27 responses so far ↓

• 1 Abelard // Oct 16, 2008 at 9:36 am

  the Church is prepared to shut down all of the temples here

  I think Sharon should have her temple recommend taken away - for being so stupid!

• 2 Kengo Biddles // Oct 16, 2008 at 11:27 am

  Sharon must be horribly misinformed.

  Not only do the LDS temples continue to function in nations such as Canada, but all the Scandinavian Temples, too…and they’ve recently (last 10 years) built 2 more (Denmark, Helsinki)

  It sickens me that people let themselves be so misinformed, rather than coming to the truth–that they would rather say “Oh, my pastor/priest/bishop/stake president/pope/prophet said something so I must BLINDLY believe it to be true.”

  I’m sorry you’re dealing with all this, Scot–I hope it blows over–but if your family drops connection with Sharon and those who are so stupid–is that a bad thing?

• 3 Julie // Oct 16, 2008 at 1:51 pm

  Gosh - I’m LDS, and I’m very involved in the YES ON 8 campaign, but I’ve never seen such a letter. That’s quite a surprise.

  I won’t go so far as to call this a trick of the NO ON 8 campaign, like THEY did when a Modesto man was brutally and violently attacked, requiring 16 stitches to his face, as he was taking YES ON 8 yard signs from a Catholic Church to his truck to distribute them.

  I won’t say this letter is made up, but it is horribly incorrect.

  For example - we ALL KNOW, don’t we, from the media and blogs that it’s JUST Mormons who are donating, JUST Mormons who are working on YES ON 8 campaign at the grassroots level. It’s JUST Mormons who make phone calls, and put out yard signs, and show their bigotry, isn’t it? And yet here, this letter states that someone in authority in the LDS church claims he is offended at the lack of action on the part of too many Mormons.

  Oh yeah - it wasn’t a Mormon who was attacked in a Catholic Church parking lot in Modesto as he was working on the YES ON PROP 8.

  So which is true? Which is false? You can’t have it both ways.

• 4 FlaNative // Oct 16, 2008 at 8:55 pm

  Julie nailed it on the head. Sorry, ISO, this doesn’t pass the sniff test. I haven’t seen or heard of this and as a Prop 8′r, I would have seen it by now.

  What many of us are furious about (besides Gavin Newsom’s arrogance) is the legal issue of the judges overturning our vote in 2000. I have to go with Newt and his You Tube Video on why we should place this into our constitution.

  Thanks,
  http://standingfortruth2008.wordpress.com/

• 5 Scot // Oct 17, 2008 at 7:51 am

  Kengo “is that a bad thing?”

  Ah, Kengo, it depends, I guess, on who it is. We can afford to miss a 2nd cousin once removed (which the guy who forwarded this letter to my brother is :-)), but I was nervous the other night when I had to ask my father in-law what he had done with regards to prop 8. If this got between him and us, that would be tough to handle for us and, most importantly, our kids. Yet, I still feel I have to protect our home and find out. At least there’s still two grandpas in our life but who knows how this will spread into the rest of our family?

• 6 Scot // Oct 17, 2008 at 8:23 am

  Julie

  There’s more to this letter than I posted here. My personal blog explains some more. It would kind of be funny if this was a fake letter as I know it’s riling up many pro-prop 8 LDS in my sphere, and they are spreading it vigorously in these parts. The email debate in its wake has spread through my family. Even if it was fake, it’s still being used to spread lies in the pro-prop 8 camp.

  Re: “a Modesto man”. If that happened, that’s horrible (do you have a reference?). You don’t really want to compare cuts and bruises with the gay community, though, do you? If we tally up all the beatings, and deaths and we can really blame them on “THEY” you’d have a lot of blood on your hands. But I can’t blame you for that. I can only blame you for what you do.

  But still, you are out to legally harm the most important thing in my life. No one should be beaten for their faith, sexual orientation, race, or so on, but no one should treated like a second class citizen either. If some one on your side was treated with such grave injustice; that’s not a pass to do even a lesser injustice, right?

  “And yet here, this letter states that someone in authority in the LDS church claims he is offended at the lack of action on the part of too many Mormons.”

  I’m not following you here. Because other non-LDS people fight to take equal legal status from our families, it follows that it’s unreasonable for a stake president to bemoan a perceived lack of action in his area? There are many LDS who disagree with the church here, you know? If there was no reason to prod them, why did the LDS leadership call this one of the most important tasks at hand, and calling so many to action?

  “So which is true? Which is false? You can’t have it both ways.”

  Again, I’m sorry; I’m not sure what your question is here.

  Regarding the rest of the letter, though; it’s not too far from what the LDS church has officially stated. It’s just not as PC or as savvy as the church. For example, they claimed different “marital options” are the work of Satan when discussing “defense” on man-woman marriage, and spread fear that their religious rights would be lost by using, for example, the Boston Adoption case.

  I am glad, though, that you’re first reaction is that “it is horribly incorrect”, but wonder what your reasons are then?

• 7 Scot // Oct 17, 2008 at 8:31 am

  FlaNative

  “What many of us are furious about (besides Gavin Newsom’s arrogance) is the legal issue of the judges overturning our vote in 2000.”

  I have a hard time understanding this one, FlaNative. You’re going to punish me, my husband,and my kids for the arrogance of one man and a couple Judges who don’t even benefit from equal rights for our families? Some sort of revenge against a handful of people is an excuse to break the Golden Rule and do to thousands of families what you’d never want done to yours?

  In the Ca constitution you have a guarantee of equal rights for all citizens, regardless of sexual anatomy. The people put that great ethic there and that is what the judges were following, your constitution. The people’s voice in the constitution is weightier than that in regular law, right? It should be a sad day for all when that ethic of all created equal is demoted in any constitution and a measure of the anatomy of one person in our home can have such damaging effect for us all. I hope you can reconsider.

• 8 Craig // Oct 17, 2008 at 11:21 am

  I do find the many many parallels between the church’s treatment of homosexuality and past treatment of blacks to be incredibly ironic. Ironic because the church refuses to see any parallels at all, period.

  Julie, your language was very inflammatory and rather offensive. There are better ways to say what you were saying than maligning entire groups of people.

  FlaNative,

  I truly don’t think Newsom’s (a wonderful ally) “arrogance” is any worse than say, Martin Luther King Jr., or any of those who fought to end segregation and have true equality for all. The true arrogance is yours and those like you who think that just because you’re in the majority (white, christian, straight) others you don’t like or agree with shouldn’t have equal rights. Your arrogance is so much greater than someone who joyfully proclaims an event that signalled greater freedom and equality for all Americans.

  We’re not going away, and the fact that you think that we gays are being uppity for demanding equal treatment and equal rights is absolutely disgusting.

  The judges overturned your vote (just as they did in Brown v. Board of Education) because the vote was discriminatory and wrong. They were not “activist judges” (they were mostly Republican) and they were not “legislating from the bench”. They were doing their constitutional mandated job, and it scares me that so many Americans (the administration included) doesn’t seem to understand that. Judges, and courts are there to interpreted the law, and make sure it jives with the constitution. In this case (as with B v BOE) it did not and was therefore an invalid law, regardless of how many people liked it. This whole process is part of what it means to be a citizen of the US, and is there for an important reason - to keep the majority from trampling all over the rights of the minorities. If not for this check against the power of the masses, would blacks ever have gotten their rights? Would women? Would I ever get equal treatment? It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to discriminate (in CA, MA, and CT) and that you want to enshrine discrimination in your constitution to be very, very dangerous, not just to me as a gay man, but to all people, including yourself. If just for your own well-being you should vote against Prop 8.

  What so many who support Prop 8 fail to realise is that passing prop 8 won’t make us go away. In reality, none of the arguments that those who support Prop 8 are coming up with now have anything at all to do either with gay marriage or Prop 8 (which is just about marriage and nothing else).

  It is all just lies and scare tactics.

  Gay people (married or not) have children. Those children go to school. Those children talk with other children. It will be clear to those other children that their friend has two male parents or two female. Without any intervention on the part of ANY adult, children ARE LEARNING about gay relationships in their everyday, unavoidable situations.

  There is no way to prevent children from learning about homosexuality, and it is the responsibility of public schools to serve the needs of ALL students and families, that means being neutral, and simply present the facts that there are many types of families and that all children have the right to equal treatment.

  I seem to be quoting this a lot lately, but it is so applicable:

  “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

  - Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence

• 9 Guy // Oct 18, 2008 at 2:45 am

  Oh, boy. I’ve been meaning to comment on your other blog for sometime and just started reading isocrat more, too, but now I’ll more than make up for not commenting, in sheer volume tonight, I fear! I read your post on Utahcog yesterday and the first bit of this post, then just read the rest tonight. It’s so very relevant! I hadn’t been back to finish reading as I’d been totally absorbed in every free moment today writing and calling family members around this issue, with mixed results. Yesterday I saw something disturbing on Facebook (much of my family has recently started using it and it’s been nice, mostly, to stay better in touch, though I now know more about some of their lives than I necessarily cared to). Case in point: I saw on Facebook that my brother joined a Family Research Council group “Protecting Marriage, One Man, One Woman”, as soon as he started on Facebook this week. Living in California, planning our wedding next week, being very involved in this campaign and dealing with people constantly around this issue, when I saw what he’d done, I’d had enough already! I immediately posted a comment on Facebook in response to his joining. He posted back, then my partner/soon to be husband (got to get used to calling him that!) also commented (who had coincidentally also just posted a long, related post on his blog, http://www.lathefamily.org, which I just noticed is linked to here, Daddy, Papa and Me). My brother didn’t care for my partner’s post, which also mentions this situation, and responded by removing him as a friend on Facebook (seems kind of like the kids’ “your’e not my friend anymore!”). I need to remind him again to link to your great blogs, if he’s forgotten again. Anyway, when I got home later last evening, I read their posts and knew “the proverbial shit had or would very soon the fan” in my family! Yikes. Consequently, like tonight, I couldn’t sleep, so got up and wrote this letter to him, on Facebook so that his kids, their friends and my extended family, etc. if they wanted could also read it and ponder the issues at hand, hearing about Prop 8 from my perspective rather than just from the Church’s (or Sean Hannity or Dr Laura or Rush Limbaugh, in the likely case of this one brother and his wife, with 7 kids, some of who followed up my long letter with joining the same One Man, One Woman group, by the way. Ugh! On the bright side, I had several great comments, emails and conversations with supportive nieces from another brother today, as well as parents and some other family. At least I now know where we stand and who supports us and who doesn’t. Anyway, if anyone is interested in my rambling points thought up during the long night, I’ll post it below (also want to give you credit for the heads up on the closing temple chain letter, though I hadn’t yet read the horrific Mark E Peterson talk, but happened to run across the same speech today while googling LDS interracial marriage. Reading it made me ill! But then had to laugh when I saw it on your post tonight. Anyway, for what it’s worth, my long, rambling letter (for which I’ve not yet received a response from my brother, only from others):

  After Emma and I got home last night, I wasn’t feeling well (besides my lingering cold, my crazy skin thing I picked up in Nigeria has returned again with a vengeance and itches like crazy) and was too tired to read and respond to yours and Trey’s posts, so ate late then went to bed early, but kept waking up and thinking about the posts I’d just read and knew I had to get up in the night to respond. I did, but accidentally deleted the whole thing, so will try to write something again before Emma and I head to school, if possible, or finish if I can find time later today. First off, I do need to correct something Trey wrote as I’m honestly not all that “hurt’ by you as he said (I’m really NOT that fragile!), but I am very frustrated by this whole situation with the proposition and the weeks and months of seemingly constant barrage of efforts to take marriage from us: in the media, chain letter emails with ridiculous claims (”LDS temples will have to close if Prop 8 loses!”) and wherever we go, it seems (especially difficult when it’s from the church and friends and even some family) after all these years of efforts to finally be able to be actually, legally married. It’s a lifetime commitment, with all the rights and responsibilities, that we’ve always dreamed of and worked toward. Like so many people, gay and straight.

  You know, D—, I think both Trey and I hit a wall yesterday when the dam of pent up emotion finally broke, we’d both hit our breaking points, had had enough of dealing with all this Prop 8 stuff , among other things, in the midst of preparing for and looking forward to our first LEGAL wedding. We each finally, independently, just had to vent and express our frustrations–and I think we both tend to do that by writing. You just happened to get the brunt of mine as your joining the “one man, one woman” group was the proverbial straw, I guess. I’m sorry if I over reacted or offended you, but it really touched a nerve after all we’ve been through. We were both venting/writing late yesterday afternoon before either of us knew the other had; he was apparently writing a post in his office between calls while I was starting a response to you between working with someone here on taxes, with someone else on re-siding (or it that re-fronting? the front of our house and my running errands. Anyway, we both would love to not have to hear another word about Prop 8 until the election is over, but unfortunately, we fear now that we’re about to lose our very possibly last chance for marriage and know, as much as we’d like not to, that we must “do all we can do”, to quote church leaders, to get more involved to protect our marriage–before it’s taken from us and other families with precious children we know and love (and many thousands we don’t know).

  You asked what made me think you’d changed your mind about same sex marriage rights. I hadn’t really, but I guess I’d hoped that having someone close to you, in your own family, might eventually help you thoughtfully reconsider your position more closely. To at least question the blanket statements of church leaders and right wing pundits and think twice about not only buying into the idea that it’s wrong to allow us marriage or that we’re threatening your marriage, but, more importantly, about not openly supporting the crusade to stop recognition of our marriages in the state of California. You know this, but even if we are able to keep marriage beyond Election Day, we’ll still have only a fraction of the many hundred legal rights you have by virtue of your marriage being recognized federally, as the state can only offer us limited, yet very important rights straight couples may take for granted. Although I’ve been accused of being an eternal optimist, I’ll try to never again hope or expect you (or the church we’ve loved for many reasons) to change. You’ve told me each time we’ve discussed this that you oppose it because “the prophet and church leaders say it’s wrong”. Sadly, I don’t believe enough of the leaders are concerned enough about us or our families to make the effort to get to know us enough to understand the issues (let alone the damage done as a result of their policies, like, among many others, aversion therapy for Trey and countless others at BYU trying desperately to change). So the leaders aren’t likely to change, at least not the current generation. God’s not likely to give any more answers until the vessel is ready to accept–or however the expression goes, I forget. Yes, I had naively hoped more people would start to rethink, study and form their own opinions on this, and maybe you have, but it seems many church members never question. I sometimes ponder what ever happened to “teach them good principles and let them govern themselves”?

  As I lay awake last night, I somehow thought of our Grandma Berryessa, born of polygamous parents who were living the form of marriage popular in the church at that time, though, much like gay marriage in our day, very unpopular in the culture and society in the country at large (and illegal). When the church finally denounced plural marriage, under intense political pressure and in order to becomes a state rather than remain a territory, the church established places, colonies for those families to continue to live and honor their commitments to one another, in Mexico and in Canada, because they could no longer practice their marriages in the US. That’s why Dad was born in Canada. I imagine their children from these marriages, like our Grandma, suffered because their parents’ marriages, completely sanctioned by the church at the time, were no longer allowed. The church strongly resisted and didn’t want those unusual, illegal marriages to not be recognized, I’m sure, but they’re working hard to revoke our now legal same gender marriages here in California today, because they’re not “one man, one woman” much like our great-grandparents weren’t. I wish the church would’ve at least backed off this time and allowed us two areas or “colonies” for our marriages, California and Massachusetts, but they’re doing all they can to prevent that. Civil union is NOT the same. Separate is not equal, just ask anyone forced to use the drinking fountains, hotels, etc. for “Coloreds” not so long ago. Sorry, now back to topic, in fact, even today, the church essentially practices plural marriage, only not between more than two living parties. Our grandfather, I believe, and many others, including at least one current apostle I’m aware of, Russell Nelson, are sealed in marriage to more than one wife, presumably having multiple wives in the hereafter. So, just as a reminder, marriage has not been and is not even today a tradition for “one man, one woman” in much of the world (besides fundamentalist communities, some near you, large portions of the earth’s population are allowed still today to practice plural marriage, including where I lived, even in a Christian region of Nigeria, besides many other countries). That doesn’t make it ‘right’, of course, but it’s wrong to claim that there is only the tradition of one man, one woman in marriage. Marriage has evolved in many forms over time and it wasn’t long ago even in our society that marriage was primarily about property (and still is in some other places) and women were essentially property of their husbands (glad that’s not true here now, aren’t you Trudy?!). In a number of cultures even today, marriages are still arranged by the parents and/or involve how much the bride’s family can pay, in essence, for the bride to marry into the groom’s family. And it was only in our lifetimes, for example, that marrying someone of another race has finally been made legal in this country. Church leaders were opposed to that, as well. Do you still think that they were right in that opposition, (because ‘you can’t question church leaders’)? I’ll share some short quotes with you if I can find them quickly:

  Well, I can’t quickly find the quotes I was looking for, but I just ran across this and it’ll have to suffice as one example, as I don’t have time to search further. This is from an apostle I remember well from my childhood, Elder Mark E. Peterson. I’m so grateful our daughter Emma didn’t live 50 years ago. I see enough painful discrimination now, I can’t imagine her living through it then, black and female. It’s long and shocking, but it gives you an idea of the position on interracial marriage just half a century ago. Read it (now or later) and ask yourself if you honestly think such opposition to interracial marriage and view of Blacks was divinely inspired. I hope someday most people, our descendants, at least, will look back at some of the harsh language around Prop 8 with the same bewilderment as I felt when I read this just now. By the way, some of the argument sounds eerily familiar:
  —————————————————————————————————————-
  Elder MARK E. PETERSON

  Race Problems — As They Affect The Church
  Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level,
  Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954.

  “God has commanded Israel not to intermarry. To go against this commandment of God would be in sin. Those who willfully sin with their eyes open to this wrong will not be surprised to find that they will be separated from the presence of God in the world to come. This is spiritual death….

  The reason that one would lose his blessings by marrying a Negro is due to the restriction placed upon them. “No person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood” (Brigham Young). It does not matter if they are one-sixth Negro or one-hundred and sixth, the curse of no Priesthood is the same. If an individual who is entitled to the Priesthood marries a Negro, the Lord has decreed that only spirits who are not eligible for the Priesthood will come to that marriage as children. To intermarry with a Negro is to forfeit a “Nation of Priesthood holders”….

  The discussion on civil rights, especially over the last 20 years, has drawn some very sharp lines. It has blinded the thinking of some of our own people, I believe. They have allowed their political affiliations to color their thinking to some extent, and then, of course, they have been persuaded by some of the arguments that have been put forth….We who teach in the Church certainly must have our feet on the ground and not to be led astray by the philosophies of men on this subject….

  I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the Negro is after. He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn’t just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn’t that he just desires to go to the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the Negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feelings to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for Negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, “First we pity, then endure, then embrace”….

  Now let’s talk about segregation again for a few moments. Was segregation a wrong principle? When the Lord chose the nations to which the spirits were to come, determining that some would be Japanese and some would be Chinese and some Negroes and some Americans, He engaged in an act of segregation….

  When he told Enoch not preach the gospel to the descendants of Cain who were black, the Lord engaged in segregation. When He cursed the descendants of Cain as to the Priesthood, He engaged in segregation….

  Who placed the Negroes originally in darkest Africa? Was it some man, or was it God? And when He placed them there, He segregated them….

  The Lord segregated the people both as to blood and place of residence. At least in the cases of the Lamanites and the Negro we have the definite word of the Lord Himself that he placed a dark skin upon them as a curse — as a punishment and as a sign to all others. He forbade intermarriage with them under threat of extension of the curse. And He certainly segregated the descendants of Cain when He cursed the Negro as to the Priesthood, and drew an absolute line. You may even say He dropped an Iron curtain there….

  Now we are generous with the Negro. We are willing that the Negro have the highest education. I would be willing to let every Negro drive a Cadillac if they could afford it. I would be willing that they have all the advantages they can get out of life in the world. But let them enjoy these things among themselves. I think the Lord segregated the Negro and who is man to change that segregation? It reminds me of the scripture on marriage, “what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” Only here we have the reverse of the thing — what God hath separated, let not man bring together again.”

  Think of the Negro, cursed as to the priesthood…. This Negro, who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the Lord in sending him to the earth in their lineage of Cain with a black skin, and possibly being born in darkest Africa–if that Negro is willing when he hears the gospel to accept it, he may have many of the blessings of the gospel. In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory. ”
  —————————————————————————————————————

  Other thoughts I had as I lay awake:

  As always, but perhaps even more in our modern US society, many (straight) couples live together without marriage, many have intimate relations and even procreate without or before being married, many married individuals commit adultery and many couples divorce and remarry (we all know a lot of those). Yet, I don’t see any all-out campaigns for dealing with or outlawing any of those issues, do you? I also don’t see much push to enforce current laws against polygamy, either. Has the church ever asked its members to do “all they can” to stop any of these from happening? No, only to eliminate the possibility of marriage for a group who has never had it, yet many of whom desperately want and greatly value marriage. It seems to me that cannot honestly harm existing marriages or the institution of marriage, but, if anything, could only serve to, if anything, strengthen marriages, to see people who very much are willing and pleading for the right to be allowed to enter into the bonds of marriage and the accompanying commitments and responsibilities, along with finally having the rights, recognition and legal protections for their families that accompany it.

  Other than from those who say allowing marriage for families like our is the biggest threat, I’ve heard it also said that divorce is the greatest threat to marriage.
  Now, let’s suppose that there were a constitutional amendment being voted on that would forbid marriage for anyone who had been married before and divorced. Many people, many strict Catholics included, if my memory serves me correctly, do not believe it is right to divorce and marry a second time–that divorce may not be recognized as valid and remarriage after divorce is wrong. So, let’s say those people were able to push through an amendment to be voted on in an election, to change the constitution to permanently prohibit any divorced person from ever marrying–and perhaps to nullify the existing marriages and deny the children of those existing marriages the accompanying rights and benefits of people who had been divorced before (like both you and T—-, for example). Do you think I would fight for your rights to marry/remain married, no matter what the position of ANY church? Of course I would. Would I join a group whose purpose is primarily to prevent such marriages, your marriage? I would not. No way.

  One last thing, you again mentioned disagreeing with our “lifestyle”—so I’ll ask one more time (I think you’ve brought this up every time this discussion has come up over the years)—just what lifestyle is that? What do you think our lifestyle is, that you so disapprove of? How is it different from your own? I believe our lifestyle–or life–revolves around much the same things as yours or any loving family, active Mormon or otherwise (except, so far, we’re not as much into sports as yours or many are, since Trey and I were such sissies! :), Besides work, of course, our lives revolve around kids–various activities such as soccer, chorus, swim lessons, dance classes, tutoring, playdates, and school (we’re heavily involved there), about the only thing I can think of that differs it’s that the Christian church we attend is not the same, but rather than one that doesn’t want us and thinks we’re a huge threat, apparently, is one that welcomes and honors all types of families and wouldn’t think of organizing a campaign to direct its members to do all they can to pass a constitutional amendment to permanently reverse a long and hard fought law allowing marriage for and benefiting families that have long been denied protection and legal recognition –and was passed by mostly Republican judges, by the way (after legislation granting us marriage rights was twice vetoed by our governor). To be frank, about the only other difference in our lives that I can possibly see is that, in those really rare moments of intimacy, all our body parts match, so to speak. Is that the real issue here? If so, I don’t think that has anything to do with ‘lifestyle’!

  Sorry to be extremely verbose and redundant, but thanks for at least reading this far. You know, D—, I too love and respect you for many of the things you are, do and have done in your life, not the least of which is raise some beautiful children whom I wish we could better know. I hope and pray that ALL of us may find love, peace, and joy (and legal recognition and protection) for our families and in our marriages. Until Election Day and well beyond. God bless, Guy

• 10 Scot // Oct 18, 2008 at 6:58 am

  Alas Craig, I fear they may have been hit and run comments :-).

  “What so many who support Prop 8 fail to realise is that passing prop 8 won’t make us go away.”

  Exactly; if they don’t want their kids to be “taught homosexuality” (aka: learn we exist, are the parents of their peers, and that they all still have to behave civilly) they’ll need a much more draconian Proposition.

  (Speaking of fear mongering ;-))

• 11 Scot // Oct 18, 2008 at 7:04 am

  Oh Guy, I know exactly how you feel. You make some great point and I hope they don’t fall of deaf ears with your brother.

  I read the last post on your family’s blog yesterday and can certainly sympathize with that as well. I just wish you all lived nearer and we could all get together and commiserate while the kids went wild.

  And, welcome! I’m glad to see you here and for your well put of words, even in volume

• 12 Scot // Oct 18, 2008 at 12:57 pm

  This was a tricky judgment call (we need to figure out how we should handle such letters). I just got a comment here in need of okay,but it’s highly inflamatory, and links to a blog with a pornographic image on the top page, which i guess is either meant to express dislike for McCain’s “tolerance” of gays or make gay men straight.

  However, I’d rather make a mistake on the side of free speech here.

  I’ll post the comment without the hyperlinks. You can copy them into your browser if you want (replace the ~ with a . to make it work), but I don’t want to have links to such without a not-safe-for work warning. Consider yourself warned:

  From Robert:
  ——————————-
  NOTE TO CHRISTIANS!

  DO NOT SUPPORT PROP 8.

  VOTE NO ON 8.

  PROP 8 IS A TRICK BEING USED BY THE MORMON “CHURCH” TO GAIN CREDIBILITY.

  THEY ARE NOT CHRISTIANS.

  http://www.talkjesus.com/bible-study-hall/23928-christian-doctrine-mormon-doctrine~html

  THEY WANT TO TAKE OVER THE NATION.

  (SEE THE WAR ON SAVINGS) http://waronsavings.blogspot~com/

  ——————————————-

  Now, as to the content of the letter. What religion doesn’t want to take over? If you think you’ve got the one truth, you’d be a jerk to not want others to share it, right? That’s the problem.

  Some definitions of ‘christian’ can be found here. Don’t you think you could find one of them that would fit both you and a LDS?

  And why “church”? Looking at the definition again, you have to at least give them that.

  And the caps lock is typically right next to the ‘A’.

  I think there is a point in Robert’s comment though, one that I know some friends who are LDS have been worrying about. Just like the gays, the LDS are sticking their necks out here, and showing the power of a church with a centralized leadership. It does ingratiate them to many other Christians, but those same Christians will fight back if it seems the LDS are taking popularity. Simply, not only the gay community is taking notice.

• 13 MORMON // Oct 21, 2008 at 5:11 pm

  Robert you suck. I am mormon a convert and very much a CHRISTIAN. You are a bigot screw you. I am so sick of people like you making up lies and bullshit that is not true.

  Kiss my ass

• 14 Scot // Oct 22, 2008 at 5:43 am

  I agree Mormon, Robert’s view of the LDS seems quite wrong and unjust (and, judging by the tone and capitalization, a bit… um… passionate?). I hope you can see though that you’re no more unchristian than I am unmarried.

  At least, if he had his way, we could share a cell :-).

• 15 Craig // Oct 22, 2008 at 11:43 am

  I wish more Mormons would talk like that

• 16 Joe Wang // Oct 22, 2008 at 6:07 pm

  We don’t let brothers and sisters get married. We don’t let uncles and nieces get married. Marriage is our social institution for promoting only certain relationships, those that our society believes are morally acceptable and socially beneficial. Voting YES on Prop 8 will NOT deny equality of rights; the Domestic Partnership laws and the anti-discriminatory laws already exist. A YES vote on Prop 8 WILL tell the gay and lesbian community we will not let them (or 4 Activist Supreme Court Judges) define what the rest of us believe is morally acceptable or socially beneficial.

  The gay and lesbian population represent less than 3 percent of our state’s population and few of them have or would choose to marry; the opposition of the gay and lesbian community and their supporters to Prop 8 is about their determination to change the moral beliefs of our society and gain social acceptance for a lifestyle that has for ages been regarded as immoral, just like adultery and prostitution.

  Through the centuries, marriage has always been about promoting relationships that will be the most beneficial for our children. Children in stable homes with both a father and a mother married to each other will have fewer psychological, emotional and physical health problems, fewer drug and alcohol problems, and be able to take their places in and contribute to our society. Please Vote YES for Proposition 8.

• 17 Scot // Oct 23, 2008 at 7:02 am

  “We don’t let brothers and sisters get married. We don’t let uncles and nieces get married.”

  See here.

  “Marriage is our social institution for promoting only certain relationships, those that our society believes are morally acceptable and socially beneficial. ”

  Just like freedom was for promoting only certain races, those that our society believes are morally deserving and socially beneficial.

  “Voting YES on Prop 8 will NOT deny equality of rights; the Domestic Partnership laws and the anti-discriminatory laws already exist.”

  Yeah, tell that to the thousands of kids being raised by same-sex parents the day you annul their parent’s marriage. If it passes, my marriage of 13 years will once again be annulled, and you’re going to try to tell me I’d lose nothing?

  You know separate is not equal; you know marriage is much better than a domestic partnership to a family, right? And you know which one has a chance of being recognized federally and understood from the hospital to a border crossing. At least I hope you do. Else, why would any married couple want legal marriage over a domestic partnership?

  ” A YES vote on Prop 8 WILL tell the gay and lesbian community we will not let them (or 4 Activist Supreme Court Judges) define what the rest of us believe is morally acceptable or socially beneficial.”

  I get tired of this one. I don’t care what you believe or accept (though I do find it curious that you don’t think marriage is socially beneficial, even for gay couples raising children). This is a fantasy of self-importance some on the pro 8 side seem to have. You are a stranger to my family. I care how you act, specifically how you harm my home in legal terms. You can believe whatever you want, and I presume, even though marriage is legal in Ca you still believe it doesn’t apply to gay couples, right? The LDS think alcohol shouldn’t be consumed, and yet it’s legal, right? You have your rights.

  But it seems you want to be imposing and feel imposed upon at the same time. You are out to take rights and feel like a victim. Those “4 Activist Supreme Court Judges”, some conservative appointees, were reading your constitution which says you cannot treat people differently under law based on their sexual anatomy. But you want to degrade that great ideal, and are looking in a reflection when you assume your opposition has the same low goal as you, to impose your beliefs into your neighbor’s home.

  “The gay and lesbian population represent…just like adultery and prostitution.”

  First, I think you may be misunderstanding the history of homosexuality (see here and here). Secondly, I think there’s something deeply wrong with a moral code that sees a person marrying a man and raising children as being akin to breaking marriage vows and selling sex (only if that person has certain anatomy). The difference is that I’ll not hurt your family for my moral belief. I believe, regardless of your sex, marriage helps us all.

  “Through the centuries, marriage has always been about promoting relationships that will be the most beneficial for our children.”

  Again, you don’t seem to know the history. Nevertheless, you are using an “ideal family” argument here (addressed in detail here).

  “Children in stable homes with both a father and a mother married to each other will have fewer psychological, emotional and physical health problems, fewer drug and alcohol problems, and be able to take their places in and contribute to our society.”

  You can just say stuff, insult a man’s children with basically lies like that? You are absolutely wrong. Same sex parents do just as well as opposite sex parents. You’re probably misrepresenting research on children of divorce or single parents. Unfortunately, I don’t think that matters (or that you’ll be back :-)). Still, even if you were right, your solution for our children would be to keep their parents from legal marriage? That sounds reasonable to you? Honestly, I’d like to know.

• 18 Seth R. // Oct 27, 2008 at 10:14 am

  I’m an active and believing Mormon, and I think Prop 8 is a bad idea.

  But it doesn’t have too much to do with concern for gays.

  Don’t get me wrong, I prefer to see gays treated fairly and all - tax benefits, visitation, adoption, etc…

  But my primary concern is for how Prop 8 will harm the Mormon Church.

  Drop all the arguments about fairness and civil rights, and genetics - all that. And just think about this from the LDS Church’s perspective.

  Prop 8 basically amounts to an admission by the LDS Church that the government has a right to regulate and authorize their marriages. It admits that we need to go, hat-in-hand, to the state government and ask for permission to get married.

  Now, can you see why that is a really, REALLY bad idea in the long term? Regardless of whether the LDS Church ever accepts gays or not?

  When I married my wife, I did so in a Mormon temple - not in the local county courthouse. The marriage license was just a crappy sheet of paper. If the judge had not approved my marriage, I still would have considered my marriage a “marriage.”

  There’s a reason for that. Marriage is primarily a ceremonial status based on one’s personal beliefs. It is not something the government has, or ever had, any business handing out.

  I want government OUT of the marriage license business entirely. No one should have to get these licenses - not homosexuals, not heterosexuals, not polygamists, not monogamists, not Howard Stern! What we need is an across-the-board “civil union” law that applies to everyone and gives the same benefits based on existing needs. “Marriage” - when divorced from the societal benefits a “civil union” could also provide - is purely a status symbol, and primarily religious. The government has no place here and never did.

  I want government out of marriage, and I think the LDS leadership’s admission that the government has any business here will come back to bite us later.

• 19 Rachel // Oct 27, 2008 at 1:02 pm

  I think this letter is fake. I’m from CA and have heard that the temples in CA could potentially close if Prop 8 doesn’t pass, but also, gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts, and the temple there (in Boston) is still in operation - if it had to close due to gay marriage becoming legal in Massachusetts, then I’m sure that we would’ve heard about it a long time ago.

  From what I know, the temples in England (where gay marriage is legal) are still in operation also, and Canada too, so hopefully, the closure of the CA temples won’t be necessary, it’d be rather sad if that were case.

  I think that the church isn’t taking a political stand here, but its more of a moral issue - like, kids in school will learn that gay marriage is okay, and that schools will conflict with the values that parents want to teach their children…. its mainly about providing the sanctity of family and children. I believe that’s the church’s stand on it.

• 20 Joy // Oct 27, 2008 at 1:04 pm

  Seth R said: “I want government out of marriage, and I think the LDS leadership’s admission that the government has any business here will come back to bite us later.”
  My reply: “The government (4 CA Supreme Court judges) have already defined marriage as the union between any two people earlier this year. We the people have the responsibility to restore the definition of the institution of marriage between a man and a woman. If Yes on Prop 8 fails, we will see the government siding with proponents of same sex marriage, resulting in increased intolerance and lawsuits against people who do not accept and embrace same sex marriage because of their religious or moral beliefs.

• 21 Scot // Oct 27, 2008 at 2:31 pm

  Seth: “I want government out of marriage, and I think the LDS leadership’s admission that the government has any business here will come back to bite us later.”

  That is a worry, Seth.

  Along the same lines, when my husband and I were married, 16 years ago, there was no legal marriage for us anywhere, but we were married by our local Unitarian church. All faiths should worry about the practice of defining what counts as a legal marriage for other churches, as is now happening. Times change and the LDS don’t want to find themselves facing the business end of a precedence they helped set.

• 22 Scot // Oct 27, 2008 at 3:03 pm

  Rachel:
  “I think this letter is fake. I’m from CA and have heard that the temples in CA could potentially close if Prop 8 doesn’t pass,”

  I missed something. If you’ve heard the same thing, then why do you think it fake?

  I do know for a fact it’s being spread by faithful LDS, regardless of it’s origins.

  “it’d be rather sad if that were case. ”

  If it were done by legal coercion, you’d have me fighting on your side and protesting in the street for you, but really, this is just fear mongering. As you say, Canada has a much more strict anti-discrimination law (the law that’s applicable here rather than marriage as the pro-prop 8 campaign continually mischaracterizes).

  “I think that the church isn’t taking a political stand here, but its more of a moral issue”

  How could we tell the difference?

  To me, this is a moral stand on both sides. They’re hurting many families; personally, my marriage could be annulled. They are treating our families in a way they’d never want theirs to be treated, right? I mean what would you think of a group out to make sure school children never learned that the parents of their LDS peers could be married and hoping to make sure LDS marriages weren’t binding by law?

  I understand this is an issue of faith, and we’re not going to agree on what is right for our individual families, but all our children have to go to school together. That’s the thing. Both our families pay taxes and both should get equal rights, treatment, and responsibilities for our families in government. In our homes and in our churches, that’s a different story; I no more have to agree with your marriage than you have to with mine.

  “If Yes on Prop 8 fails, we will see the government siding with proponents of same sex marriage”

  Marriage for our families has been legal for gay couples for a long time in many places. It’s legal in Ca. Lawsuits aren’t bankrupting churches in Canada. Even one of the biggest cases cited by the prop 8 proponents falls flat.

  I think I get it, though. In a way I think some LDS fear being treated the way our families have been for so long. But, really, it’s time we gave equal rights to everyone, regardless of their or their parent’s sexual anatomy, or faith. I’ll fight on your side when your rights are on the line, but you have to quite legally hobbling us, and we have to be in this together.

• 23 Scot // Oct 27, 2008 at 3:28 pm

  Joy (I got confused from whom I was copying above there :-))

  “The government (4 CA Supreme Court judges) have already defined marriage as the union between any two people earlier this year.”

  The courts said the government had to follow the supreme word of the people, the Ca Constitution. That document states that you cannot discriminate in law against people because of their sexual anatomy. This gave more rights to more people. What it took away was your ability to take taxes from your neighbor’s family while keeping them from equal legal treatment for their anatomy.

  You do not have a right to take the rights of others, no matter what euphemism it’s labeled with. Otherwise it’d make as much sense as to feel pity for the men who lost their right to own slaves by the redefinition of what it meant to be a full fledged person.

• 24 Paul // Oct 29, 2008 at 10:37 pm

  Comments ?
  Jill and John want a baby. Sadly, their union is not fertile. So Jill and John both contribute DNA material so that a surrogate mother, Jane, can give birth. Jane is emotionally attached to the child since she gave birth and wants to part of the family. So what do they do ?

  Sue each other for rights to their child.

  Agree to visiting and residence times between the three of them.

  Arrange for a three way civil union to ensure all 3 can sign as guardian for the child as needed.

  Have a 3 way marriage to commit their love for each other and the child.

  All of these are now allowed under current California law, correct ?
  Which option is best for the child, and how do we know ? Assume these are all responsible loving adults.

• 25 Scot // Oct 30, 2008 at 5:56 am

  This is an interesting scenario and surrogacy is actually something many gay couples go through.

  But we’re getting off the blog post topic.

  So, to keep on topic (and in a shameless attempt to shock life into the empty forum) I’ll move this to and address it in the forum; give me a couple hours to get the kids off to school and get to work :-).

• 26 Catherine // Oct 31, 2008 at 2:53 pm

  I do not hate anyone from the gay community and I am voting “yes” on prop 8. It’s obvious to me from various articles and statements I have read that there are those who don’t think it is possible to put these two assertions in the same sentence. But I am writing this to let people know that there are many, many people who are voting “yes” on 8 and are not doing so out of hate. I am not motivated by hate. The reason I go out and encourage people to vote “yes” and have a “yes” sign in my yard is motivated by my love for God and His laws and commandments. As a Christian, I believe with all my soul that God Himself started this institution called marriage at the beginning of time and established it as a union between a man and a woman; that’s it! No addendums, no “but maybe later”s, a union between a man and a woman. I am working to keep God’s institution the way He established it; nothing more and nothing less. http://www.whatisprop8.com

• 27 Scot // Nov 1, 2008 at 5:02 am

  “It’s obvious to me from various articles and statements I have read that there are those who don’t think it is possible to put these two assertions in the same sentence.”

  Huh. I am starting to think no one is listening; they’re just cutting and pasting recycled comments. And worse, they ain’t coming back for dialogue, are they?

  Anyway…

  “I am not motivated by hate. ”

  If only that mattered. You can break the golden rule without hate. You can hurt families without hate. The love you feel only makes you feel better about what you’re doing and it’s handy for PR, but it doesn’t stop the damage you’re projecting into our homes. In fact, it’s your love that you’ve used to give yourself permission to completely harden your heart here.

  “The reason I go out and encourage people to vote “yes” and have a “yes” sign in my yard is motivated by my love for God and His laws and commandments.”

  This again is no excuse or reason. This is the sort of motivation that flies planes into buildings, and many people flowing God’s word are on the other side. When homosexuals were being tortured to death in the inquisition, it was done ostensibly out of faith and love, so what, right? In a pluralistic society you need a better reason than a choice of faith. Else, think of what happens when a faith get in change that finds your family in need of legal second class status or worse, for their “love for God and His laws”. If we cannot appeal to the Golden Rule, what do you say?

  “As a Christian, I believe with all my soul that God Himself started this institution called marriage at the beginning of time and established it as a union between a man and a woman; that’s it! No addendums, no “but maybe later”s, a union between a man and a woman”

  This is not true, but believe whatever you want and practice what you want. Just don’t try to force your preferences into my family. I do not want to check the anatomy of your spouse before I allow you to get married, and you, morally, should be as uninvolved in my home. You should want a government that doesn’t define marriage for me or you, for the LDS or the Unitarians.

  “I am working to keep God’s institution the way He established it; nothing more and nothing less. ”

  I wish that was all there was to it. If you win, your work will hurt many people, couples, parents, and children. You can’t just write that off as doing God’s work.

Leave a Comment - Subscribe to Comment Feed