Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Boobie jokes Previous entry: This may be the funniest thing that’s ever happened

How the well-oiled Mormon machine helped pass Prop 8

LGBTRepublicans

In the end, Protect Marriage estimates, as much as half of the nearly $40 million raised on behalf of the measure was contributed by Mormons.

That was the statement confirming the extent of the financial involvement of the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to pass Prop 8. That is mind-blowing.

The extent to which this church felt the need to involve itself, not only with cash from its faithful, but by marshalling an army of Mormon volunteers to participate in phone banking, canvassing and disseminating propaganda and lies to remove a civil right from a group of citizens in California is beyond disturbing.

In the NYT article, “Mormons Tipped Scale in Ban on Gay Marriage,” the details emerge about the win-at-all-costs strategy that seems less about pure belief and faith than political activism and bullying.

First approached by the Roman Catholic archbishop of San Francisco a few weeks after the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in May, the Mormons were the last major religious group to join the campaign, and the final spice in an unusual stew that included Catholics, evangelical Christians, conservative black and Latino pastors, and myriad smaller ethnic groups with strong religious ties.

And the bottom line is that the full-frontal assault by Yes on 8 came down to the fact that the Mormons were willing to go door to door in a systematic manner—to make the difference. See how they did it below the fold.
One has to marvel at the precision and drive.

Jeff Flint, another strategist with Protect Marriage, estimated that Mormons made up 80 percent to 90 percent of the early volunteers who walked door-to-door in election precincts.

The canvass work could be exacting and highly detailed. Many Mormon wards in California, not unlike Roman Catholic parishes, were assigned two ZIP codes to cover. Volunteers in one ward, according to training documents written by a Protect Marriage volunteer, obtained by people opposed to Proposition 8 and shown to The New York Times, had tasks ranging from “walkers,” assigned to knock on doors; to “sellers,” who would work with undecided voters later on; and to “closers,” who would get people to the polls on Election Day.

Suggested talking points were equally precise. If initial contact indicated a prospective voter believed God created marriage, the church volunteers were instructed to emphasize that Proposition 8 would restore the definition of marriage God intended.

But if a voter indicated human beings created marriage, Script B would roll instead, emphasizing that Proposition 8 was about marriage, not about attacking gay people, and about restoring into law an earlier ban struck down by the State Supreme Court in May.

“It is not our goal in this campaign to attack the homosexual lifestyle or to convince gays and lesbians that their behavior is wrong — the less we refer to homosexuality, the better,” one of the ward training documents said. “We are pro-marriage, not anti-gay.”

...“No work will take place at the church, including no meeting there to hand out precinct walking assignments so as to not even give the appearance of politicking at the church,” one of the documents said.

The messaging and methods of these defilers of civil rights was spot on. I urge you to read the rest of this article to see the full extent of this holy war on civil rights. The Mormon-bolstered Yes on 8 campaign simply outgamed No on 8.

* In response to a huge anti-8 fundraiser at billionaire Ron Burkle’s house in Beverly Hills, an e-blast to 92K went out to save marriage from “cardiac arrest.”

* There was a concerted effort not to associate with fringe elements that wanted domestic partnerships rolled back or to protest when same-sex marriages began in June.

* The flat-out lie campaign was prepared specifically to target voters on the fence, with ads claiming marriage equality would result in churches losing tax exempt status, or lawsuits slapped on people for their personal beliefs, and, of course, that positive views of same-sex marriage will be forced upon children.

The justification for this devastating blow to equality is still not seen as discrimination by these people; in fact, Frank Schubert of Protect Marriage is gloating:

For his part, Mr. Schubert said he is neither anti-gay — his sister is a lesbian — nor happy that some same-sex couples’ marriages are now in question. But, he said, he has no regrets about his campaign.

They had a lot going for them,” Mr. Schubert said of his opponents. “And they couldn’t get it done.”

He’s right about that—our community couldn’t get it done—what do we plan to do about it—besides finger pointing and marches? Don’t get me wrong—these Join the Impact rallies are essential to show our solidarity on the matter of equality to the nation, but that energy and drive then has to be harnessed effectively or we will continue to lose. The factions of hate are now ready to take their well-oiled machine and work it on the rest of the country. Are we prepared to beat the LDS ground game?

Hat tip, Rex.

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Pam Spaulding on 11:32 AM • (84) Comments

Maybe a dumb question…but how can the Mormon church inject themselves so forcefully into a political campaign, which Yes on Prop 8 was in my mind at least, and still enjoy tax-exempt status?

Comment #1: agfmama  on  11/15  at  11:59 AM

Here’s what killed me about the NYT article.  The closing two paragraphs:

“Attacks on churches and intimidation of people of faith have no place in civil discourse over controversial issues,” the statement said. “People of faith have a democratic right to express their views in the public square without fear of reprisal.”

Mr. Ashton described the protests by same-sex marriage advocates as off-putting. “I think that shows colors,” Mr. Ashton said. “By their fruit, ye shall know them.”

Actually, no.  While you do have the right to not be harmed or assaulted, there’s nothing that says I can’t attack your viewpoint or peacefully protest what you’ve done.  If there are any examples of Mormon churches being vandalized or church leaders being assaulted, we would all roundly condemn that.  However, we’re totally free to call you out for being hate-mongerers, just as you were free to “express your views in the public square.”

I’m hoping the Times believes its readers will detect the irony of these statements, but I wish they’d been explicit in attacking these ridiculous statements.

Comment #2: FashionablyEvil  on  11/15  at  12:10 PM

“People of faith have a democratic right to express their views in the public square…”

Absolutely true.  You can say any stupid thing you want without the government stopping you (although it’s not clear that this is still true in post-2000 America)...

”...without fear of reprisal.”...wait a minute!  Who said that?  Where is this crap in the Constitution?

You can say any nasty thing you want.  But you have no right to expect there will never be any repercussions.  If you are allowed to express hate, others can express their strong disagreement with your hate, as long as they don’t break the law.

You bigots sewed the wind, now reap the whirlwind…

Comment #3: MikeEss  on  11/15  at  12:45 PM

I bet we see Romney as the republican nominee in 2012, this entire campaign seems like the mormons were trying to prove to the other fundies that they are just as hateful and bigoted as the rest of them.

Comment #4: John Hussein Rove  on  11/15  at  12:49 PM

This probably is a stupid question, but I don’t really know anything about the Mormon church and I just don’t understand why they got so involved in this. I would expect conservative churches in general to oppose equal marriage laws but why did the Mormon church play such a huge role here? Is it just a matter of resources and the fact that they have so much money and could provide this level of support while other churches couldn’t?

It’s especially confusing given their history with “nontraditional” marriage - is that it? Do they fear that expanding marriage laws beyond one woman and one man will open the door for their fundamentalists to demand legal recognition of one man and many women marriages?

I just don’t get it. What am I missing here?

Comment #5: anony  on  11/15  at  12:58 PM

Something tells me Mitt Romney is loving this while thinking about 2012. The backlash is giving the Mormons a lot of PR that will endear them to the winger Christians that had reservations about Mormonism as a “legitimate” faith. Mormons have now earned some cred with The Base. And Romney has four more years to try and erase the hypocrisy label and distance himself for his too-friendly stance toward gays and lesbians as governor.

That said, if the pace of gays and lesbians as a wedge issue declines as it has been then it’s likely to seem pretty silly as an issue in a presidential campaign in 2012 (relegated to down-ticket state and local races). And we’ll likely still be feeling the sting of this economy and that issue trumps all.

Comment #6: seventwentyfour  on  11/15  at  01:09 PM

I’m with anony.  What was the Morman church’s motivation to get so involved in this issue?  Just what are they looking to achieve here?  I think it’s pretty clear that the leaders on these social issues usually have some ulterior motivation (ie., get conservative voters to the polls to help conservative republicans, induce low income people to vote against econ interests, etc.).  What is the Morman church up to here?  Was this a test run for other political action?

Comment #7: Isabella  on  11/15  at  01:19 PM

“I just don’t get it. What am I missing here?”

Who knows how they really justify it to themselves.  However, the best guess I’ve seen is this was a way to prove their bonafides to the other fundnuts so they will be accepted (or what John Rove said above).

I really do think it’s about setting up Romney for another run in 2012…

These days, it seems like LGBTQ people are being used in similar way to the way Jews were used in a certain European country back in the day — as a scapegoat to help cynical politicians and social throwbacks to gain and keep political power…

Comment #8: MikeEss  on  11/15  at  01:19 PM

Well, it’s the weekend, and I have things to do. So instead of repeating my views on how the Church of LDS has over-reached itself and speculating on consequences, I’ve decided to do a little pre-emtivatin’ (as Prince Bush might say). And so, I pose my usual question to the usual intellectual cowards like “bob zimmerman,” who show up in these Prop 8 threads defending it as “democracy at its finest” and a remedy to “judicial activism”:

The definition of “people who can’t get married” (i.e. law-abiding citizens discriminated against) aside, how is the language inserted into the CA constitution different in effect and intent from this proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Rep. Seaborn Roddenbery D-GA, 1913):

“Intermarriage between negros or persons of color and Caucasians… within the United States… is forever prohibited.”

or this one, enacted into law by a democratically elected government (Nuremberg Laws, 1935):

Marriages between Jews and citizens of German or kindred blood are forbidden. Marriages concluded in defiance of this law are void, even if, for the purpose of evading this law, they were concluded abroad.

You see, Prop 8 supporters, if you want to keep going with your “democracy at its finest” and “outrageous judicial activism” arguments, you’re going to have to first explain to us exactly how this sort of legislation promotes the cause of Western-style democracy as embodied in the U.S. Constitution or Article I Section 1 of the California Constitution:

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights.  Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

And remember, I stipulated “the definition of ‘people who can’t get married’ aside”; Whether you want to discriminate on the basis of immutable (e.g. dark skin) or mutable (e.g. religion) characteristics only tells us what flavour of irrational bigot you are.

As previous Prop 8 threads demonstrate, we’re unlikely to get any straight and coherent answers from our brilliant legal scholars. But I’ll look forward to seeing any of their attempts to squirm around it. Enjoy your weekends.

Comment #9: Gracchus  on  11/15  at  01:21 PM

Gracchus, I would bet all too many of those who suppported Prop H8 think overthrowing anti-miscegeny laws was wrong too…

Comment #10: MikeEss  on  11/15  at  01:26 PM

ads claiming marriage equality would result in churches losing tax exempt status,

 

It would be nice if their participation in this hate campaign would result in the loss of their tax-exempt status.  Leaving gays alone in the civil sphere and only condemning it under religious ground to their faithful = tax exemption.  Campaigning to have their specific religious doctrines written into civil law = loss of tax exemption.

THIS, of course is the crux,

“People of faith have a democratic right to express their views in the public square without fear of reprisal.”

That’s about as anti-First Amendment as it gets.  Apparently the First Amendment only applies to “people of faith” and the correct Christian faith at that. 

You have a right to express your views, as long as they are the right views, and if they are the right view, no one gets to complain about them.  If you express your views about others, and your views aren’t the correct Sky Fairy views, then you are just attacking.

Talk about completely fucked up.  Yank that tax exemption.  They are not playing in the right sphere to do it.  We may lose the case, b/c it looks like they were working hard to use any loophole possible, but the spirit of the law has been violated.  They deserve to have to answer for their actions.

Comment #11: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  11/15  at  01:30 PM

What we’re doing right now in CA is filing a massive lawsuit. AND getting a petition going of a repeal, which could soon turn into a Proposition of its own. Should it do so, I think I’ll be joining phone banks.

Comment #12: Samantha Vimes  on  11/15  at  01:43 PM

A close friend who is an ex-Mormon, gay and extremely well connected with the ex-Mormon, LDS mission alumni and BYU alumni networks estimates that the big donation money is far more heavily LDS-rooted than even this well-researched (and cautious) article suggests.

I am with Mike Ess re: Romney in 2012.  One can imagine the Godfather saying, “it didn’t know until this dat that it was Romney all along.”

Comment #13: Bruce  on  11/15  at  01:47 PM

Just a reminder, Join the Impact protests are TODAY, all across the country. Come out and protest for equal rights:
http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/?t=anon

Comment #14: AdamN  on  11/15  at  01:56 PM

Marriage is not a right under government. Just like driving, it requires a license. The license can be denied to someone who is not fit to be married - for instance, someone who is already married, or (in some states) someone who has certain STDs.

Also, in this country, the majority rules. The courts should not override majority rule unless it is clearly unconstitutional.

If the majority decides that a marriage license does not apply to homosexuals, then it should be the law.

The problem lies in the right to the “pursuit of happiness.” This right is subordinate to the good of the people. (And, it’s not mentioned in the Bill of Rights.) Robbers and burglars are certainly pursuing happiness. But when we catch them, we deprive them of the right of liberty, for the good of the rest of us. You may not pursue happiness if it injures me, and vice versa.

So we have to ask the question if homosexual unions benefit the rest of us.

Well in Ca. Thay said no.

Comment #15: McGreevy Michael  on  11/15  at  02:08 PM

Why look for some ulterior motive when they achieved their goal?

Comment #16: Eric, Rejector of Memez  on  11/15  at  02:09 PM

I was protesting outside yesterday’s Mormon press conference in Orange County; inside, “faith leaders” were calling us terrorists for having the audacity to boycott businesses that supported Prop 8. Don’t make yourselves crazy trying to figure out their logic. They don’t have any. They think gay people are disgusting. That’s it.

“McGreevy Michael,” you’re unbelievably stupid. Maybe I’ll use you on my blog!

Comment #17: FundamentallyFlawed  on  11/15  at  02:21 PM

Mcgreevy Michael,
Here is a quote for you from Thomas Jefferson:
“All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”
Oh and you suck.

Comment #18: AdamN  on  11/15  at  02:23 PM

McDouchebag, the majority cannot dcide the rights of the minority, and that’s that.  So fuck you.

Comment #19: Damian  on  11/15  at  02:31 PM

Marriage is not a right under government.

Exactly wrong. Loving v. Virginia recognized (and has been upheld in countless cases afterwards) that marriage is a fundamental right, deeply rooted in the traditions of the American people and protected by the 14th amendment. The fight is over the content of that right—how specifically we reference traditions—but it certainly includes marriages that were not acceptable to the traditions of the Founders’ generation (i.e. interracial marriage). After Lawrence, many argue (correctly) that there is no coherent basis for same-sex marriage not to be granted the same protections.

Comment #20: Thom  on  11/15  at  02:33 PM

AD HOMINEM


HAVE YOU ever heard a politician or a preacher attack someone’s person when he ought to have been attacking his position? If so, then you’ve heard argumentum ad hominem, which in Latin means arguing “to the man” (as opposed to arguing ad rem, “to the point”). Ad hominem can take a variety of forms. It might consist of name-calling: like calling someone stupid or telling them thay suck. If you don’t happen to suffer from the “Call-me-a-name-and-I’ll-crumble” syndrome, this sort of ad hominem attack isn’t going to ruin your day.

Name calling isn’t going to ruin my day.  Dant let the fact that prop 8 passed ruin yours.

Comment #21: McGreevy Michael  on  11/15  at  02:36 PM

If you’re not going to address the facts, troll, then GET OUT.

Comment #22: Damian  on  11/15  at  02:37 PM

“The problem lies in the right to the “pursuit of happiness.” This right is subordinate to the good of the people. (And, it’s not mentioned in the Bill of Rights.) Robbers and burglars are certainly pursuing happiness. But when we catch them, we deprive them of the right of liberty, for the good of the rest of us. You may not pursue happiness if it injures me, and vice versa.”

...okay so far…

“So we have to ask the question if homosexual unions benefit the rest of us.”  Hold it!

You went from “pursue happiness as long as it doesn’t injure anyone else” to “you can only have those rights if the rest of us benefit”...?  Where the hell does that come from?

Letting gay people do something that makes them happy does no one any harm.  In fact, limiting their civil rights harms them directly and harms everyone because it set a tone.  A police state tone.

If I were like you, I would say that we Pandagonians don’t benefit from your droolings.  And neither does anybody else.  So perhaps your expressions should be made illegal…?

Comment #23: MikeEss  on  11/15  at  02:38 PM

/r/ SRB McGreasebag.  If he’s going to copypasta from pages to try and avoid making points, he shouldn’t be allowed to comment.

Comment #24: Damian  on  11/15  at  02:38 PM

If I were like you, I would say that we Pandagonians don’t benefit from your droolings.  And neither does anybody else.  So perhaps your expressions should be made illegal…?
Mike I guess I am just lucky you are not like me then.

Comment #25: McGreevy Michael  on  11/15  at  02:49 PM

Robbers and burglars are certainly pursuing happiness. But when we catch them, we deprive them of the right of liberty, for the good of the rest of us. You may not pursue happiness if it injures me, and vice versa.

How does gay marriage “injure” you?  Please provide specifics.

So we have to ask the question if homosexual unions benefit the rest of us.

You are not automatically injured by something if it does not provide a benefit to you.  Please provide specific examples of how gay marriage “injures” you.  Saying, “Well, it doesn’t benefit me” is not injurious to you.

How does gay marriage injure you?  Again, please provide specifics of how gay marriage injures you.

Comment #26: Mnemosyne  on  11/15  at  03:01 PM

“Don’t let the fact that prop 8 passed ruin yours (day)”

Talk about missing the boat mcgreevy!  Since when is forcibly divorcing 18k couples and relegating an entire minority population to being second class citizens equalivent to being called names?

What the fuck.

Comment #27: melaka  on  11/15  at  03:03 PM

For his part, Mr. Schubert said he is neither anti-gay — his sister is a lesbian — nor happy that some same-sex couples’ marriages are now in question.

Well, that’s going to make for an awkward holiday this year.  I hope Mr. Schubert understands why his sister and possibly other family members refuse to speak to him and doesn’t start whining to the New York Times about how his lesbian sister is so meeeeaaannnnn for being angry at him for taking away her civil rights.

Comment #28: Mnemosyne  on  11/15  at  03:04 PM

The legally recognized civil union in CA already gives gays exactly the same legal rights as a a married couple.

So what is the issue then? The issue is they want to legally force all aspects of culture to fully accept homosexuality as equal and proper. You can see this in the behavior of many in testing everything to see if it hints at any type of disapproval of their behavior and then vindictively suing.

The redefinition of marriage they are trying to pull on us is the idea that romantic feelings of love give people the legal right to marry. This is ridiculous, an emotional feelings grants you a legal/civil/human right? It is a sign of what a bad state marriage is in the popular mind of our society. Marriage can not and should not be solely about romantic emotional feelings, but that is all it is to so many. You have these feelings, you get married, promising to be together til death, unless the feelings go away and you change your mind. That idea of marriage is basically meaningless, it’s no different then going steady with someone in high school. It is bad for society, destroys families, hurts children, and creates legal messes. The reason the law is involved in marriage is because the union is the basis of the family which is lifeblood of society as it is responsible for raising healthy citizens. Homosexual unions are not the basis of families. Marriage laws are to provide stability to the family and protect women and children. Homosexuals do not forgo education and career in order to be a wife and mother. Even if some marriages don’t have children, children are the reason for having civil marriage laws, sterile relationships are the exception and do not inherently require these legal protections. Homosexuals unions are inherently sterile and so without exception there is no reason for having civil laws involved.

The idea of gay and lesbian as cultural identities is a very recent human innovation. It goes against logic for for this group to demand special rights and new laws, there is no basis for it. Being homosexual is something you do, a way that you feel, it is not inhibited by law and requires no new or special rights. The idea of homosexual couple wanting to imitate and copy heterosexual unions is also a very recent innovation. It has led many to acquire children through manipulation of medical science or pressuring adoption agencies. We know, even Rosie Odonnel admits, a mother and a father are what is best for a child, so why then would anyone who wants to love a child as a parent then by force of will rob that child of the opportunity to have what is in his/her best interest? There is a contradiction there so many miss. Why are homosexuals suddenly not happy with being homosexuals and instead are trying to imitate heterosexuals? In my opinion perhaps they should try to have some real gay pride and stop trying to pretend to not be gay by demanding “marriage equality”.

Look, I did not mention God or religion. Atheist’s in theory could agree.

Comment #29: McGreevy Michael  on  11/15  at  03:09 PM

Marriage is not a right under government. Just like driving, it requires a license. The license can be denied to someone who is not fit to be married - for instance, someone who is already married, or (in some states) someone who has certain STDs.

So explain to us why homosexuals weren’t fit to be married in the eyes of the state of Califoronia before the constitution was revised by Prop 8.

Hint: if you mention the word God, Jesus, or some other invisible man; if you mention Roman Catholic or another church’s doctrine; or if you mention that marriage is only or even mainly for purposes of reproduction you FAIL. Why? Because the state finds those reasons as invalid for denying a marriage license as it does for a driver’s license.

Comment #30: Factcheck  on  11/15  at  03:15 PM

The legally recognized civil union in CA already gives gays exactly the same legal rights as a a married couple.

“Separate but equal” was struck down by the Supreme Court 50 years ago.  Interesting to see you try to revive it because you think teh gay is icky.

We know, even Rosie Odonnel admits, a mother and a father are what is best for a child, so why then would anyone who wants to love a child as a parent then by force of will rob that child of the opportunity to have what is in his/her best interest?

In other words, we should force divorced and/or widowed straight people to immediately remarry or face having their children removed from their custody and placed with a mother/father family.  After all, it’s so injurious to the children not to have a family with both a mother and a father that it’s clearly in society’s best interest to remove them from their birth parents and give them to “complete” family.  Is that what you’re saying?

Look, I did not mention God or religion. Atheist’s in theory could agree.

And yet you didn’t explain how gay marriage “injures” you.  All you did was spout some bogus history and incorrect “science.”

Please provide specifics about how gay marriage “injures” you.

Comment #31: Mnemosyne  on  11/15  at  03:17 PM

You’re a hateful douche, whether or not you hide your hate in religion.

Separate but equal doesn’t work, pond scum.

Comment #32: Damian  on  11/15  at  03:18 PM

Marriage laws are to provide stability to the family and protect women and children.

The state isn’t in the business of defining what a family is. Some married people have kids, some don’t, but both get marriage licenses.

Also, we live in 21st century America, not 19th century America. Marriage laws protect both parties to the contract, as well as children.

Comment #33: Factcheck  on  11/15  at  03:21 PM

AD HOMINEM

You trolls keep using those words; they do not mean what you think they mean.

It always amuses - and annoys - me how wingnut trolls start squealing “ad hominem” without understanding what it means.

An ad hominem attack is an actual strategy: arguing that anything you have to say is invalid because of something about you, without attacking your arguments themselves.  Pointing out that you’re a douchebag - which you are - is not an ad hominem attack.  Admittedly, it does nothing to refute your arguments, which is why we’re also attacking your arguments while at the same time pointing out that you’re a douchebag.  If we were to say, however, “You’re just a Mormon apologist” and treat that as a reply in itself, that would be an ad hominem attack. 

If the rest of your arguments are this uneducated - and it’s looking like they are - you’re going to get eviscerated here, and it’s going to be fun to watch.  Never should have left your little bubble.

Comment #34: Seraph  on  11/15  at  03:25 PM

The legally recognized civil union in CA already gives gays exactly the same legal rights as a a married couple.

Then why do we need two terms to describe the same thing? Again, mentions of invisible men, churches, and narrow reasons for marriage mean you FAIL.

Every citizen plays by the same rules. That’s how it works in America.

Comment #35: Factcheck  on  11/15  at  03:27 PM

I found this bit fascinating, BTW:

First approached by the Roman Catholic archbishop of San Francisco a few weeks after the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in May, the Mormons were the last major religious group to join the campaign, and the final spice in an unusual stew that included Catholics, evangelical Christians, conservative black and Latino pastors, and myriad smaller ethnic groups with strong religious ties.

Is this a hint that the Catholic Church will change their policy and declare that Mormons are real Christians after all?  Right now, if you convert from Mormonism to Catholicism, you have to first be baptized because the Catholic Church considers Mormon baptism to be invalid.  People from other Christian denominations can skip baptism and go straight to the rest of the sacraments, but not Mormons.

(The Vatican is also pissed about LDS baptizing dead people as Mormons, which may be one reason they decided to declare Mormon baptisms invalid.)

It would be interesting to see if a quid pro quo arises from this and the Mormons finally get the recognition they’ve been lobbying for for years now.

Comment #36: Mnemosyne  on  11/15  at  03:28 PM

For his part, Mr. Schubert said he is neither anti-gay — his sister is a lesbian — nor happy that some same-sex couples’ marriages are now in question. But, he said, he has no regrets about his campaign.

“They had a lot going for them,” Mr. Schubert said of his opponents. “And they couldn’t get it done.”

Is there any clearer proof that - as someone pointed out on an earlier thread - that this is just a game to them?  A way of scoring points? 

It’s good that they’re suffering some real-world consequences for this.

Comment #37: Seraph  on  11/15  at  03:30 PM

The issue McGreevy Michael, is that people like you refuse to understand why two people want to get married.  You seem capable of it, even if you don’t understand right now.  It’s good that you’re paying attention to the thread.  We might reach each other. 
Your post at 1:09 seems contradictory to me.  But I’m going to address something that i know you got wrong.  Homosexual relationships are not inherently sterile.  Their reproductive organs function normally.  Gays and lesbians are capable of being biological parents, and frequently, they are. 
Marriage was already redefined in the United States and, if I understand correctly, much of the industrial world (and it would not surprise me if this new idea gained ground everywhere else at the same time).  That redefinition is the idea that marriage should be primarily a love match.  Primarily, but not only.  Many people who marry out of love decide to go all the way because they have concluded that the partner will provide them with material security.  It is often said that a family is a team.  A team is a relationship, as is society.  cooperative relationships reduce the burden on the individual, and often enrich all members. We agree that two parents are better than one because it is less of a burden, and can improve the quality of the attention the parents give to their children (not to denigrate the stellar single parents).  Gays and lesbians want to marry for exactly the same reasons we heterosexuals do.

Comment #38: Flying Fox  on  11/15  at  03:33 PM

Is there any clearer proof that - as someone pointed out on an earlier thread - that this is just a game to them?  A way of scoring points?

It’s more than that. If they can redefine marriage in such a strong way in a constitution, they feel confident they can also redefine when and where life begins.

The good news is, they’ll fail with the marriage definition clause.

Comment #39: Factcheck  on  11/15  at  03:35 PM

(To any anti-choice lurkers: note how “consequences” is clearly synonymous with “punishment”.  The same is true when you say it, no matter how much you may protest otherwise when outside the safety of your usual circle, where people agree with you that women should suffer for having sex.)

Comment #40: Seraph  on  11/15  at  03:38 PM

Please provide specifics about how gay marriage “injures” you. Mnemosyne

Google Health Risks of Homosexuality.  You can read to your fill of the health risks.  As to how it injures me? Well its like the folks who smoke cigarettes results in us all paying more for health benefits. GLTG fooks are good people right? It is tragic most will die sooner because of a queer life.

Comment #41: McGreevy Michael  on  11/15  at  03:41 PM

Pointing out that you’re a douchebag - which you are - is not an ad hominem attack.  Admittedly, it does nothing to refute your arguments,

Ah..SOMETIMES a debater descends to the level of demagoguery, whether or not he launches into ad hominem attacks upon his opponent, by rhetorically seeking to sway the audience to his side without actually demonstrating the truth of his position. This is known as argumentum ad populum (“appeal to the people”)—telling the people what they want to hear, whether or not it’s true.

When it is a case of playing to the passions of the audience, whether by pumping up their patriotism or partisanship, or by feeding their fears and confirming their worst suspicions (easily done), it is known as argumentum ad captandum vulgas (“appeal to the emotions of the crowd”).

When it’s a matter of fanning the flames of their prejudices, it’s known as argumentum ad individium (“appeal to prejudice”).

When the speaker seeks to align the audience’s affections with himself by playing on their heartstrings and appealing to their pity, he is arguing ad misericordiam (“appeal to sympathy”).

Comment #42: McGreevy Michael  on  11/15  at  03:45 PM

Mr. Mike, that’s BS.  The health risks of having gay sex are the same as straight sex.  Second, marriage does not reduce transmission of STDs.  People are going to have sex.  If they can’t be bothered to figure out the health of their partner and adapt, they’re a friggin’ moron, regardless of sexuality.

Comment #43: Flying Fox  on  11/15  at  03:50 PM

And what Mr. Mike just posted is a non sequitor.

Comment #44: Flying Fox  on  11/15  at  03:51 PM

Google Health Risks of Homosexuality.  You can read to your fill of the health risks.

1) It’s not our job to do your homework for you.  If there’s literature that you think makes your point, you need to link to it.

2) Having done what you asked anyway, I noticed that all of the sources on the first page were organizations with an anti-gay bias.  While this doesn’t necessarily prove them wrong, it does make them untrustworthy.  Links to a more neutral source, like the AMA, would be much more useful.  Got any?

As to how it injures me? Well its like the folks who smoke cigarettes results in us all paying more for health benefits. GLTG fooks are good people right? It is tragic most will die sooner because of a queer life.

And the bigotry continues to ooze out. 

How does this argument affect marriage one way or the other?  Whether they’re married or not, homosexuals still exist putting a strain on the public health system.  Unless you think we should do something about that, too.

Comment #45: Seraph  on  11/15  at  03:55 PM

Google Health Risks of Homosexuality.

In other words, you yourself are gay (or on the down low) and you’re upset that you’re endangering your own health, so you want homosexuality banned?  Otherwise, I don’t see how other people’s health risks “injure” you.

Well its like the folks who smoke cigarettes results in us all paying more for health benefits.

We also pay more for obese people.  Should they not be allowed to get married?  How about diabetics?  Their disease is money out of your pocket, so clearly they should not be allowed to get married either.

Oh, and old people cost a lot of money in Medicare, so marriages between people over 65 should be dissolved and banned.  After all, they’re costing you money because of their bad health, so you should be allowed to decide if they can get married or not.

If you don’t support banning marriage for any of the above, why are the health risks of homosexuality so much greater than those of diabetes or obesity or old age that you must ban gay marriage and not ban marriage by diabetics or obese people or the elderly?  Please explain how marriage between gay people “injures” you but marriage by diabetics does not.

Comment #46: Mnemosyne  on  11/15  at  04:00 PM

From Mountain Meadows to Prop 8 is a very short stroll.

Comment #47: JL  on  11/15  at  04:01 PM

I just realized—clearly Michael thinks that smokers should not be allowed to get married because of the health risks.  Since smokers are not allowed to get married in Michael’s world, if you start smoking after your marriage, should the marriage be annulled?

Comment #48: Mnemosyne  on  11/15  at  04:03 PM

Alternatively, would you support a congressional amendment that banned smoking?

Comment #49: N.C.  on  11/15  at  04:10 PM

“Pointing out that you’re a douchebag is not an ad hominem attack.  “

LOL


“Google Health Risks of Homosexuality.  You can read to your fill of the health risks.  As to how it injures me? Well its like the folks who smoke cigarettes results in us all paying more for health benefits. GLTG fooks are good people right? It is tragic most will die sooner because of a queer life.”

Well, that certainly explains a lot.

Comment #50: Notorious P.A.T.  on  11/15  at  04:10 PM

I looked up some of Michael’s sources.  One says that gay men are more likely to use drugs than other men.  Hmm, wonder why that is?  Surely not because our society is hateful and discriminatory towards them.  It must be something inherent in homosexuality.

Another source says that homosexuality has a higher risk of AIDS.  Sooo. . . if we want to stop the spread of AIDS, we shouldn’t join people together in monogamous relationships? 

Anyway, most of those websites believe homosexuality is voluntary or “curable” so they’re all crap.

Comment #51: Notorious P.A.T.  on  11/15  at  04:16 PM

McGreasebag is nothing more than a bigot and hatemonger.  He will do nothing more than try to push his bigotry without making any actual points.  /r/ b&.

Comment #52: Damian  on  11/15  at  04:25 PM

McGreasebag is nothing more than a bigot and hatemonger.  He will do nothing more than try to push his bigotry without making any actual points.

True, but it’s still amusing to point out that his “logical” points actually have no logic behind them at all.

Comment #53: Mnemosyne  on  11/15  at  04:31 PM

how can the Mormon church inject themselves so forcefully into a political campaign, which Yes on Prop 8 was in my mind at least, and still enjoy tax-exempt status?

I was very disappointed to find out that religious institutions are entitled to advocate for political causes without losing their tax-exempt status.  They can’t fight for a specific candidate, but they can do whatever they want with overarching issues and ballot initiatives.  It really sucks, but there’s nothing anyone can do about it.  For one thing, the laws that grant churches the right to advocate for issues while not affecting their tax exemption also apply to secular non-profits.  Revise those laws and non-profit organizations will be adversely affected as well.

Comment #54: keshmeshi  on  11/15  at  04:32 PM

You know why Pandagon gets so many trolls? Because commenters here are so eager to engage them.

Comment #55: pablo  on  11/15  at  04:33 PM

You know why Pandagon gets so many trolls? Because commenters here are so eager to engage them.

Ah, here we go, the old “IF U JUST IGNOER DEM DEY GO WAY” excuse.  Yeah, that doesn’t work.  It never has.  These slime-eating fuckwads thrive not on attention, but validation - and if you ignore them, they declare that you have no arguments and are giving up, thus they win and are validated.

Comment #56: Damian  on  11/15  at  04:43 PM

So you argue pointlessly with them, not winning because you’re never going to, and destroying the thread.

Seriously, this blog gets at least twice as many trolls as any other one i go to.

Comment #57: pablo  on  11/15  at  04:46 PM

I can only hope that you hateful DEMONcraps will avoid trying to initiate a schism in the anti-gay movement by pointing out the radical belief differences between Mormans and Christians.  That has the potential of being very destructive and you LIEbrals are supposed to be passive and take whatever the Right slaps you with, ok?

Comment #58: Rugged in Montana  on  11/15  at  04:48 PM

pablo, you do not dictate what goes on here, so shut your miserable pietrap.

Comment #59: Damian  on  11/15  at  04:49 PM

pablo, you do not dictate what goes on here, so shut your miserable pietrap

Yeah thanks for that. For a while there I was drunk with power.

Comment #60: pablo  on  11/15  at  05:01 PM

The trolls are kind of interesting without the trolls posting here I would be completely unaware of mass ignorance out there with regard to gay issues.

Comment #61: karl  on  11/15  at  06:51 PM

So you argue pointlessly with them, not winning because you’re never going to, and destroying the thread.

Seriously, this blog gets at least twice as many trolls as any other one i go to.
pablo on 11/15 at 02:46 PM

Well, that’s the culture of Pandagon, or so it seems to me anyway in the course of 3 years or so of hanging around here.

“Destroying the thread?” Well, it often does happen that that a troll/anti-troll war gets spun off of some tangent or other, and sometimes these are started by some bit of obvious threadjacking. Or someone gets excited about something not directly germane, with no apparent agenda to shut down the original thread. So what? Obviously those of us who prefer a totally safe venue with nothing but affirmation of what we already agree on have other places to go for that.

In this particular case, as happens sometimes, the troll war seems to me to remain pretty well on the original thread indicated by the starting post. Pam wrote about financial machinations, about which we don’t appear to have much to say, except that yep, the LDS organization spent a lot of money and yep, they are a conservative machine. Pam also wrote about the Mormon ground game, their organized strategy for persuading sufficient numbers of grassroots voters to get out and vote their way, and it seems to me that in arguing with McGreevy we are in fact engaging that mindset. Are we going to persuade him, or the LDS (and Catholic, and other religious, organizers, whom we are sort of ignoring, lurking behind the Mormon monolith) to change their minds? Probably not. What matters is, the millions who are not formally and consistently on their reactionary bandwagon, whom they often successfully and sometimes unsuccessfully entice to their side. By drawing out the McGreevies, we learn or remind ourselves how they think, and this highlights where their common links with those larger numbers of people are most likely to break down. (And vice versa, where what they say, think , and do is mostly likely to resonate, and why.)

Generally speaking, I tend to agree with what Pam, Amanda, Jesse, and Auguste have to say, so unless some troll, or the occasional honest dissenter, or the people in substantial agreement who have some factual point or interesting perspective to interject come along, it gets dull. Sometimes we start interesting sessions of mutual sharing, and then threadjacking and hostile rudeness gets in the way. But by and large, controversy seems to be pretty much the point of reading and commenting here.

I define “winning” as putting my own beliefs to the test and either validating them, or from time to time seeing them evolve under the challenge. The vast majority of Pandagonian trolls and dissenters leave me very comfortable not to be numbered in their company, and that is something.

BTW, somewhere or other the “stick rule” seems to have been defined and agreed upon in re banning trolls, but I must have missed the definition part. What is “the stick?”

Comment #62: Mark Foxwell  on  11/15  at  07:26 PM

”...but I must have missed the definition part. What is “the stick?” “

...you must be smarter than a stick to comment…

Comment #63: MikeEss  on  11/15  at  07:39 PM

It really sucks, but there’s nothing anyone can do about it. For one thing, the laws that grant churches the right to advocate for issues while not affecting their tax exemption also apply to secular non-profits. Revise those laws and non-profit organizations will be adversely affected as well.
keshmeshi on 11/15 at 02:32 PM

Yes, it really is unfortunate that you cannot silence all of your adversaries while allowing your allies freedom to promote your viewpoint. 

How unfair.

Comment #64: Bismarck  on  11/15  at  08:05 PM

Thanks, Bismarck, for demonstrating why we have The Stick Rule around here…

Comment #65: MikeEss  on  11/15  at  08:17 PM

You know why Pandagon gets so many trolls? Because commenters here are so eager to engage them.

Trolls have a certain usefulness, at least for awhile.  Sure, we’re never going to convince them of anything, but this is a public forum.  There may be people reading who agree with them whose beliefs have never been challenged, or who have never given the matter much thought either way.  Within their own bubble, they probably have “questions liberals can’t answer”, or somesuch, arguments that are supposed to be “silver bullets”.  Seeing those arguments answered can be an epiphany, or at least thought-provoking.

A McGreasey is particularly useful, because he puts the lie to the argument “It’s not about hate, it’s about…”  He doesn’t have to go on very long before it becomes very clear that it is about hate, especially when his Infallible Wisdom is challenged.

What’s even more useful is a Dana.  They’re the ones who can actually get through a conversation without throwing homophobic slurs around, and who base their arguments on convincing-sounding legalese.  Our most persuasive and dangerous opponents in other words, the ones we need to hone ourselves for.

Comment #66: Seraph  on  11/15  at  08:41 PM

For one thing, the laws that grant churches the right to advocate for issues while not affecting their tax exemption also apply to secular non-profits.  Revise those laws and non-profit organizations will be adversely affected as well.

Even if that’s the case (and I seem to remember there being some debate about that in another thread), that doesn’t mean we can’t do anything about it.  It means we have to figure out if there’s a way around it - say, by making the revised laws apply only to organizations of a certain size or larger.  Quite frankly, a secular nonprofit as large and influential as a church should probably be watched carefully, too. 

If there is no such way around, we then have to ask ourselves if it’s a tradeoff worth making: churches are very large, very rich organizations.  Worse, they have the ability -  unique among nonprofits - of being able to essentially order their members to vote, donate, and organize in a certain way, on pain of being excommunicated - i.e. being cut off from their social circle in this world, and damned in the next.  As prop H8 demonstrates, that kind of influence can be a huge fist on the scales.  It’s why those laws exist in the first place, and if they need to be revised to keep up with changing times, then that’s what needs to be done.

Comment #67: Seraph  on  11/15  at  08:55 PM

Yes, it really is unfortunate that you cannot silence all of your adversaries while allowing your allies freedom to promote your viewpoint.

1) Churches wouldn’t be “silenced” if they lost their tax-exempt status.  They just wouldn’t be getting a free ride anymore.  If they act like a political action organization instead of a charity, they get taxed like one.  What’s wrong with that? 

2) What makes you think all secular nonprofits are our allies?

Comment #68: Seraph  on  11/15  at  08:59 PM

“1) Churches wouldn’t be “silenced” if they lost their tax-exempt status. They just wouldn’t be getting a free ride anymore. If they act like a political action organization instead of a charity, they get taxed like one. What’s wrong with that?

2) What makes you think all secular nonprofits are our allies?

Seraph on 11/15 at 06:59 PM”

I never said that all secular nonprofits were allies of the movement to redefine marriage, some are.  Some churches are also supporting same sex marriage; they are tax-exempt and I have no objection.

The point that I was making is that keshmeshi was lamenting the fact that penalizing those tax-exempt organizations with whom he/she disagrees entailed penalizing those with whom he/she was in agreement.  I thought that was an unbalanced approach to the free speech issue.

Also, I haven’t noticed any complaints from the Left when tax-exempt churches oppose the death penalty or support gun control.  I have problems with that, but I take my objections to the church not the IRS.

Comment #69: Bismarck  on  11/15  at  09:26 PM

It really sucks, but there’s nothing anyone can do about it.  For one thing, the laws that grant churches the right to advocate for issues while not affecting their tax exemption also apply to secular non-profits.  Revise those laws and non-profit organizations will be adversely affected as well.

Yes, keshmishi, it’s a slippery slope we don’t want to go down, much as it sucks.  If we were successfully able to ban churches from supporting initiatives then they would go after unions and other nonprofits.  Public exposure and protest is our best weapon.

Comment #70: Donna  on  11/15  at  09:30 PM

Excuse me, I shouldn’t have said “ban” them from it.  “Take away their tax exemption” is more accurate.

Comment #71: Donna  on  11/15  at  09:35 PM

The point that I was making is that keshmeshi was lamenting the fact that penalizing those tax-exempt organizations with whom he/she disagrees entailed penalizing those with whom he/she was in agreement.  I thought that was an unbalanced approach to the free speech issue.

Yet another phrase that does not mean what wingnuts seem to think it means.

If people protest outside your church because your church helped to strip them, their friends or loved ones of their rights, your freedom of speech is not being infringed.  If you get fired for calling a college girls’ basketball team “nappy-headed hos”, your freedom of speech is not being infringed.  If you lose your tax-exempt status because your organization has gone from a charity to a political action group, your freedom of speech is not being infringed.  You are free to say whatever you want to say, but you are not guaranteed: 1) Freedom from contradiction; 2) A commercial forum or 3) A free ride from the taxpayers. 

Also, I haven’t noticed any complaints from the Left when tax-exempt churches oppose the death penalty or support gun control.

I’m sure you don’t.  Of course, if a church…are there any liberal churches as big an organized as the LDS?  Anyway…ordered its followers to donate, organize and vote on a specific proposition regarding the death penalty or gun control in the same way as the LDS did on proposition H8, you would be able to make the same case.

By the way, I love how you make opposition to the death penalty or opposition to gun control morally equivalent to opposition to gay marriage.  They’re not. 

I have problems with that, but I take my objections to the church not the IRS.

Which is what we’re doing, with all of the protests and boycotts.  Stripping them of their tax-exempt status would be just, but it’s just not going to happen.  Hopefully this will hurt just as much in the long run.  It seems to be working on El Coyote…

Comment #72: Seraph  on  11/15  at  09:51 PM

Seraph:

Even if that’s the case (and I seem to remember there being some debate about that in another thread), that doesn’t mean we can’t do anything about it.  It means we have to figure out if there’s a way around it - say, by making the revised laws apply only to organizations of a certain size or larger.  Quite frankly, a secular nonprofit as large and influential as a church should probably be watched carefully, too.

If there is no such way around, we then have to ask ourselves if it’s a tradeoff worth making: churches are very large, very rich organizations.  Worse, they have the ability - unique among nonprofits - of being able to essentially order their members to vote, donate, and organize in a certain way, on pain of being excommunicated - i.e. being cut off from their social circle in this world, and damned in the next.  As prop H8 demonstrates, that kind of influence can be a huge fist on the scales.  It’s why those laws exist in the first place, and if they need to be revised to keep up with changing times, then that’s what needs to be done.

(Claps loudly!!!!!)  There is nothing that I can add to this.  Perfect, accurate and worth noting and re-noting.  Donn’s point at 7:30 pm is also worth considering, but is, in fact answered by that portion of Donna’s comment that I have bolded.  UAW and the Cancer Society cannot do these things.  Religion is unique (not least in its power to instill fear and obedience) and the American Constitution recognizes that unique status.  The creation of unique rules to limit people with unique powers who also have unique privileges is not singling out religion for differential treatment; it is merely a recognition of its unique power to command obedience.  If they want to use the power of hell to achieve a political end then fine, but I don’t see why taxpayers should subsidize such an activity.

Comment #73: seeker6079  on  11/15  at  09:58 PM

Yes, keshmishi, it’s a slippery slope we don’t want to go down, much as it sucks.

Again, I’m not so sure.  If the LDS - an organization that has influence not only over its members’ professional and social lives, but the actual fate of their souls (or so they believe) is willing to get so blatantly involved, as an organization, in a political campaign, that’s a very dangerous thing.  The tradeoff might be worth it.

If we were successfully able to ban churches from supporting initiatives then they would go after unions and other nonprofits.

They might try, but they wouldn’t necessarily succeed.  Unions are organized as nonprofits under a different section of law; they can already endorse specific candidates in a way that churches can’t.

Comment #74: Seraph  on  11/15  at  10:05 PM

“Also, I haven’t noticed any complaints from the Left when tax-exempt churches oppose the death penalty or support gun control.  I have problems with that, but I take my objections to the church not the IRS. “

I’ve got no problem with the tax exemption being yanked from liberal churches, too.  But that’s me. 

Where the difference lies, though, Bismarck, is making the requirement for funds and money a specific obligation of the faith in question.  Having a conservative church say that it opposes gay marriage is just fine.  (To be frank, I can’t see how homosexuality can be reconciled with the Letters of St. Paul, but that’s for Christians to worry about, not me.)  Likewise, I’ve got no problem with some liberal church saying that the death penalty is morally wrong and should be stopped.  However, telling people that they’ll go to hell if they don’t cough up the money or the legwork to make sure that gays can’t be married or that the death penalty be banned is where they cross the line into losing their tax exemption.  Not losing their right to participate, or to use all their tithes and loot in support of ensuring that gays never get rings or convicts never get the needle… Just they don’t get a privilege if they choose to do so.

I wonder about size, as others have here.  Liberal churches tend to be smaller, more diffuse and far less organized or wealthy.  I wonder if the “difference in degree is a difference in kind” test applies to such a vast disparity in scale of effort.

Comment #75: seeker6079  on  11/15  at  10:07 PM

Hey, anything that gets MADD’s lying prohibitionist ass out of the public marketsquare is just fine by me/

Comment #76: seeker6079  on  11/15  at  10:29 PM

To the worthy McGreevey, a word of advice:

It is impossible to take anyone seriously who does not know that that plurals are not formed by apostophes.

Comment #77: Ellid  on  11/15  at  11:15 PM

Marriage is not a right under government. Just like driving, it requires a license. The license can be denied to someone who is not fit to be married - for instance, someone who is already married, or (in some states) someone who has certain STDs.

First, can you show how being gay makes a person unfit to be married? I’ve been watching the debate for 30 years now. A lot of people have sai that they have moral objections to gays, but they never say what they are—unless you count picking and choosing 8 obscure passages from the Book of God’s Love which support your human hatred is an exercise in moral philosophy.

Second, why didn’t you include the violent, the sexually abusive, the verbally abusive, and the negligent?

By the way, in Utah Territory from 1850 to 1890, people weren’t denied marriage licenses because they were already married. Did you not grasp that we were talking about Mormons?

Also, in this country, the majority rules. The courts should not override majority rule unless it is clearly unconstitutional.

Where does it say that? The Founding Fathers were very much concerned about “Tyranny of the Majority,” and they took steps to shield the country from tyrannically majoritarian acts.

Besides, there have been so many documented lies by Prop H8 supporters that it doesn’t invite skepticism about the majority’s desires, it calls us to dismiss it rudely.

Does McGreevey Michael have the courage of his convictions to sign the following syllogism:
I lied.
The People fell for it.
Therefore, clinging to the truth is elitism.

If the majority decides that a marriage license does not apply to homosexuals, then it should be the law.

The problem lies in the right to the “pursuit of happiness.” This right is subordinate to the good of the people. (And, it’s not mentioned in the Bill of Rights.) Robbers and burglars are certainly pursuing happiness. But when we catch them, we deprive them of the right of liberty, for the good of the rest of us. You may not pursue happiness if it injures me, and vice versa.

So we have to ask the question if homosexual unions benefit the rest of us.

Well in Ca. Thay said no.

McGreevy Michael

You may wish to read the 9th Amendment: The enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. By saying that the pursuit of happiness is not mentioned in the Constitution is exactly that kind of construction. Now, are you claimin that gays are morally equivalent to robbers and burglars? If we were debating whether left-handed people were to be kept from driving, would you illustrate your point with that comparison?

I seriously doubt that if there was a referendum on an issue that affects you directly; you would hesitate to say that it’s none of the government’s business.

Comment #78: Judge Moonbox  on  11/16  at  01:55 AM

Look, in the next decade or so, this is going to be a non-issue.  Gays will be able to marry (although not in every state, for a while), and anyone with a lick of sense can see it coming.

The other side of that coin is that the people who fought it are going to look like prudes, hatemongers, and bigots. (Or stiffs—a lot of the die-hards are so old that they’re going to do just that.)

The main thing the LDS have accomplished in the long run by this campaign is killing a big piece of the prestige of their own religion. From here on out, there will be increasing numbers of people who, when they hear the word “Mormon,” will think of self-righteous tight-asses who themselves, in a world of poverty, war and disease, could find nothing better to do with their time and money than stick their noses into other people’ bedrooms.

Proselytize that, assholes.

Comment #79: Molly, NYC  on  11/16  at  06:08 AM

The trolls are kind of interesting without the trolls posting here I would be completely unaware of mass ignorance out there with regard to gay issues.

Yeah, they’re kind of a ‘indicator species’.

Comment #80: Eric, Rejector of Memez  on  11/16  at  02:56 PM

I think it’s really sad how so many black people voted yes on 8. It’s like they took a huge step with Obama’s election, and the first thing they did was deny other people their humanity.

Comment #81: Bitter Scribe  on  11/16  at  07:03 PM

McGreasy:

Also, in this country, the majority rules. The courts should not override majority rule unless it is clearly unconstitutional.

Putting aside the inherent lie here which others have already addressed - it is unconstitutional. A ban on same-sex marriage violates the First Amendment, and the Fourteenth via Loving v. Virginia.

Homosexuals do not forgo education and career in order to be a wife and mother.

Slightly shorter you: O noes, redefinition of marriage means I can’t own my wife anymore!

You may notice that this happened before same-sex marriage was legal; also, you may want to seek counseling.

The idea of homosexual couple wanting to imitate and copy heterosexual unions…has led many to acquire children through manipulation of medical science or pressuring adoption agencies. We know, even Rosie Odonnel admits, a mother and a father are what is best for a child, so why then would anyone who wants to love a child as a parent then by force of will rob that child of the opportunity to have what is in his/her best interest?

Hooray, let’s rob children away from widowed or single parents and put them into foster care!

Ntm that you also seem to be advocating for a ban on marriage for elderly, infertile, and childfree couples. Did you mean to do that, or are you just really stupid? (Silly question, I know.)

Comment #82: Rebecca  on  11/16  at  08:45 PM

Jeff Flint, another strategist with Protect Marriage, estimated that Mormons made up 80 percent to 90 percent of the early volunteers who walked door-to-door in election precincts.

One thing I’m curious about.  Mormons comprise barely TWO FUCKING PERCENT of the population in California.  Did they do all that canvassing with Californian Mormons or did they bring in Utah Mormons by the truck load for this?

Because, either way… damn.

Comment #83: anon  on  11/17  at  12:26 PM

There are always Mormons on a missionary trip in cities, big and small, they probably redirected such folks (who are usually young and fairly presentable) to the political door to door work.

Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.