to prevent gay and lesbian people from getting married in that state.

An eight-year battle led to Proposition 8. In 2000, with Mormon encouragement and campaign money, California voters passed a measure banning gay marriage. It blew up again last May, when the California Supreme Court justices narrowly ruled (four to three) that the ban violated the civil rights of gays and lesbians. The court likened it to the bans many states once had against interracial marriage, all of which were tossed out long ago. Now, Proposition 8 aims to overrule the California Supreme Court, by amending the state Constitution.

Many religious groups have jumped into the campaign; the Mormon Church takes the lead. In June, the church's top prophets commanded Mormons "to do all you can" to work for Proposition 8 and donate money to the campaign. Mormon leaders throughout California read the instructions to their congregations, which have more than 750,000 members. Word spread everywhere in the Mormon realm. In August, the prophets added pages of elaboration: "The Church has a single, undeviating standard of sexual morality: intimate relations are proper only between a husband and a wife united in bonds of matrimony. ... Any dilution of the traditional definition of marriage will further erode the already weakened stability of marriages and family generally ... with harmful consequences for society." Mormon volunteers, additionally inspired by special TV broadcasts beamed from the headquarters into their churches, go door-to-door in California for Proposition 8. In other states, they run phone banks and do whatever they can. Their effort is strongest in the West, because there are more Mormons in this region than anywhere else. Chad Reiser, a leader of the BYU-Idaho College Republican Club, says the phone banks are not an official club activity, but "we do try to get as many people involved as possible. Proposition 8 is a moral issue" related to church doctrine -- "something we believe is important to all people."

Kim B. Clark, the president of BYU-Idaho and a pillar of Rexburg's Mormon establishment, receives me in his office on a sunny Tuesday morning. His windows look out on construction cranes erecting a huge events center that will have a 15,000-seat auditorium and 10 basketball courts. He talks of more university projects. He appears confident, and wears a pinstripe charcoal suit and red-pattern necktie, with a well-thumbed 2,000-page book of scriptures within reach. He grew up a Western Mormon in Utah and Washington, earned a Ph.D. at Harvard University and ran the Harvard Business School. He left Harvard three years ago, because the top prophet invited him to shape this college. It was "like getting a call from Moses," Clark says.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: politics, religion, gay marriage, proposition 8, church of lds

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
RE: I thought CA was all for direct democracy.
Posted by: leTerrassier on Oct 22, 2008 6:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because, as we all know, Bob Barr has always been a strong supporter of democratic action.
What? Oh never mind...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: I thought CA was all for direct democracy.
Posted by: Duncable on Oct 28, 2008 1:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do you even know what the word draconian means? If you did, how the hell could ever use it to describe even the slightest of progressive demographics? (ie. the "crowd on the left") Its harsh and severe to treat all people equally?!?

You're a freaking moron...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Intents and Extents
Posted by: talkville on Oct 22, 2008 2:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Mormon mores -- some written into local laws --..."

Then again, there's the Amish in Pennsylvania and their to laws; then again, theres the 'gated communities' and theirs; and there's neighborhoods, there's towns, there's districts, there's any number of unities spread all across the country with human individuals living within -- and others outside of-- them.

And each one of them is in some relationship to "laws" and in another relationship to equalities, and in another relationship to due process, and ....

Then there's codifications such as found in the Bible or the Koran or in some kind of Statement of Principles of Scientologists...etc. etc. etc. Then again there's definitions in various dictionaries.

Then again there are scientific laws; moral laws; local, county, and state laws; there are rights before the law; there are privileges before the law. There is equal protection and un-equal protection.

One wonders: what precisely do the words "household", "family", "due process", "equal protection", and the very word "law" encompass when translated into local, county, state and federalized Law?

What Theocracy shall be imposed in Law? Mormon? Catholic? Buddhist? Jewish? Scientologist? And will all the Non's be Outlaws? For whom will be rights? And for whom will be privileges?

I sure don't know. Maybe we ought to ask the Mormoms some of these questions and more? They seem to have enough money and resources to decide for us all... .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Intents and Extents Posted by: joniab
It is time...
Posted by: EJW on Oct 22, 2008 3:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... to tax churches. When preachers preach politics from the pulpet, be it Morman, Catholic, Jewish, whatever....as they are doing now they are not longer non-taxable. They have crossed the line of separation of Church and State.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It is time... when I disagree? Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: It is time... when I disagree? Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: It is time... Posted by: bryangalt
» AMEN! Posted by: Taylor Siluwe
» RE: It is time... Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: It is time... Posted by: Taylor Siluwe
» RE: It is time... Posted by: joniab
Enduring Values
Posted by: AlexLawyer on Oct 22, 2008 3:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The asymmetry is striking. How would these people react if there were a proposition in California to ban Mormonry? If they don't think people of the same gender should be married, or that people shouldn't drink coffee, they are free to follow their strictures. But they don't have the right to bind those beliefs on other, more rational people.

A few years back God decided that African-Americans really are human after all, and a long time back he decided polygamy really wasn't such a great idea. Maybe he'll change his mind again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: nduring Values Posted by: Lauren
» Nader on the "war on drugs" Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» RE: nduring Values Posted by: Taylor Siluwe
The Moor men Machinaries strike phantasams again!
Posted by: Nightstallion on Oct 22, 2008 4:25 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Listen little Mormon, some of us know your history. Some of us know your true father. His name was Albert Pike; get to know him and his history. Google him up or call the cat a bastard and me a liar. Joseph Smith Jr. and the Latter Day Saint movement had no formal relationship with Freemasonry. In the early 1840s a Masonic Lodge was formed by members who were Freemasons. Joseph Smith, Jr. and his brother Hyrum became members of the newly formed Nauvoo lodge. Nothing unusual about that but, here is where things get dicey for the Church.

Albert Pike was also an unofficial member sort of a mentor for the young Church. Through him the Church began to take on some of the trappings of Free Masonry. On May 4, 1842, just a couple of months after his initiation to Freemasonry, Smith instructed other LDS Church leaders "in the principles of and order of the Priesthood, attending to washings, anointings, endowments, and the communication of keys pertaining to the Aaronic Priesthood, and so onto to the highest order of the Melchizedek Priesthood...." (History of the Church, vol. 5, pg. 1, May 4, 1842).

Still this membership is all well and good, on the surface of the thing. Go any deeper though and you will find some pretty unsavory monsters lurking about the landscape. Pike himself was xenophobic (he didn’t like aliens) oh he covered it well, but the man was a rogue. Amerinds in some teachings were called the lost tribes of Israel, in still other darker texts part of the white man’s burden. These are failings pure and simple of Masonry still and yet today.

My father was a mason. He qualified as a 32nd degree Mason even though his contribution to the Order was unparalleled in the history of Masonry. It was in the form of heavy water gathering. He declared his 33rd degree and was never awarded with recognition. So, yes, I have a grudge!

My claims against Albert Pike as the founding father of Masonry and hidden contributor to the Mormon Church bis none the less true. This Church is built on sand. It looks stable enough to eyes that see only current works. Soon however, even now perhaps, its true nature will out. These folk are warmongers of the first mettle. It is totally alright to kill in the name of Christ by their teachings. I will not trust them to empty chamber pots without hatch plotting against their own people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mikehattan
Posted by: mikehattan on Oct 22, 2008 5:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So they are just passing on the word of God eh?
How come I can't hear him? Beware of people claiming that God is speaking to them...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Michigan's elite has donated large sums to defeat CA Supreme court ruling
Posted by: Beck on Oct 22, 2008 5:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Elsa Prince, according to the Detroit Free Press, a wealthy Republican who is the mother of Betsy Devos, former Michigan Republican Party Chairman, donated $450,000 to try and overturn the Supreme Court ruling of a state more than 2,000 miles from where she lives. No big government from Republicans, eh? I guess it can't be big enough when they're trying to run other people's lives. I'd love to know how Elsa Prince's own marriage is diminished every time a gay couple marries in California. Here are other donors, from the website of Californians Against Hate:

Knights of Columbus, New Haven, CT $1,275,000

National Organization for Marriage [as long as it's just like mine!],
Princeton, NJ
$941,134.80

John Templeton, Bryn Mawr, PA
John Templeton Foundation, Chairman/President
$900,000


American Family Association, Tupelo, MS
$500,000

Elsa Prince, Holland, MI
$450,000

Focus On the Family, Colorado Springs, CO
$439,643.66

Concerned Women for America, Washington DC
$409,000

For those of us who'd like to help balance out these obscene amounts, here's what I found. Cut and paste this to make an online donation:

https://secure.ga4.org/01/equalityforall

Or we can send a check to:

No On 8
c/o ML Associates, 8581 Santa Monica Blvd., #504
West Hollywood, CA 90069

The website of Californians Against Hate also has some boycott information.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

X pat observer
Posted by: davy on Oct 22, 2008 5:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Does religion in America even remotely resembles sanity. Could it be any further from love ??? This applies to "the christians" who use religion for control. Not to you real Christians who try and live love. Do we really think stopping gay marriage is going to save the world. How on earth have you become so deluded ??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Seperation of Church and State For Goodness Sake
Posted by: bryangalt on Oct 22, 2008 5:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What this article has demonstrated is how society does not benefit from the integration of Church and State laws and business. I cannot understand how the religious groups out there find it so difficult to see the hypocracy in their words and actions.

I agree with a viewpoint mentioned a few writers ago who ask how would the Mormon's feel if Prop 8 was banning them in California? That's a good question and one that may come to a vote someday after some other religious nut gets their anti-religious views on the ballot.

If Prop 8 passes thanks to the outright lies being stated by the church groups (Fresno Bee Editorial: The claims being made for Prop 8 are outright lies: 10-19-08), then I think it should be time for the churches to see what it feels like to be persecuted in this manner.

Those churches that participated by actively raising money to pass the proposition have violated the seperation clause of the Constitution and violated federal IRS codes. They should not be given a free pass on this.

I wonder what Jesus would say about their narrow interpretations of the Bible? Would he be someone that would be trying to prevent his people from living a life of dignity, a life of love and a life with another that they love?

If a gay couple get married and never divorce, are they still more of a sinner than a straight couple that cheat on each other and get divorced (maybe divorced multiple times?). I'm willing to bet that anyone can find many admonitions against adultery in the Bible, and even some adulterers who ended up getting killed over it.

Other than the dubious tale of S/G where the population is alleged to have been killed for attempting to rape two angels (interestingly, it is never said that the rapists were gay, just that they were out-of-control, which any mob can become out of control regardless of sexual orientation), where else is an individual stoned to death for being gay?

Frankly, if people want to believe that they are going to be raptured (odds: 1:100,000,000), or that they are better than their fellow man, then they are just stupid and they should keep that stupidity inside the walls of their church.

I promise that you will not have to hear me preach to you as long as you promise not to preach to me. Isn't that what freedom from/of religion (the 1st amendment) was really about?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It seems that money is very important in these relgious
Posted by: peridot on Oct 22, 2008 6:07 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
crusades....why not list some Mormon business enterprises that can be boycotted?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Ironic Posted by: Karina
Who cares
Posted by: RedFoxOne on Oct 22, 2008 6:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
LOL, we are talking about a cult here that wrote their own "addition" to the Bible, who cares what those lunatics think!

Jiff
Privacy Center

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Who cares Posted by: helenwheels
» I care... Posted by: BreeMass
» RE: Who cares Posted by: sirios
THERE'S A SIMPLE SOLUTION
Posted by: Liberty G on Oct 22, 2008 7:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is so sad to read and hear the angry, hateful comments on both sides of this issue. Worse, there is a simple solution that would be fair to all, and could end the government involvement in the controversy.

It is the government's proper role to grant LEGAL rights to all citizens equally. Marriage is a complex institution, often, though not always, deeply involved with religious beliefs.

Therefore, the government should stop marrying people, period. Couples, gay or straight, should be able to come to a registry office to declare their legal domestic partnership and thus receive all the rights now attached to the word, "marriage". Then, the couples could proceed with whatever religious or civil ceremonies that met their needs.

"Separation of church and state" is, I think, a misstatement of the founders' intent. The point really is that the government should never IMPOSE ANY RELIGION on anyone. The "gay marriage" issue is a perfect example of where the government should get out of the way and grant the freedom to all to practice their religion or lack of one as they feel moved.

Unfortunately, many on both sides are determined to have the government force their partisan views onto all citizens as a matter of law. However, providing equality of legal and economic rights is the only legitimate government interest - not defining the meaning and nature of marriage for all of us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: THERE'S A SIMPLE SOLUTION Posted by: tyndale25
Where are the so-called "libertarians" when you need them on matters such as these?
Posted by: maxpayne on Oct 22, 2008 7:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh, right, I forgot. They're busy kissing Wall $treet's ASS. Notice that Bob Barr is rather silent on civil liberties. As a matter of fact, the entire Libertarian Party says little about it or even the failed war in Iraq. If the Libertarians really want to win, they should spend more time teaming up against the social "conservatives" for a change.

And by the way, Mormons are for same sex marriage given their polygamist ways. If one man is married to more than one woman, then that alone opens the door to same sex marriage. What the fuck is the Utah Democratic Party doing these days anyway? Or for that matter the so-called "Libertarians" in CA and UT for that matter?

And don't forget that what affects same sex couples will also affect singles (men and women). You've been warned.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mormon History....
Posted by: CatDad on Oct 22, 2008 8:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mormons didn't end up in the Salt Lake Valley because they happened to think it was scenic....they were beaten and even slaughtered for being "different" and had to flee thousands of miles for safety. Joseph Smith, the founder of the church, was a living re-definition of the institution of marriage.

Fast forward some 150 years and the oppressed have become the oppressors, attacking those they deem "different" while censoring their own history away in the process...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Mormon History.... Posted by: morticia
» RE: Mormon History.... Posted by: BreeMass
» RE: Mormon History.... Posted by: Quannah
Dear morons and other religious fanatics,
Posted by: sirios on Oct 22, 2008 8:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is your religion and your attachment to it so delicate that what gay people do a thousand miles away will destroy you and your beliefs ? If your religion is based on an omnipotent, omnipresent,and omniscient being then how is it possible that a tiny mortal being can threaten your infinite wisdom? If you feel threatened by anything, then what you perceive yourself to be is an illusion. Life at it's core is unmovable. shift your attention off of the ego and it's parts and into the whole in which it appears,and then no amount of remote behavior which your tiny personality may find offensive will be a threat.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When do the Mormon Moral Cops hit the street
Posted by: corgyn on Oct 22, 2008 9:23 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I read this thing and all I can see is the similarities to IRANIAN type society. They TELL you what to wear, read, view, eat, drink, suppress sex, "sure ain't no homos around here" attitude, just like IRAN.

The ONLY way to stop the various religions is to TAX them, end the free ride!

And turn off the LIGHTS your temples are ruining the night sky

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Does this article wake anyone up?
Posted by: Bliss Doubt on Oct 22, 2008 9:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
McSame and O'Same want to give taxpayer money to churches with the same "faith based" scam.

www.votenader.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

why do you think its called the moron church??...
Posted by: Annapurna1 on Oct 22, 2008 10:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
duh...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ironic
Posted by: amerimet on Oct 22, 2008 10:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They should work with same sex rights advocates, so they could restore their right to wed multiple partners.

Long live freedom.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

campaign contrubitions
Posted by: sanity on Oct 22, 2008 10:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is time we have a new Constitutional Amendment. Only individuals eligible and registered to vote in the election of a government official or ballot initiative may contribute money for or against it's cause. I'm sick of out-of-state and out-of-district interests interfering in my elections and I'm sick of solicitations to support a candidate or cause that is in another jurisdiction.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Modest Suggestion
Posted by: Crazy H on Oct 22, 2008 11:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Religious Wrong is big on talking about 'civil unions' and have repeatedly told us that it's the same thing as marriage.

Okay, I vote that everywhere the word "marriage" exists in state or federal law, it be struck from the record and replaced with "civil union." Furthermore, the state shall no longer issue "marriage licenses" but rather "civil union licenses."

Who's with me?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I am! Posted by: BreeMass
Lucky me...
Posted by: NoKidding on Oct 22, 2008 11:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I live right next door to a Mormon Temple here in So. Cal. I think it's interesting that my No on 8 signs disappear at random times of the day and night. Most of their cars have Yes on 8 bumper stickers

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Lucky me... Posted by: aalif ba ta tha
"Marriage" vs. "Christian"
Posted by: jdonovan on Oct 22, 2008 11:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Under California law, gay couples may have civil unions with all the rights of a "marriage," so all this proposed ban decides is whether gays can call those unions "marriage." And it's mainly Christian organizations that are pushing to limit the definition of marriage to one-man-one-woman.

For the government to weigh in on what people are allowed to call legally indistinguishable institutions is an utter violation of the First Amendment, regardless of who gets offended. Otherwise the government could just as easily decree that Mormons aren't allowed to call themselves "Christians." Obviously limiting the rights of a religious group to refer to their religion as a Christian sect violates freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

Sure it might be inconvenient for the majority of Christians to acknowledge the Book of Mormon as a Christian text. And sure, the subject of Mormonism might come up in a school discussion about Christianity, for any impressionable kid to think about. SO WHAT? That's how America works. We live side by side with people who think and act differently from us, and we can choose to have any opinion we want of those people. We just aren't allowed to infringe on their rights!

So if Mormons enjoy being able to call themselves Christian, they should think twice before trying to stop gay couples from calling themselves married!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: "Marriage" vs. "Christian" Posted by: jdonovan
Mormonism is way more perverted than gay marriage
Posted by: aalif ba ta tha on Oct 22, 2008 12:22 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just like dropping bombs on innocents is way more perverted than gay marriage. Just like lying to America to send our boys to die in a war for oil is more perverted than two dudes getting married.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Civil/Human Rights Should NOT Be Up For A Vote!
Posted by: maddasein on Oct 22, 2008 12:24 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Imagine what it would have been like if civil rights for African Americans had been up for vote back in the 60's! This issue makes me so angry....especially being a gay person myself. I live in Kentucky so I doubt that my partner and I will ever see marriage legalized here, but it gave me hope seeing other states legalize it. We were even planning on traveling to Cali next year to get married. I just can't believe that religious nuts think that by letting committed couples have legal protections then all hetero marriages would somehow fall apart or become null and void. If you don't like gay marriage then don't get married to someone of the same sex, damn it! It really is sick how these people are just so obesessed with sex. It's like when they think about homosexuals all they see is the sex they have and not the fact that we are human beings. I honestly don't think that most so-called christians even understand Jesus and his teachings. I mean, I am an atheist and am more christian than most who called themselves such.

Oh, and more one thing.... I want to quit hearing about tolerance! I don't want people to merely tolerate me. I want people to accept me!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If we were to take away the Tax Exempt Status of this so-called Church...
Posted by: Quannah on Oct 22, 2008 12:38 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and list the reason being their dabbling in politics, they would stop.

In the late 1970s, the Federal Government threatened to take away their tax exempt status because they discriminated against black men by not allowing them to hold the Priesthood in their church. The Feds told them that if they continued to discriminate, they would have to start paying taxes.

Miracle of Miracles! The President of their Church had a "Revelation" from God telling them that all men were now eligible to hold the Priesthood!!!

They need another "Revelation!"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Union Relationships, are Sometimes Taking Place, by Statement, signed by a Notary...
Posted by: One American Lady on Oct 22, 2008 12:59 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These Statements, can Read Anyway, any Individual / Couple or Family, Wish Them to Say,About Any Subject, They Wish to "State as the Truth".
Many States, "Recognize Common Law Marriages, & so does the Dept of Veterans Affairs", for
U.S. Military Veterans, who wish "not to marry,
but have a Live-In Spouse.... & they, oftentimes, have a Notorized Statement, that They Are "living together AS *JOINT SPOUSE RELATIONSHIP*.
When Anyone Makes a Statement & signs it "Before a Notary, it is Supposed to Be A Statement of Truth", legal document, one which can be filed at the court house... a legal union, which then "takes a divorce, to dissolve, / a legal document of dissolution",
one which can be / doesn't have to be signed by a judge.
One American Lady

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ring my bell
Posted by: Jim V. on Oct 22, 2008 1:09 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Can we not send the Mormons to Iraq to fight the holy war seeing that there's 10 and up siblings to family as they are well equip to go from door to door one will hardly be missed if shot.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why oh why!!
Posted by: barefeet on Oct 22, 2008 2:35 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This obsession of ours with stamping out homosexuality and abortion by passing laws against them is simply brain dead.

We should simply walk away yawning instead of endlessly ranting and considering legislation that simply WON'T AND CAN'T be enforced.

The only comparable ambiguity is our depraved obsession with killing foreign innocents at the same time that we think it's "wrong" to execute our own CERTIFIED GUILTY horrifically bad people.

Just goes to show that you can send your kid to college but that is not going to make him or her smart. Dumb people are born dumb and stay that way forever.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Height of Hypocracy
Posted by: Rosasharn on Oct 22, 2008 3:38 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now, it's perfectly okay for those edgy Latter Day 'Saints' to have MULTIPLE WIVES, why it's even quite acceptable to marry your first cousin, especially if she's underage! And absolutely marry your teenage daughter off to the oldest man in your community, cause, shucks , he needs ta be married to her young self as well as her mother AND sisters, too. Why, it's all perfectly natural, dontcha think?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who's a Prophet--Who's Schizo?
Posted by: zooeyhall on Oct 22, 2008 4:30 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why is it that if god talks to Joseph Smith, it makes him a prophet. But if god talks to me it would make me a schizophrenic?

I can tell you one thing after reading an article like this--I am REALLY glad I'm a secular humanist!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Who's a Prophet--Who's Schizo? Posted by: philipcfromnyc
The "OTHER" side of Rexburg
Posted by: rickiey on Oct 22, 2008 7:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, this is merely personal experience speaking, as a man who was a young male who likes women (and men, but that isn't relevent to this point) and who spent time living in Idaho Falls.

Rexburg is the easiest town to get laid in, in America.

Why? Rick's college, where all the nice young mormon girls (that can't get into BYU) finally get their first taste of life somewhere other than under their parent's thumb.

How is that relevent? Beats me, I just felt like sharing, since they mentioned Rexburg. :P

Anyway, back on topic. I'm going to have to admit that of all loonies who believe in Christianity, I'm the most partial to Mormons. (No, not for that reason).

I truly believe, that the Mormon's who are trying to ban gay marriage, are doing it because they think it is the right thing to do. They are trying to save us from sin.

They don't care that we don't believe sin exists. They don't care that we don't believe their god exists. They don't care that the are trying to force their morals on others. They want to "fix" people who don't subscribe to their moral standards.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Evil rears its ugly head yet again...
Posted by: philipcfromnyc on Oct 22, 2008 9:57 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe that this universe was created by a higher power; however, I emphatically and unequivocally reject the very concept of organized religion, for reasons which are easy to identify. It is not any particular religion that I reject; it is the concept of organized religion itself that I consider to be the hallmark of a diseased society. It is when men and women act in accordance with religious dogma that they most happily destroy the lives of others; of those who do not see the world through the lens of a pre-determined belief system.

Religion is, for want of a better word, evil.

An intelligent person will inevitably question his or her place in the world, and will inevitably think about difficult and painful issues. Religion holds out a panacea; it removes from people the need to contemplate the meaning of such issues by offering up a predigested set of rules and promises. Religion helps those people who are either incapable of thinking for themselves, or who are unwilling to think for themselves. This is a cold reality.

Unfortunately, those who subscribe to religious beliefs all too often believe it necessary to "enlighten" their fellow human beings -- by forcing their religious beliefs on people who neither share them nor wish to share them. It is this -- it is the need that people feel (either drummed into them by their religion, or the product of genuine personal zeal) to "share" their religious beliefs with others -- that fuels the worst pogroms; that drives armies to attack each other; that compels school boards to rob children of gay-themed books; and that causes people to advocate changing state constitutions to destroy gay marriages.

This need that people have -- this need for answers without hard work -- manifests itself in literally every society known to history. When "conventional" religion fails, for whatever reason, to provide people with the answers that they crave, new religions are created out of whole cloth (Scientology comes to mind immediately). Clever people soon realize that they can become rich by promoting answers to questions that have not even been asked (yet); and a new religion is created to pander to this need.

The Mormons are determined to change the broader society in which we all live, so as to inscribe their policy preferences into the law of the land. The Framers of the US Constitution were wise enough to foresee this eventuality, and they did what they could to ensure that religion would not drive the crafting of law and public policy. Sadly, there are limits to their success – limits which reflect the nature of humanity itself. When the Hawaii Supreme Court held that the Hawaii constitution prohibited the state from denying marriage to gay couples, the Mormons poured literally millions of dollars into that state, to fuel and channel their hatred of gay people. Make no mistake – many Americans hate their gay fellow citizens. The depths of this hatred are difficult for me, as an activist for gay equality, to convey to those heterosexual people who are not, themselves, contaminated by this hatred. The Mormons succeeded in amending the Hawaii state constitution to deny gay couples the right to marry. Now they seek to amend the constitution of another state, to deny gay couples the right to marry in that state too.

We are trained to respect the religious beliefs of others. Unfortunately, this all too often leads to self-censorship; we don’t say what we really feel, for fear of being perceived and labelled as religious bigots. The cold truth is that it is nothing less than evil to deny to gay couples the rights and privileges that heterosexual couples take for granted. It is nothing less than evil to deprive gay persons of the support that comes from being married to another person...

(Continued...)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Evil rears its ugly head yet again...
Posted by: philipcfromnyc on Oct 22, 2008 9:58 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As the California Supreme Court noted, many gay couples raise children. This will remain true regardless of the outcome of the attempt to amend the California state constitution. Allowing gay couples to marry will benefit such children immeasurably, by stabilizing the parent-child relationships that such children form, with both their biological parents and their non-biological parents. Allowing gay couples to marry will ensure that children raised by such couples will have access to health insurance (in those cases where a partner and children are insured by his or her spouse’s employer). Allowing gay couples to marry will normalize parent-child relationships in the eyes of other children. Allowing gay couples to marry expands the protective ambit of this social institution.

The Mormons poured money into efforts to amend the Massachusetts state constitution to outlaw gay marriages. They failed in Massachusetts, and this issue cannot be voted on again in Massachusetts until 2012. Now they have targeted California, and are pouring literally millions of dollars into the effort to destroy gay marriages in that state. Their behaviour is evil – and it should be described as such, unapologetically and unequivocally. Their behaviour is fuelled by their hatred of gay persons. I am pessimistic, and believe that we will probably lose the right to marry in California – just six months after being granted this right by a state high court that was not afraid to call this issue as it saw it. However, there is nothing that these forces of hatred can do to undermine, or reverse, a key holding arrived at by this court. The California Supreme Court became the second state supreme court to hold that gay persons comprise a “suspect class” for the purposes of equal protection analysis (the Hawaii Supreme Court arrived at the same conclusion by making reference to the explicit language of the framers of the state constitution; this went largely unnoticed by the legal community, because this conclusion was stated in a footnote to the final opinion, holding that the change to the state constitution had rendered the issue moot). This California high court held that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is as disgusting and as cruel as discrimination on the basis of race. This holding will survive regardless of the outcome of the proposed amendment.

We also won an important victory in Connecticut on October 10, when the Connecticut Supreme Court, in an analytically rich decision, held that the equal protection provisions of the Connecticut constitution prohibited the state from denying marriage licenses to gay couples. The governor has stated that she will abide by this ruling, and does not intend to call for a constitutional convention (the Connecticut constitution cannot be changed by direct voter input, as is possible in California). The Connecticut Supreme Court held that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is as disgusting and unacceptable as discrimination on the basis of gender, holding that gay persons comprise a “quasi-suspect class” for the purposes of equal protection analysis.

What the Mormons are doing in California is evil – and should be called such. All that I can do is hope that they will fail. Furthermore, we should not allow a loss in California to slow us down or to dampen our spirits. If we lose in California, we should immediately set about gathering signatures to certify a proposed amendment that would nullify this loss, to be voted on as soon as the law permits.

Fortunately, the trend is on our side. Norway became the latest country to legalize gay marriage a few months ago.

In time, gay marriage will become legal throughout the US.


PHILIP CHANDLER

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What's Happening With...
Posted by: Lily H. on Oct 22, 2008 11:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the all-exclusive Catholic town, Ave Maria in Florida
by Tom Monahan??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Happening Now
Posted by: atchemp on Oct 23, 2008 4:37 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The True Issues as stake –

1. California school children will be taught that same-sex marriage is interchangeable, acceptable, and condoned starting in Kindergarten, unless Prop 8 passes.
a. Evidence – Grade school children in Massachusetts are taught that a boy can marry a boy and a girl can marry a girl. The courts ruled that parents cannot object to these teachings.
b. Evidence - October 11: In the same week that the “No on 8” campaign launched an ad that labeled as “lies” claims that same-sex marriage would be taught in schools to young children, a first grade class took a school-sponsored trip to a gay wedding. Eighteen first graders traveled to San Francisco City Hall Friday for the wedding of their teacher and her lesbian partner, The San Francisco Chronicle reported. The school sponsored the trip for the students, ages 5 and 6, taking them away from their studies for the same-sex wedding. The San Francisco Chronicle reporter said she did not know if the school had ever sponsored a field trip for students to a traditional wedding.

2. Faith or religious bases groups will be forced to accept same-sex marriages or face multiple lawsuits and potentially loose tax-exempt status.
a. Evidence - Catholic charities in Massachusetts abandoned their adoption service for hard-to-place children when it was ordered to place children in same-sex households.
b. Evidence – The multiple lawsuits against The Boy Scouts of America, for refusing to accept gay troop leaders. All federal support of this long time American association was revoked. The plaintiffs tried also to revoke the tax-exempt status of the BSA, claiming that it is equivalent to federal aid.
c. Evidence - Christian secondary schools like Cole Valley Christian and Nampa Christian have been sued for expelling lesbian students.
d. Evidence – A same-sex couple was turned down by a Methodist retreat center, the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association in New Jersey, when they sought to rent it for a same-sex ceremony. The center declined to allow the site to be rented for that purpose, on the grounds that the center had a “strongly held religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman,” according to the center’s director. The lesbian couple filed a complaint with New Jersey’s Division of Civil Rights, and won, no matter that the center is a religiously-based operation with First Amendment rights to the free exercise of religion and association with possessed private property rights as well.
e. Evidence – A Jewish university was ordered to allow same-sex couples into its married dormitory

3. Individuals will be forced by law to accept and condone same-sex marriages despite their religious beliefs.
a. Evidence - A psychologist in Mississippi lost her case when she was sued for refusing to counsel a lesbian who was not interested in reparative therapy, and a California doctor is about to lose his case for declining to provide in-vitro fertilization services to a lesbian.
b. Evidence – A wedding photographer in New Mexico has been fined almost $6,700, for declining to photograph a same-sex ceremony on the basis of religious belief.

The state of California has been very tolerant of people with same-sex attraction. Such individuals can obtain a civil union which grants all of the advantages that a married couple has to same-sex couples. Proposition 8 is not anti-gay and would not remove and of the advantages or rights enjoyed by same-sex couples under the law. A yes vote on proposition 8 is being called intolerant, however tolerance works both ways.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Happening Now Posted by: sanity
» RE: Happening Now Posted by: atchemp
» RE: Happening Now Posted by: sanity
» RE: Happening Now Posted by: TheNamelessCity
» RE: Happening Now Posted by: VMRH
Delusional
Posted by: tyndale25 on Nov 1, 2008 7:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We often fear what we do not understand. This article heaps ignorance upon ignorance and clamors to the lowest common denominator. We thus feed our frenzy to maintain our bias and thereby become the delusional ones. We would do well to seek to understand this religion rather than to increase our inept prejudice.

Perhaps we can get hold of our paranoia and instead thank the Mormons for stepping up and helping us in the fight against gay marriage. Is that below us? Any and all who value true marriage between a man and a woman, the kind of lasting bond that creates within a home a refuge from the storm of decadence around us should thank the Mormons for stepping up. With all the support the vote NO campaign has from school boards, movie stars and corporations, God be thanked that our Mormon friends have come to our aid, or perhaps the Mormons are to be thanked themselves.

How many of us would step up like they have and give money and time to help pass this important amendment? How many of us have? Mormons were not commanded to support it. Good grief. You live a sheltered life if you believe that. I for one am most grateful to the Mormons and to their insightful leadership. What did you call them? Prophets? Is that as in one who sees afar off? Maybe that is the case, but whatever the case, they have my thanks. How about yours?

Any religious person who understands their Bible, or their Koran, or their Talmud, or their Book of Mormon will side with the Mormons on this one. Thank you to all who use their right to vote to enact an amendment that protects marriage and at the same time, allows gay and lesbian couples to enjoy the same benefits within the framework of the law and the IRS code, but outside of the forced acceptance of religious organizations. Thank you also to those who vote against it. At least you are following your conscience. Isn't that what freedom is all about!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Keeping the Traditional Definition of Marriage is Good for Society
Posted by: sjhonda on Nov 5, 2008 12:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Society has an interest in promoting children having a mother and a father. Marriage is the way a Mother and Father are bound together legally with their child. All insitutions have their standards that allow them to perform their function. One of the main purposes of marriage is to give children an opportunity to have a loving mother and father.

All institutions have their standards. Football teams, educational insitutions, the Military. These standards help the institution meet their objectives. Just saying I want in - is no reason to change the standard. Marriage is about providing children with a mother and a father. When a child loses a mother or father through abandonment, or death, we rightly call it a tragedy. Likewise a child never having a Mother or a Father because society decided that 2 men were as good at raising a child as a mother and a father is a tradgedy. Which in the raising of a child is not needed, the mother or the father?

Those who are single and raise good children do an "exceptional" job. Unfortunately too often it is an exception. But on a whole a child missing a mother or a father is more likely to engage in drug addictions, crime, and be poor.

Thank goodness Californian's had enough sense to think of the good of their children.

Of course traditional families are imperfect- people are imperfect. But just because the traditional families garden has a few weeds doesn't mean we abandon it's definition and say one of the geneders of teh parents is irrelevant.

A child who had a mother and father who loved each and them have a great gift. Making sure that the definition of Marriage is between a man and a woman will make sure that society promotes this standard and encourages more optimum child rearing homes to be available to children.

And yes it is optimal. A man cannot be a mother. A woman cannot be a father. Two men can't even create the child so vital to society's future. One man one woman - Marriage -- Best for children.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Those darn christians...
Posted by: DenmarkMike on Nov 5, 2008 4:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look guys, as closed minded as it may seem, if you are a Christian in the World today there is no way you could vote no to Prop 8. I am a practicing Christian and I am one of those crazy fanatics who voted yes to Prop 8. Simply put, Jesus would have voted yes to Prop 8, the founding fathers would have voted yes, and Martin Luther King Jr would have voted yes. It is an obvious fact. Now I will say that you can argue so many things against this movement to ban gay marriage but the facts are the Bible says homosexuality is a sin. Love the sinner, hate the sin. We love everybody but I will never ever step aside and allow the government (I say government becuase the people voted against gay marriage in 2000, but liberal judges felt that that wasnt good enough) allow sin. Sorry, call me close minded but if there are any Christians who voted no to Prop 8, REPENT!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]