...more proof that there are few of “god’s commandments” the fundnuts (lumping Mormons in with the rest of the religious douchocracy) would be unwilling break if the cause is “important” enough.

And they’ve been the ones loudly decrying “situational ethics” for for as long as I can remember.  It would be far funnier to observe the hypocrisy if they weren’t shafting undeserving targets in the meantime…

You mean the church LIED? Well, I for one am shocked, SHOCKED!

The English have an expression for a person who believes that the Mormon Church spent only $190k on Prop.8: “Pull the other one, it’s got bells on it”.

That’s just the monetary angle.  It’s shameful that there is no way to factor into the equation the amount of unpaid time that was poured in.  Volunteering is one thing.  Doing something because your church - - which holds the power of shunning on this earth and salvation in the next - - tells you to is quite something else.

A company that told three employees “work against prop.8 or be fired” could be charged and/or fined, no?  A church that tells thousands of people “work for prop.8 or be cast out of your family, community and heaven” is immune.

Freedom of religion is wonderful.  Freedom to obtain special immunity from blackmail statutes is quite another.

So, why exactly was the Mormon home invasion ad offensive, then?

“So, why exactly was the Mormon home invasion ad offensive, then?”

...too close to the truth…

Mormon home invasion ad:
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE

Geez…..please stop beating that poor dead horse…...it’s over already…...the people have spoken by their votes!!......GET OVER IT!!!!!!!!!!!

Freedom of religion is wonderful.  Freedom to obtain special immunity from blackmail statutes is quite another.

QFT.

“the people have spoken by their votes!!”

And the church bought those votes with its parishioner’s money.

the people have spoken by their votes

Question for you, cookie: given that it is most emphatically not over, that gay-rights groups will be putting up ballot initiatives in the next election cycle and every cycle thereafter until gay marriage becomes the law in CA (and it will; the margin narrows every time), will you still consider “the people have spoken with their votes” to be a valid argument when that happens?

“will you still consider “the people have spoken with their votes” to be a valid argument when that happens?”

Ooh! Ooh! Can I guess?

the people have spoken by their votes

The only marriage a person has any business having a vote on is their own.  That 52% of California voters decided it was perfectly acceptable to take something valuable away from other people when they themselves would barely notice the difference from their own perspectives.  They decided that a complete stranger’s marital status affected them more than that complete stranger.  This was selfish, senseless, and cruel, to say nothing of in violation of California’s constitution and the concept of equal protection under the law.  The ballot issue at hand did not affect their marriages, and yet they felt it acceptable to step in and overrule the people whom it did affect.

Ditto with the Mormon church.  They have the right to decide for themselves what marriage means in their religion.  No ballot initiative, court decision, or anything else could force them to give gay marriage an equal status in their beliefs with the marriages they do perform.  They get to decide that on their own.  And yet they decided it was important to interfere in what a completely different entity chose to recognize in terms of marriage.

If I were Mormon, then the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints would get a say in who I could or could not marry.  But I am not Mormon.  What they think of my choice of spouse should be completely irrelevant.  Just like I’m not a Playboy Bunny, so I don’t have to ask Hugh Hefner whether he thinks I should get breast implants.

“Geez…..please stop beating that poor dead horse…...it’s over already…...the people have spoken by their votes!!......GET OVER IT!!!!!!!!!!!”

“Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that ruled that people of African descent imported into the United States and held as slaves, or their descendants—whether or not they were slaves—were not legal persons and could never be citizens of the United States, and that the United States Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories.”

And while it wasn’t “the people” who spoke on this, it was a court populated by men who were chosen by the people’s representatives who they did vote for.  It’s probably also safe to say that the court accurately represented the prevailing sentiment of the country at the time.

...but that didn’t mean it was over…as the man who currently occupies the White House demonstrates…

What they think of my choice of spouse should be completely irrelevant.

But that is exactly the point, isn’t it? Their goal is to make perfect strangers act according to their personal beliefs.

Actually, in re. “it’s over”...does anyone know how that lawsuit is going, the one that argues that stripping a civil right away from a minority group is a “revision” to the CA constitution, instead of an “amendment” (which would mean that the H8ers didn’t get enough votes)?

Geez…..please stop beating that poor dead horse…...it’s over already…...the people have spoken by their votes!!......GET OVER IT!!!!!!!!!!!

Ah, nice to see that if you lie to people in order to get their votes, and your lies are exposed after the election, you can still claim that you were only doing “the will of the people.”

Kind of like the Iraq War:  sure, the Bush Administration lied at every turn, but we should stay there indefinitely because, uh ... because I said so, that’s why!

But that is exactly the point, isn’t it? Their goal is to make perfect strangers act according to their personal beliefs.

Ding ding ding.

And exactly why religious beliefs should never be injected into secular law.  I don’t have to join a church, I don’t have to obey its rules… but if they can force me to, then so much the better for them.  Most authoritarian or authoritarian-derived religions operate on the basis of “I do X, therefore you must also”.  Even a lot of “soft” religious types who genuinely believe that they aren’t trying to force people to do X or Y believe in inveigling the state into doing so.  It’s just that they are self-deluded.  They often genuinely don’t think it’s about getting the state to enforce their religion, it’s about “morality” and such like freedom words.

Religious people have to do a serious bit of self-examining.  Thing One that they have to realize is that they are engaging in religion by force through the back door, something that many of them are outwardly against.  Thing Two is to realize that they got a lot of push-back from secularists for just this reason; we’re not immoral, we merely see their actions for what they are.  Thing Three is to examine why they are often so quick to assert that secularists are trying to “foist their views” on the religious when in fact they are merely trying to keep the secular and religious domains separate: it’s projection.  They fear that we will do it

Regarding that last mentioned, I genuinely wonder whether any large religion can be trusted with that power.  There’s a reason that they Lord’s Prayer has the line, “lead us not into temptation”: most people can’t be trusted with the temptation of that which they want most.  And religions want everybody to follow the same path to promised salvation.  Give them the power to make secular laws confirm to their religious ideation and they—like a compulsive kleptomaniac with an unattended item—will grab for it every time.

Deep down, they know they will constantly seek to expand, and abuse (they think “use”) their power every chance they get.  That’s why they have such a hard time believing that secularists won’t.

If the people of CA or any state choose to define marriage as YOU want it to be defined, then fine, that’s what the voters choose, then so be it.  Would it suprise me if CA voters revoted and the definition changed, NOT AT ALL. I am so so suprised that Prop 8 passed in CA to start.  But the truth of the matter is and YOU seem to ignore it, the vast vast majority of Americans believe that marriage is between a man and woman.  And a side note, it is outrageous and offensive and down right PATHETIC to compare the civil rights struggles of African Americans to the LGBT movement.

cookie, understanding civil rights is fairly simply, once you strip away all the nonsense.

Everybody adult in the society is entitled to all of their civil rights, period.  Those civil rights can be taken away only in limited circumstances such as the commission of a crime.  “I don’t agree with them!” is not a valid ground for the termination of a civil right.

Marriage is a civil right, period.  The state can set the parameters of access to that right, but it can’t arbitrarily state that person x gets it and person y doesn’t.  The right to bear arms, for example, can’t be limited to, say, women only, under the Second Amendment and Heller.  A basic civil right simply is. 

And, no, it’s not an insult vis-a-vis the civil rights comparison.  If you disagree then I suggest that before you answer me or anybody else on this thread you should go read Loving v. Virgina.  The quote most often used is the most illustrative one:

  Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

The CAPITALS denoting yelling on your post are pretty much a dead giveaway that you are approaching this emotionally and not rationally.  Just because fags piss you off doesn’t mean that they magically lose their civil liberties.

Insofar as the church hierarchy caused people to spend money putting them up, driving them around and so forth, they’re also parties to a failure to report in-kind contributions. Whee.

What I don’t understand is why they thought it was worthwhile lying about this—so easy to get caught, and the bigger number doesn’t really surprise anyone. Perhaps, as with the Bush administration or the catholic church, it’s just something white men of a certain age do automatically when faced with trouble.

“What I don’t understand is why they thought it was worthwhile lying about this…”

Simple, Paul.  They don’t think that you’re entitled to the truth.  It’s a side-effect of moral righteousness and a sense of superiority.  They don’t think that laws like that apply to them, so why obey them?

“What I don’t understand is why they thought it was worthwhile lying about this…”

...when Jesus tells you to break a commandment, it’s not illegal…and they believe the end (making sure some segment of society remains less than fully human as far as the law is concerned) justifies the means…

I’d like somebody to explain, once and for all (honestly, without quoting bible verses, papal mutterings, or the ignorant rantings of some deranged member of the religious douchocracy), why allowing gay people full rights is a threat to society, given that Canada, for example, has not turned into a savage wasteland of barbarism from one coast to the other, despite gay marriage being legal.  And as far as I know Massachusetts hasn’t slid into the sea either.

I’d ask cookie, but I don’t think he’s capable of anything more than mindlessly repeating wingnut talking points…and finding new ways to defend the use of tasers…

But the truth of the matter is and YOU seem to ignore it, the vast vast majority of Americans believe that marriage is between a man and woman.

How can we ignore it?  That majority is enforcing their beliefs on us, our friends, and our loved ones as law. 

For now. 

There was a time when marriage was defined - in many states - as between a man and a woman…of the same race only.  There was a time when marriage meant that a man could legally rape his wife, that there was essentially no recourse if he beat her, and that any property (including wages earned and inheritances) became his.  All of those things changed.  This will, too.  It already is. 

All of which is beside the point. 

The fact that the majority of Americans believe that marriage is between a man and a woman Does.  Not.  Matter.

There is no reason that that majority’s beliefs should determine a minority’s rights.  That’s something you seem to ignore.  This country was never intended to be an absolute democracy.  The Constitution - and many lesser laws - are in place to protect minorites from the tyranny of the majority.  The fact that LGBT citizens are currently unprotected is a bug, not a feature. 

And a side note, it is outrageous and offensive and down right PATHETIC to compare the civil rights struggles of African Americans to the LGBT movement.

*Shrug*

Just because you say it doesn’t make it so, cookie.  A majority is depriving a minority of rights that the majority enjoys not because the minority (or the rights) are any threat, but simply because the majority is biased against the minority.  What other comparison needs to be made? 

Before you even try:

Common bullshit argument number 1: Homosexuality is a choice!  Race is not.

Untrue, but beside the point.  It’s also wrong - and illegal - to discriminate against religious groups, and religion is far more of a choice than sexual orientation.

Common bullshit argument number 2: African Americans couldn’t hide their differences from the persecuting majority.  Gays can.

There were and are African Americans who can pass for white.  Those who did often lived miserable lives, afraid someone would discover their secret.  The same holds true for gays who try to hide who they are - see Ted Haggard for “Exhibit A” of repression causing unhealthy acting-out.

No one should have to hide.

Here’s what I think, cookie: you’re well aware that those who fought against “the civil rights struggles of African Americans” were bigots.  And if the LGBT movement is anything like “the civil rights struggles of African Americans”, then those who resist it are bigots as well.  And you’re no bigot just because you want to keep gays in their place, dammit! 

Sorry, but you are.

But seeker, why do it when the truth is less damaging than the exposed lie? It’s like watching a little kid tell the story of how a lamp got broken.

paul, haven’t you ever told a lie to some snotnose who asked you a goddamned impertinent personal question?  You’re pissed because they presume to ask you something that they have no business asking you. Lying to them is easier than saying, “you arrogant little snot, you are not entitled to ask that” and then explaining why when that person gets all huffy and defensive.  Entitled people and entitled organizations treat the law like such an impertinent questioner. 

Part of it also may be clueless arrogance regarding use of “one’s own” resources.  One sees it all the time in political campaigns where a donor uses their staff, or photocopy machines, or whatever “off the books” in a genuine belief that since it’s “their” money and in-kind they don’t have to report it.  In the case of the Mormons and the RCs, though, it has to be deliberate.  These are multibillion dollar organizations with enough lawyers to do Hands Across America.  They must know that it’s verboten but do it anyway.

“Those who did often lived miserable lives, afraid someone would discover their secret.”

...for people like cookie, causing misery for whole groups of people is a feature, not a bug. 

They live in a world where some people are allowed happiness and others are not.  Gay people are not allowed to be happy, therefore you must do everything possible, up to and including murder, if they won’t follow orders and crawl back into the closet and shut the door behind them.  And somehow this keeps the universe in balance, or some such illogical metaphysical bullshit…

But the truth of the matter is and YOU seem to ignore it, the vast vast majority of Americans believe that marriage is between a man and woman.

53 percent is a “vast vast majority”?

I am talking about the entire US not just CA…....you assclown…....spin it anyway you want….you know I’m right!!

cookie, I think I speak for everyone when I say, “Shove it up your ass.”

“They live in a world where some people are allowed happiness and others are not.  Gay people are not allowed to be happy”

Word, MikeEss, but you are forgetting one thing unique to cookie: when people push back against being unjustly treated like shit then he is allowed to taze them.  Win-win, as far as he’s concerned.

I am talking about the entire US not just CA…....you assclown…....spin it anyway you want….you know I’m right!!

cookie, it generally comes down to about 55% in favour of bigots like yourself in the mainstream national polls as well (see these numbers, for example), and that’s only when the inexact term “marriage” (which some people define by religious authority, some by legal authority, some by both) is used. Add in the choice of civil unions (i.e. the package of legal benefits accruing from what the state now calls “marriage”), and the split goes roughly 33% in each category.

But sticking with only “marriage” (to help you out), 6 points is a mighty thin margin, especially since it seems to be deteriorating with every polling cycle, and every time a formerly “unsure” respondent (around 6%) discovers that GLBT people aren’t flaming demons intent on sucking your cock, but instead are beloved family members, trusted friends, and valuable co-workers.

In short, the only “assclown” here trying to spin away the inconvenient numbers is the one who knows his side is losing. So enjoy these Amercian versions of the Nuremberg Laws (also promulgated by a democratically elected government, BTW) while you can, cookie—it’s not only GLBT Americans who don’t like discrimination against certain classes of law-abiding citizen, and in 4 years they’ll all show up at the polls to make sure you understand that.

I am talking about the entire US not just CA…....you assclown.......spin it anyway you want….you know I’m right!!

Seriously? Do we let people throw this around now?

Seraph: I believe the CA Supreme Court is going to hear arguments in the case next month.

Cookie: The poll MikeEss linked is national, “you assclown”.

The Other Will:
fwiw, “assclown” seems to be sex-pref neutral: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=assclown

People gave up on cookie long ago.  They don’t expect coherence or rationality from him; they just use his frothing anger as a means of putting forward points that need to be heard but which he’s not really capable of or interested in grasping.  He makes Cartman’s Respect Mah Autori-tah! persona look ACLU by comparison.

Posts on tasers and black people seem to call to cookie.

Anyone else making the same connection I am . . . ?