Stand by the Mormons

Well, I guess if Evangelicals can stand with and support and defend Jews - who flat-out REJECT Christ's divinity and Messiahship, not merely hold heterodox (to Evangelicals) views of Him - they ought to be able to come to the defense and aid of Latter-Day Saints. :^)

Just curious: Where is the RLDS in all of this?

I agree, Rod.

"Things are pretty grim. On the ground pastors are worried, and for my Mormon friends it is very bad. No LDS person in their right mind who is not a man of courage would announce his church affiliation without knowing it to be safe."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh my god, it's sometimes hard to believe this site isn't a superbly executed joke...

-O

Thanks very much, Rod!

Eric, the RLDS Church--now officially named the Community of Christ--has to a great degree evolved into a typically mainstream liberal Protestant denomination. Not only would be extremely surprising to see their leaders encouraging member participation in an effort like Proposition 8, but it would be astonishing if any significant number of them followed that counsel.

There are some contentious debates, back and forth, going on in the Mormon blogsophere and elsewhere dealing with the fall-out from Proposition 8. Some good places to look are at Times and Seasons, 11D, Hugo Schwyzer, and (if I may be so humble) my own blog.

From Rod's post, quoting John Mark Reynolds; the only sentence that matters:

Proposition 8 would not have passed if it had not been for LDS (Mormon) money and manpower.

Read that again.

You reap what you sow.

Cry me a freaking river.

And I thought moral relativism was wrong....

Proverbs 11:29 He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind: and the fool shall be
servant to the wise of heart.

Yeah, it's like Darfur out there what with all the pogroms and midnight roundups and mass executions of the Mormons out there.

Sheesh!

Mormons are not regarded as "mainstream" in the eyes of Catholics and Evangelicals. Period. I don't care what folks say in public -- it's simply not true.

At a Catholic charity event this weekend, it was pointed out to me that Catholic and Evangelicals have no desire to allow LDS to become a prominent force in the “Christian” world. In fact, there was much discussion that the Catholics “setup” the LDS Church to take the fall if things went "wrong".

When approached to "help" destroy the rights of a minority, Mormon leadership saw themselves as the "heroes". This was nothing more than looking for acceptance and "showing off" for the Catholics and Evangelicals.

No doubt the backlash against the Mormons was not anticipated by the leadership, but you are known by your deeds.

Now, how do we stop what we have started from biting us in the rear? We have now established that anyone can reduce others to second class citizens by a SIMPLY majority vote!

Is this the end of religion in the USA? You know, someone, is going to get a vote on a ballot that will destroy our rights as Christians. Worse yet, someone is Alabama gets enough signatures to put to vote the rights of blacks. We will have no one to blame but ourselves.

I really don't think we know what we are doing outside of our short term reaction to current events. What seems "horrible" today, could easily look irrelevant in 10 years.

Pray, Think, Love,

Chad.

What a bunch of sissies. They funded the vote. Now they must face the consequences. This is exactly what they wanted - the expectations could not have been more clear.

Their actions speak louder than their words.

What a convenient martyr. "Feel sorry for me, I stole people's civil liberties for my own religious reasons and now they wont be my friend."

Waaah waaah waaaah.

Are we twelve?

Thanks for having the courage and integrity to take a stand......it means more than you know

Von Campe says he sees spiritual parallels among Americans and his childhood Germany.____"The silence from our pulpits regarding the moral collapse of American society from within is not very different from the silence that echoed from the pulpits in Germany toward Nazi policies," he explains. "Our family lived through the Nazi years in Germany, an experience typical of millions of Europeans regardless of what side they were on. We paid a high price for the moral perversions of a German government, which excluded God and His Commandments from their policies. America must not continue following the same path to destruction, but instead heed the lessons of history and the warning I am giving." end quote____I am a Mormon and will stand with all those to defend moral decency in our nation. We are united with all those that will rise to uphold the Constitution and freedom of this great country.____I grabbed this off wikipedia:__Missouri Executive Order 44,[1] also known as the "extermination order" (alt. exterminating order)was an executive order issued on October 27, 1838 by Missouri governor Lilburn Boggs .... the Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State if necessary for the public peace .... " ____This "extermination order" was a shoot to kill order that was executed upon many Mormons in the early 1800's. Our churches and temple were burned our prophet Joseph Smith was murdered by a mob while in jail under the protection of the government. Our people were murdered and sent packing to Utah. Why? Because the Mormons believe different religious doctrine than others. This was not and is still not acceptable.____Persecution and bigotry is not new to our people. I am thankful to those that see the recent attacks against the Mormons as unfair. Vandalizing our churchs, picketing our temples and burning our scriptures is very wrong. We the Mormon people are upset by the attacks and ask those in opposition to us to be civil and respectful.____We have a right to stand up against evil. We have a right to religious freedom. God bless America and those that stand to protect traditional marriage.

Um, you're welcome, I guess. What I have a hard time wrapping my head around is why these (very nice) kinds of statements always have to come with a "but we don't agree with them, no sirree!" attached. Believe me, no Mormons are going to think that you do. We have deep disagreements with your theology too, but why keep bringing it up every week? It's not going to change anytime soon and meanwhile there's work to be done. To us it sounds like bringing the dead horse out to be beaten yet again before we can get to the real conversation, whatever it may be.

Trust me, you don't want to be the next Mormon missionary who shows up on my doorstep.

The Mormon church should be scrutinized EVERY BIT as aggressively as the Catholic church, The PTL, Oral Roberts University, and Jimmy Swaggart. Doing so exposes dirty laundry and initiates reform & growth - something the aforementioned organizations all needed.

This church does not simply provide spiritual advice - they track salaries and tithing percentages of a large majority of their members - then "coach" those who fall behind. These tithings are now being used to fund political battles, which is a departure from their politically neutral past. If they are going to enter the political fray, they need to be tough enough to handle nonviolent repercussions like protests or lost business.

As far as family values are concerned, ask a gay Mormon if he or she is even allowed to enter the ward to which their parents belongs, much less worship there.

And so it begins . . .

Gays who demanded that society tolerate their beliefs are, in turn, unwilling to tolerate opposing beliefs. And so now they're stigmatizing a religious minority.

Kathy -

Do you have any clue whatsoever how ironic and funny your comment happens to be?

When a Mormon is beaten or killed just for being Mormon, I'll take your comment seriously.

Until then... keep being unintentionally funny.

What about my freedom of speech and religion?
What about my freedom to recognize gay marriage? To recognize that families come in all shapes and sizes? To boycott Utah and Mormon businesses for curbstomping my freedom of religion?

Or does my freedom of religion not count?

So where does this "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" thinking lead? After all, one could argue that extreme Islamic "traditionalists" are also "protecting the family." And they certainly can't stand gays. Are they the next "allies?"

Stefanie

*So where does this "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" thinking lead? After all, one could argue that extreme Islamic "traditionalists" are also "protecting the family." And they certainly can't stand gays. Are they the next "allies?"*

Good point. I think there have already been such 'marriages' of convenience in England. I won't deny that there are some points of confluence between some hard line Christian groups and Islamists, especially in "culture war" areas.

Rod -

Two points:

1. The mob that killed Joseph Smith were good Christian folk. The irony is that Mormons were the gays of their day - disdained by "good Christian folk" for thier ungodly behavior.

2. If you have to go back 160 years to prove your point, you've lost the argument AND moral high ground. I can give you the names of 50+ homosexuals KILLED in the last decade just for being gay, including several this year. You give me Joseph Smith from 160 years go.

Way to compare apples to apples, Rod.

You've lost it on this issue.

"You've lost it on this issue."

I think perhaps that Rod needs to police his own folks first if he wants to make nice with Mormons. The GLBT community hasn't done to the Mormons half of what the Christian community has done to them.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=eN1-ldY1bVc

Or perhaps this take, from godly people like you, Rod.

mormonnauvoobentontruth.blogspot.com/2008/01/nauvoo-christian-visitors-center-can.html

"NAUVOO, Ill., Jan. 22 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Today, Mitt Romney's bid for the presidency has everybody asking the following questions: Can Americans trust Mormons in public office? Is the Mormon Church the ultimate lobbyist? Could a Mormon who holds a governmental position of authority be forced by their religious beliefs to make a decision contrary to all logic, reason, facts, or evidence? Do Mormons swear allegiance to their church, its prophets and apostles, their living oracles, and the priesthood power they hold? Author Rocky Hulse's "When Salt Lake City Calls: Is There a Conflict Between Mormonism and the Public Trust?" answers these questions and more."

mormonnauvoobentontruth.blogspot.com/2008/11/mormon-murderers-mass-murder-by-prophet.html

"A group of Mormons deceived and attacked a group of 137 pioneers whose wagon train was traveling from Arkansas, through Utah, and on to California. There are allegations that Mormons in the Mountain Meadows area created unrest among the Native population by spreading a rumor that the the pioneers were planning go to California and return with an army to attack the Natives and Mormons.

Apparently, many people on both sides died in the initial conflict. The pioneers then surrendered. Under a flag of truce, they were disarmed, and then slaughtered in cold blood. In all, 120 men, women and children of the wagon train were killed. 17 children under the age of 7 were considered "too young to tell;" their lives were spared. Brevet Jamor J.H. Carleton noted in his investigation of the tragedy "that about one third of the skulls were shot through with bullets and about one third seem to be broken with stones.""

Rod, gay activists have spent the past couple of weeks venting against the Mormons. Evangelicals like you have been doing it for generations. Maybe you should get off your high horse and do some apologizing for folks in your group like you seem to be expecting folks here to do for the gays in Castro.

"...folks who killed Smith were godly Christians"

"I have to wonder how that can be ascertained."

May I introduce you to Rocky and Helen Hulse, proprietors of the Nauvoo Christian Visitors' Center in Nauvoo, IL. They are just down the street from the Mormon Temple.

www.nauvoochristian.org/

They can be reached at the address (e-mail and snail mail) here:

www.nauvoochristian.org/contact_us.php

They have a very interesting account, thoroughly researched, which shows that the murder of Joseph Smith (and his brother, Hyrum) was actually NOT the premeditated, cold blooded action of a group of vigilantes. It was, according to the Hulses, an act of defense by a group of concerned and godly citizens of the region.

Oh, they also have an "interesting" take on why the Mormons supported Prop 8.

mormonhomeevening.blogspot.com/

Thank you Rod for posting this article. I am a proud Mormon and hope that we can stand united on the things that we do agree about. The Family being one of them. Thank you and God bless you.

Stefanie,
It is patently untrue that the "no on 8" side had more money. More money was donated against prop 8 and more money was donated from OUT OF STATE against prop 8 than for prop 8. but I grant you, we did have better organization.

And what families have been broken up over this? Have the police come and torn families apart? Are we now saying you can't live with someone because you only have a civil union? No.

DeeAnn -

Yes. Families have been torn apart because of a lack of SSM. My family. If you read previous threads, you'll see that my brother cannot live in the country legally with his legal husband (they were married outside the USA).

A bi-national same sex marriage is not recognized by the US Government as legal, so, you're flat out wrong. A Civil Union is not the same, and it does keep loving people (and familys) apart.

How can you justify that?

Kathy,

"Gays who demanded that society tolerate their beliefs are, in turn, unwilling to tolerate opposing beliefs. And so now they're stigmatizing a religious minority."

Get a CLUE -- is the Catholics and Evangelicals that have stigmatized the Mormons! It's the Mormons that are not tolerant, otherwise, they would have not mounted this attack on gays. Got it?

Mormons are not regarded as "mainstream" in the eyes of Catholics and Evangelicals. Period. I don't care what folks say in public -- it's simply not true.

At a Catholic charity event this weekend, it was pointed out to me that Catholic and Evangelicals have no desire to allow LDS to become a prominent force in the “Christian” world. In fact, there was much discussion that the Catholics “setup” the LDS Church to take the fall if things went "wrong".

When approached to "help" destroy the rights of a minority, Mormon leadership saw themselves as the "heroes". This was nothing more than looking for acceptance and "showing off" for the Catholics and Evangelicals.

No doubt the backlash against the Mormons was not anticipated by the leadership, but you are known by your deeds.

Now, how do we stop what we have started from biting us in the rear? We have now established that anyone can reduce others to second class citizens by a SIMPLE majority vote!

Is this the end of religion in the USA? You know, someone, is going to get a vote on a ballot that will destroy our rights as Christians. What if someone is Alabama gets enough signatures to put to vote the rights of blacks. We will have no one to blame but ourselves.

I really don't think we know what we are doing outside of our short term reaction to current events. What seems "horrible" today, could easily look irrelevant in 10 years.

Thank you, DeeAnn, for " All Mormons did was donate, organize and vote for a moral issue that they care deeply about. We don't care if you want to live with your partner. We don't even care if you have equal rights. Go for it. I won't vote against that. What we DO care about is the institution of marriage, which is the foundation of our society. It is supremely important to Mormons. We didn't vote for prop 8 out of hate. I have no hate towards you or any other homosexuals."
and for the link.

While it is very long, I saw it was very like the Catholic position. It is not the feeling but the action which can be sinful. And also, that marriage is a sacrament as well as fundamental to the stability of society.

If we think about the strong desire that some people have for sex with a person other than their spouse, but we think that to act on that desire would be sinful, and to marry that person in addition to their wife would be illegal, as well as destructive to the first marriage - then it is easier to grasp many Christian's point of view.

Eddie, doesn't your brother have an immigration problem, rather than a co-habitation problem?

AML -

No. If he was straight, there would be no issue. It's fairly easy to emigrate back to the USA with your new spouse if you're straight. It's virtually impossible for a homosexual couple.

Wow, Rod, good for Cardinal Mahoney for standing up for the underclass of workers exploited by hotels and grocery stores. Should the IRS investigate the church's tax-exempt status over it? Maybe...as long as they also investigate all the cases where priests have denied communion to members who vote for "pro-abortion" candidates and have written op-eds to that effect.

As for the Adventists, it's not against the rules for a church to react to injustice. For example, when it looked like Bush was about to invade Iraq, the United Methodist church petitioned him not to invade Iraq, even running ads on TV to that effect, appealing to him as a fellow Methodist, citing anti-war passages in the Social Discipline. That kind of activism is perfectly acceptable, but had they advocated a specific House bill--the one advocating a timetable for troop withdrawal, for instance--and instructed members to write Congress, that would be against the rules.

That's what the LDS did, they advocated a specific ballot initiative, which is a violation of their tax-exempt status.

In fact, there was much discussion that the Catholics “setup” the LDS Church to take the fall if things went "wrong".

Surely you're joking! The Catholic Church in the US could never pull off anything that clever.

I know many fine members of the LDS Church from my days in Japan and here in my hometown. I always have a good chat with the missionaries as I find Mormon history to be fascinating.

What confuses me is why you know this it's ok for other's to treat Mormons the way you have been unfairly treated.

DeeAnn,

I certain don't propose that Mormons be beaten, raped, murdered, or have their property vandalized. However, I don't think that Mormon's can attack our families and expect us to be polite about it or to continue patronizing their businesses. Make no mistake about it. Prop 8 was an attack on our families.

While I can spend thousands of dollars to get many of the same rights and privileges that married people have (such as making sure, that should I die, my property goes to my partner, not some random relative who could come in and take away everything legally), I can't get all of them. Hospital visitation, jail visitation, having your partner deported because they haven't been able to become a citizen (Eddie's brother is VERY fortunate to be with a Canadian, but what if your partner is from a country that executes homosexuals? Not only are you forced apart, but you face the very real possibility that when they go back to their country, they will die.)

I know several gay/lesbian couples with children. Do you have ANY idea how hard it is to take care of a child when only one of you is a legal parent? When an emergency happens and the legal parent is at work or out of town on business?

I am not attached to the word 'marriage'. My partner and I were married in our very liberal church (despite it being illegal in my state), but I don't need it as a legal term. However, only marraige seems to convey ALL of the legal rights and responsibilities mentioned above. So, until 'civil union' really is equivalent, I think gay people ought to be pushing for marraige. I should mention that in my state, though, we don't have civil unions. In fact, in my state, I can legally fired from my job, for being a lesbian. I know people who have had that experience.

The 7:13 comment was me.

It's either allow them to express themselves, or help them hie to Kolob in the twinkling of an eye.

It's not all about the poor Mormons paying for their evil deed.

------------------

The San Jose Mercury News reports that a lesbian mother in Fresno says she was forced to resign from her position as president of the parent-teacher association at her son's Catholic school after she spoke out against banning gay marriage.

Robin McGehee, who enrolled her son Sebastian at St. Helens Catholic School, says she went to a vigil for the "No on Proposition 8" campaign last Thursday. After that, a priest from the Diocese of Fresno told her to step down because she had gone against church teachings.

The PTA's vice president, Tiffany Rodriquez, confirmed that McGehee was removed. Rodriquez herself resigned in protest of her removal.

The school directed inquiries to Rick Sexton of the Office of Catholic Education, who said he couldn't discuss the issue due to privacy concerns.

Three weeks ago, in Utah County, a niece asked her uncle to take her 4 kids. To care for them because she can't. She's dealing with drug-related criminal matters - and the kids are aged 11, 6, 2-years, and 10 months. The father's not able to care for them either.

The uncle happens to be gay, and in a long term relationship. Michael Valdez and Michael Oberg have been together for about 5 years. They have steady jobs, a nice home, and no criminal record - but they aren't allowed by law to take-in the needy kids.

Utah says that to adopt or be a foster parent, you must be legally married - or single - and not cohabiting. It doesn't license foster couples who aren't legally married. In other words, gay Uncle Valdez could foster or adopt if he wasn't in a steady, thriving relationship. If he was "single".

Officials asked the court to take custody of the kids or grant custody to the state's Division of Child and Family Services. The Daily Herald reports that, on Friday, the courts took custody, then granted Valdez temporary custody of the children.

The judge said, "I see absolutely no reason why the kids can't stay where they're at."

The 11-year-old child said, "I would rather live with my mom. But if I can't, I'd rather live here."

Michael is already a father. Gabrielle Valdez, his 17-year-old biological daughter, said that their home is like any other, complete with family dinners, concerns over school work and regular jobs.

Utah joins Florida and Mississippi with outright bans on gay parents.

According to KSL.com and Utah's Division of Child and Family Services, there are 2,600 children in the state's foster program.

So when gays and allies exercise our First Amendment rights to protest the political actions of Mormons it's abuse. Does that mean that when the Mormons exercised their First Amendment rights to campaign for Prop 8, that too was abuse?

Yes Joseph Smith was killed for his beliefs, and there were other Mormon martyrs in the 19th century. In 21st century America, the odds of a gay man being attacked or killed because he was gay is substantially higher than the chances of a Mormon man being attacked or killed because he is Mormon.

As a gay man and a former (albeit short-term) Californian, I'm fine with Mormons and Catholics expressing their political views, even at my kids' schools. Lord knows, most Californians are light years ahead of most Texans. I don't see support for Prop 8 in and of itself as any reason to oust anybody. But neither do I think things on the ground in California are grim for Christians. I think it's far more likely that Rod is indulging others' paranoia for the sake of getting some hits on his blog.

And he got mine. I am mulling over whether a boycott of Rod Dreher might not be appropriate. But that's the thing about us non-conservatives, we tend to think things through.

The irony is that it wasn't the Mormons who put Prop 8 over the top, it was blacks and latinos.

According to CNN's exit polls, Anglos in California voted against Prop 8, 51-49. African-Americans voted 70-30 and latinos 53-47 for it, and they cast about 28% of the votes.

Now, are we supposed to believe that Mormon money made the difference in those communities? That blacks and hispanics are somehow more susceptible to Mormon advertising than white folks?

Where are the angry gay protesters outside black churches?

I remember in a 60 minutes interview Romney and his wife were asked point blank whether they had engaged in pre-marital sex: Romney told the interviewer that it was none of their business, but confirmed that the answer was no.

Pretty silly question--I never really thought Romney went out of his way to may his religiosity a big issue (no more than any other candidate). Why make it an issue--when most other conservative religious people believe the same thing?

As for Catholics, yeah, we think Mormonism is a bit odd, but never recoiled from having a Mormon president all that much. Frankly, conservative Catholics probably would have gone for an atheist if he was strongly pro-life.

If the LSD Church wants to act like a political organization, they should be taxed like one.

I believe that anybody who values the idea of true freedom in America should be terrified that a religious organization could so powerfully, and flagrantly, influence the Civil Secular Law for no other reason than to shove their private religious philosophy down the throat of the nation.

And if the LSDs can do it, who is next? No, really. Think about it;

The one and only reason people like Rob Dreher are urging you to "stand with the Mormons" is because he agrees with the religiously-based dogma they helped enshrine in the Civil Secular Law.

Now consider; if a powerful religious group had donated millions of dollars, and devoted thousands of man-hours, to help Prop 8 (or similar legislation) succeed, than Rob Dreher would be crying "Separation of Church & State" at the top of his lungs.

The enter Religious Right would.

But... that didn't happen, did it? The RR got their way, and now they laud and praise the Mormons for their help. Once more, they now eye the possibility of utilizing their own pocket-books and influence to force their private religious beliefs on the rest of the country.

It is an end-run around Freedom of Religion and the idea of Separation of Church & State.

In a way, I can't wait until these organizations start to pick and chose which other religious-beliefs they will ram down American's throat. They may have all agreed on evicting homosexuals from the promise of Liberty & Justice for All - but we all know they disagree vehemently about many other issues.

Take all the rope you want, guys. We all know how it is going to end up being used.

"I believe that anybody who values the idea of true freedom in America should be terrified that a religious organization could so powerfully, and flagrantly, influence the Civil Secular Law for no other reason than to shove their private religious philosophy down the throat of the nation."

Oh, quit crying. They didn't violate any tax laws. Non-profits do the same damn thing all the time without endorsing a candidate. You're just mad because they're saying something you don't like--and you lost.

Derek

"Where are the angry gay protesters outside black churches?"

Good question, and it deserves an answer.

The truth us that there is a virulent strain of homophobia and actual hate in some (only some) black churches. Many people of color feel some resentment when they perceive that their civil rights struggle is being hijacked by what they see to be white people of privilege. Many of us in the GLBT community believe that people of color need to be engaged in a cooperative fashion wrt GLBT rights, and that there can be cooperation. We do not see that possibility with the LDS church at this time. In any event, read this quickly before it gets deleted. I seem to have annoyed Rod.

I’m not mad; I’m sad. It was not just the GLBT community who lost, it was America. The passing of Prop 8 was the triumph of mob-rule. Nothing more. But as I said, it was also a deep cut from a double-edged sword. Do you think you are immune? Perhaps there is a powerful religion or political organization that disapproves of something about you... how long until they decide to put your civil, secular rights up for a “vote”?

What's remarkable is the utter self-absorption here, and the inability to imagine how this looks from the other side. I can understand why someone would have voted against Prop 8, and would be crushed by the result. It wouldn't have changed my vote, but when you live in a society where people vote on the way they are ruled, you're not going to win all the time.

To my side, the California Supreme Court ruling that necessitated Prop 8 was the triumph of the judicial usurpation of politics, with the slim majority of elite jurists deciding on their own to foist a social revolution on an unwilling populace. Obviously you don't agree, but you should at least try to see things from our point of view, as you understandably ask us to do for you.

Furthermore, we social and religious conservatives know we are not immune. We know that there are powerful organizations that disapprove of us, and put our long-established and explicitly constitutional rights up for a vote, as well as the fundamental institution of our civilization: the traditional family. They're called state Supreme Courts. This thing goes both ways, you know.

Rod

"In other words, we will honor the code of political correctness no matter what. Black and Hispanic people who voted against us are human beings with whom we can engage in an attempt to persuade via reason. Mormons and other white people who voted against us are Devils.

This is so, so predictable. "

Yes...and no. Political correctness annoys me to no end. I have seen a full page ad taken out in USA Today by black ministers who didn't want GLBT hate crimes to be addressed at the Federal level. When I commented on that at a liberal website, I got the usual angry responses. What we see here is that there is some commonality between denying civil rights to people of color and denying them to GLBT people that we can WORK TOGETHER ON. It is a shared experience, and we can really use then as allies. The Mormon church, on the other hand, has gone well out of its' way to antagonize and demonize our community. We do not have a shared experience of civil rights problems with the Mormon church, and they seem quite willing to do demonstrably harmful things to us. C'est la vie.

"Mormons and other white people who voted against us are Devils."

Huh? I said I am contemptuous of them and regard them as enemies of my family. I did not use names such as "devils" or make mention of undergarments and such that you have alluded to. I choose my words deliberately, and I try not to make ad hominum attacks. I believe I have been quite consistent in maintaining a Libertarian viewpoint here. I don't care how other people are married, and I want them to stay out of my marriage as well. I have been harassed and stalked, and so has my wife been as well. I am also a big believer in the Second Amendment, and I keep weapons to defend myself and my family. Considering that 60 percent of transgendered women report some sort of assault or rape, I take that very seriously indeed. That is also why I take a jaundiced view of reports of Mormons being upset because people like me are rude to them. Deal with what I have to deal with.

Rod

Maybe you need to go back and read Alexis de Toqueville. Pay particular attention to the part about the "tyranny of the majority" Demcracies that don't have courts to protect the minority are just another form of mob rule. Sort of like when twenty wolves and nineteen sheep vote on what is for dinner...

Rod,

>>> “We know that there are powerful organizations that disapprove of us, and put our long-established and explicitly constitutional rights up for a vote, as well as the fundamental institution of our civilization: the traditional family.”

Rod, you are not defending anything because nothing is being attacked. Civil Secular Marriage is only a legal contract between two consenting adults. Expanding that contract to include same-sex couples would cost you nothing, and not infringe on your religious dogma at all.

Yet out of spite or hate or some misguided sense of duty to enforce the current teachings of your personal faith on the nation, those couples are now treated like strangers under the law.

18,000 of them.

You have gained nothing more than you already possessed and would have continued to possess.

Since I respect your ability to look at an issue from both sides, I ask; what have those same-sex couples lost?

PS: Canada is America’s closest neighbour in social dynamics, not just geography. Our civilization is moving along just fine with same-sex marriage. Come up some time and see for yourself.

All this talk about removing the tax-exempt status of the Mormons for their involvement in prop 8 is non-sense. Mormons have every right to stand up for their moral beliefs. They along with Catholic, Evangelicals, Jews & many others encouraged their membership to be involved with the protectmarriage.com coalition and donate time and money.

Individual members of the Mormon faith responded with more time and money than other faiths, but it wasn't the church that donated, it was the individual members. These weren't tax exempt funds that were donated. They were individual "after tax" dollars the individuals earned themselves. Mormon members didn't donate to the mormon church, get a charitable donation tax deduction and then have the mormon church contribute to Prop 8.

The mormon church uses its tithes for charitable work. Since 1985, they've given about $260 million in cash and $750 million in material assistance to humanitarian causes. They have the ability to use funds for these causes more than other religions because they don't have paid clergy. Mormon priests, bishops & other leaders have full time jobs and donate their time as lay clergy. The mormons are usually the first ones there in a crisis to help. Just ask anyone who was in New Orleans during Katrina or in Mexico in a big earthquake, or Florida in a flood or hurrican.

Let them investigate the mormon church. They will find all above board. No dirt to find there.

Re: All of those would have lost had they been put up to a public vote at the time. All of them.

Actually, three items in your list probably would have been affirmed by a public vote. I suspect the people of Connecticut would have overturned their state's ban on contraception for married people; support for sodomy laws was down in the teens by 2003; and more balefully Plessy vs Fergusson affirmed segregation which was quite well supported in the 1890s.

RJohnson,

So basically, your saying, "Rod, shut up already. You lost and you know it. You're just afraid (homophobic) that you'll get what's coming to you, though I hope not!"

I find it funny that a lot of people seem to think that Mormons have to be being beat up and killed before they can claim the right to complain about their treatment.

Nice threshold you got there. Discrimination and hatred apparently don't count if nobody died.

Dr. Thomas Sowell addresses this well today (as he does most issues) in "The Right to Win" at
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell111908.php3

Baldy, I'm enjoying your posts on this and other threads. You make an admirable attempt to present your arguments in a balanced fashion.

I do have a bone to pick with you, though.

Please don't fall for the assumption that this is about ANYTHING besides trying to make society accept thier behavior as "normal".

No, sir. That is wrong. Society has already accepted it as normal. It is instead completely about Christians perceiving an attack on their beliefs and being coerced as Christians into accepting it as normal.

That is at the heart of the false claims that this issue is an attack on 1st amendment rights, as well.

A better, and much more relevant, example you (general) should look to is cohabitation without marriage. I am quite ready to agree that Christians have been forced to accept that as normal, but I would also point out that the coercion involved not one piece of legislation.

We talk about the photographer being forced to do a gay wedding. What about the landlord being forced to rent to unrelated people in the same apartment?

Baldy:

"You have it all wrong.

In this situation, there were twenty wolves and 1 sheep, and the sheep was demanding the wolves consider the sheep "the same as them". "

********************

Really? Go back and read the Declaration Of Independence. Try not to get hung up on that part about "We hold these truths to be self evident..."

"If gays do win the "right" to marriage, they will abandon it in less than two decades. They will have succeeded in defining "marriage" as a "right" and once you do that, it applies to everyone in every situation, and it means nothing."

******************************

You mean, like how straight people keep abandoning their marriages? I find it endlessly amusing in that self absorbed moral scolds love to dictate their beliefs to other people. If you don't like gay marriage, then don't have one. It is none of your business. Oh, by the way...

Marriage is a fundamental human right. Please google the SCOTUS case of Loving Vs Virginia from 1967 and read it. The SCOTUS opinion declares marriage as a right. You can spout some silliness that marriage isn't mentioned in the Constitution, but neither is breathing, or eating food. The Founders thought some things were a tad too obvious and trivial to be mentioned, but they didn't foresee fetishistic literalists trying to actually deny sundry rights that are assumed and unenumerated.

"It will be nothing but a legal bag of goodies, a joke to be recited on whoever follows Leno's show, about how some kook x married heaven knows what."

******************************

Like what? Animals? Children? You are embarrassing yourself. Animals, pet rocks and automobiles cannot enter legal contracts, if that is what you are driving at. Children cannot either, and most states have strong laws protecting children from unseemly marriages.

"There will be the few who will consider the destruction of marriage as a good thing, out of spite and resentment, but the rest will simply have moved on and no longer care about something that no longer forces "normal" status for them upon the majority, because they will have ruined the "status" of marriage in society."

************************************

If your marriage is "destroyed" because your gay neighbors got married, then you are in deep trouble to begin with. I suggest you seek competent therapy as soon as possible.

"Like the teacher who hands out a gold star to everyone, just to be "kind", the gold star becomes meaningless, instead of a symbol of approval."

*********************************

When secular government got into the business of codifying and regulating marriage (which theretofore had been primarily governed by ecclesiastical authority...although they were oft one and the same...), marriage was the "gold star" of participation in society. If you don't like that, then by all means: Tell your representative that marriage should be left to the Church of one's choice, and ALL people should have a civil union for legal/tax purposes.

That has been my position.

"Please don't fall for the assumption that this is about ANYTHING besides trying to make society accept thier behavior as "normal". That is all that drives the movement. The rest is just efforts at emotional or other means of manipulating you into discarding your beliefs."

*****************************************

Why shouldn't normal people want to be accepted as normal people, and participate in everything that society has to offer? Do you really hate and pathologize GLBT that much? That is your problem, and not mine.

"There is no "right" whatsoever called "marriage", and cannot be unless you want it to be meaningless. Just look at the results of the movement... People prepared to abandon the notion of even negating polygamy, etc."

******************************

I think we have already covered that. Of course, you could always fall back on that tried and true position that the SCOTUS was being a bunch of black robed tyrants for saying something you disagree with. It really works well over at Townhall.com.

"I guess they see the family-less structure of certain primitive people who never progress beyond tribalism and savagery as the worthy goal. Maybe that society without behavior limits appeals to them, but to sober and wise people, it spells doom."

*****************************

I have no idea where you came up with that. What primitive people have been discussed here? Who are you talking about? Can you show me research on "savage" people who live without family structures??? Maybe you have some cool research paper you are about to publish! Where did you go for your field data? I want to check this out for myself! ;)

Dragon:

"The Founders thought some things were a tad too obvious"

- i.e. gay marriage? Yes, I agree with you. The fact that we are having this discussion would have every generation from the past scratching their heads.

"Do you really hate and pathologize GLBT that much?"

- certainly not. Why does "hatred" always come back into this? I wrote the post at 11:16am and I don't hate you. I am not belittling your thoughts and feelings. I know they are just as real as mine. But do not ascribe thoughts and feelings to me that you cannot possibly know.

I am capable of NOT hating you and at the same time believing that same-sex marriage is neither an infringement of your rights nor an acceptable principle.

On the subject of other forms of marriage, everyone draws their line in the sand in a different place. Who's to say my line is acceptable and yours is not? Familiarity? Tradition? Habituation? Religion? From a legal standpoint you cannot deny polygamous or incestuous marriages from occurring between consenting adults while accepting same sex marriage. How can you, except on moral grounds? You will say: what about the viability of the offspring? Well if you insist, I will get a vasectomy if I want to marry my sister or my mom. Or maybe we'll just adopt. Then again, if the baby isn't viable we can find out before it's born and abort it. That works too. So what is your beef?

At the end of the day you have no right to stop me based on your legal argument. Or at least you shouldn't. After all, it is my constitutional right to marry whomever I choose and how does it harm you who I choose to marry? It doesn't affect your marriage does it?

Still not convincing you? Well, that's because you have drawn your line in the sand at one point and I at another. At the end of the day you can't open that door for you and close it for all these other groups. Isn't that discrimination?

Your name...?

"- i.e. gay marriage? Yes, I agree with you. The fact that we are having this discussion would have every generation from the past scratching their heads."

***************************

True, but they would be scratching their heads over our notion that women can vote, and that African Americans (the very phrase would be confusing to them) are intellectually and morally equal to people of European descent.

Be careful when you want to use Colonial social mores to make a point. You don't get to cherry pick them. My point was on unenumerated rights, not social custom.

"..."Do you really hate and pathologize GLBT that much?"

- certainly not. Why does "hatred" always come back into this? I wrote the post at 11:16am and I don't hate you. I am not belittling your thoughts and feelings. I know they are just as real as mine. But do not ascribe thoughts and feelings to me that you cannot possibly know. "
********************************

Uh...was I even directing that at you? Are you also "Baldy"?

Your writing style is nothing at all similar.
I take claims of "I don't hate you" with a grain of salt when the claimant is doing something harmful, or even intrinsically evil to my family. The fact that I am lawfully married and have a son seems to have no bearing on some do-gooders who want to insert themselves into my personnel relationships and tell me it is somehow their right to do so. Again, the notion of "Mind your frakkin' business!!!!!!!" seems to have no effect.*

*yes, I am a fan of Battlestar Galactica

Therefore, I assume you must actually want to harm me and my family, since you are going out of your way to do so, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

"I am capable of NOT hating you and at the same time believing that same-sex marriage is neither an infringement of your rights nor an acceptable principle."

*****************************

Why do you feel the need to shove your notions of "unacceptable" on me? I don't recall going into your house and fooling with anything of yours. I have asked this question literally dozens of times, and I have yet to get an answer that does not relate back to "My religious beliefs are BETTER then yours, and I can tell YOU what to do!"

"From a legal standpoint you cannot deny polygamous or incestuous marriages from occurring between consenting adults while accepting same sex marriage."

*************************

This, at least, is more interesting. Poly-marriage has trouble fitting into current marriage law in ways that SSM does not. How do resolve division of property? Child custody? That is just to start with. You would actually have to start from the ground up with laws to allow poly-marriage, and we have no precedents in English common law to go off of. I suggest going over to the law-blog "Balkinization" for further discussion on that. As for me, I have strong personal sentiments against poly-marriage, but I do not think that the notion of public or private opinion outweighs the rights of people to co-habit as they wish. For that reason, I am against laws banning poly-marriage.
*note: I am generally quite sceptical of claims to the effect that societal mores or "needs" should outweigh individual liberty. I believe that a strong case of actual societal imperative must be made before individual autonomy can be overcome.

As for sibling marriage, the "yuch" factor is certainly very high. Allowing actual blood siblings to marry raises the risk of severe genetic problems in potential offspring, and a stronger case for societal imperative can be made. This would not be at issue with siblings by marriage, but I also tend to think this is something of a red herring. The social taboo is simply so strong that anyone who is stupid enough to do this deserves the ostracism that would follow.

"Still not convincing you? Well, that's because you have drawn your line in the sand at one point and I at another. At the end of the day you can't open that door for you and close it for all these other groups. Isn't that discrimination?"

******************************

I think I answered that.

Again, I am against over-riding individual freedom unless there is a manifestly urgent need for the state to do so. If you are stupid and Oedipal enough to marry your own mother (what a ghastly thought!), you deserve whatever nastiness comes your way. Why should the government try to be a nanny here?

Your Name...
Hmm.

Since I am not a liberal, I have little interest in trying to force society to actually LIKE something that simply will not be liked. If your neighbors give you the cold shoulder because you married your first cousin...what the deuce? Bad judgment will bring certain consequences. Deal with it. If you mean persecution from the government or some sort of crystalnacht scenario, then I am absolutely against that. I have no interest in dictating mores one way or the other, however. There are simply ares that the government has no proper interest in inserting itself into, and telling people what and what not to like is definitely one of them.

I have no desire to make you LIKE my marriage. Why would I want to? It is my personnal business. I mention that I am a married transgendered woman because that gives you the basis for my argument. Other then that, I don't really care what you think, nor should you or anybody else have to care what I think as far as your right to marry goes. Whatever. If I think you have gone way off the reservation, so to speak, and done something morally repugnant, I can show my displeasure by no longer associating with you. I wouldn't really call that persecution. It is more like freedom of association

FrustratedJew, please note the critical qualifier in my statement: attempt.

As for the rest of your post, I can agree with your POV, at least on this thread.

Your Name, November 19, 2008 11:16 AM,

You present a lot of good reasons why you should not marry someone of the same sex, but no reasons to prevent other people from marrying people of the same sex.

Jim

Here's where I want to go with this: I would like to challenge the more orthodox and conservative religious people on this blog to ponder whether they feel special because of their particularly strong commitment to religion. If everyone adopted their belief system and there was no opposition, what would they do?

Don't hold your breath until you get an answer here to this one.

"Here's where I want to go with this: I would like to challenge the more orthodox and conservative religious people on this blog to ponder whether they feel special because of their particularly strong commitment to religion. If everyone adopted their belief system and there was no opposition, what would they do?"

If.

Now that homosexuals are no longer happy, should we stop calling them GAY?

Seems correct to support Truth where ever we find it. The Truth of marriage as ordained by God in Genesis and throughout the Scriptures, and the witness of the marriages in other religions and cultures that fulfill the "be fruitful and multiply" commandment, shows the God given Truth to the institution.

All true Christians must stand by the will of their God whose voice is heard in the pages of the Holy Bible.
Gen 13:13 But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly.
Gen 18:20 And the Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
Gen. 19: 5 bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
Lev. 18: 22 (Lev. 20: 13) Thou shalt not lie with mankind . . . it is abomination.
Deut. 23: 17 there shall be no . . . sodomite of the sons of Israel.
Isa. 3: 9 The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves.
What would Jesus do? Let's hear what apostles said:
1 Cor. 6: 9 nor abusers of themselves with mankind.
1 Tim. 1: 10 them that defile themselves with mankind.
2 Tim 3:1-3 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without NATURAL AFFECTION, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good ....
2 Pet 2:10 10 But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.
Jude 1: 7 as Sodom and Gomorrha . . . going after strange flesh.
Was it not our God who ordained marriage between a man and a woman?
Gen 2:24 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
1 Corinthians 11:11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
Eph 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
1 Pet 3:7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.
Why is this important to Christians? We have seen the wrath of God visited upon the generations and nations of history who have gone the way of Sodom and Gomorrah. It was after the acceptance of homosexuality in Rome and Greece that they fell. The Lord destroyed Pompei because of sodomy and bestiality. As Christians, we do not want to see America go down the same pathetic and unholy road. Our view is one of self preservation. Nowhere in the Holy Bible does it condone the union of same sex couples and as representatives of our God neither should we.

I belong to the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I want to thank you for your support and for calling us your friends. It means a lot to me. We can agree to disagree on many religious beliefs, but we both believe in traditional marriage and I am happy that we worked side by side with several other religious faiths to pass Prop. 8. Thank you for your willingness to stand up for us. I would like to share a couple of quotes with you from a couple of men that I admire. I think they are relevent to what is going on in the Prop. 8 aftermath.____"Laws made by common consent must not be trampled on by individuals." George Washington____"...I know that the Lord is always on the side of the right. But it is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation should be on the Lord's side." Abraham Lincoln__

Thank you, Mr. Dreher, for your support of the Mormon right to express their views on such critical matters as the traditional family. As a Latter-day Saint living in the USA, I'm grateful for a democratic process such as has just happened with the recent US Presidential election and state votes on various propositions. (Here in AZ we had a proposition similar to California's Prop 8.) How ironic it is that groups who demand toleration from all others are unwilling to show toleration in kind.

BTW: I read the Old Testament in Hebrew, and the New Testament in Greek. I love and am as devoted to the Holy Bible as I am to the Book of Mormon and other scriptures unique to my faith.

Best wishes to you in your work. - David

This is legislation and constitutional law that codifies bringing children into the world and then raising them. That is simply not possible and not the goal of gay relationships. Marriage is not about love, though love is part of the relationship. Marriage is not about sexual relations, though that is also part of marriage. Marriage is a religious and civil contract for a man and woman to bear children and then to raise the genetic offspring they bring into the world. Its about time the constitution recognized that and that legislation is presented to define that agreement between a man and a woman. Whatever you want to call gay relationships, it has nothing to do with marriage. It's a genetic impossibility. Find another cause.

I thank you from the bottom of my heart. Your article of support for the LDS brought tears to my eyes. We must all stand together for a virtuous cause or we will all fail.

I wish to respond to TomWins:

Let me get this clear, Mormons and the Mormon Church targeted gay and lesbian people to remove their right to marry and because we are upset at the lies and hatred they created in this campaign the are to get my sympathy?

To begin with, we have not targeted anyone, if by targeting you mean attacking. The attacking began after Prop 8 passed, when temples and churches were picketed and vandalized. Also, it is not possible to take away a right that you never had. As I understand Prop 8, it seeks to codify that marriage is between a man and a woman. It does not take away non-existent rights, it is purely defensive in nature. And why should religion and society need to be on the defensive? Marriage has been a religious ceremony from the beginning. Occasionally the state will take that right unto itself, but even when the state disappears, religion has always been there to marry a man and a woman. And for the record, we DON'T want your sympathy.

I personally very much appreciate the many editorials and blogs in support of the LDS church and it's support of Prop 8. That show of support has been most welcome.

Tom's next comment was this:

"But my right to marry has been taken away. And not because of a fair and just hearing of the issue but because the Yes on 8 campaign sent voters to the polls thinking they were voting to keep gay marriage from being taught in schools. That was a lie and they knew it. They wrote the proposition so they knew it had nothing to do with schools but was solely about the right of same-sex couples to marry."

As previously stated, you have no right to marry. And there was a just hearing about the issue, in more than one state. The voice of the people overturned a supreme court ruling. It was as fair and as american and as democratic as it gets.

I would be interested to see where the LDS church officially said anything about gay marriage being taught in schools. The LDS church did not write the proposition.

Next statement:

The saddest part of all of this is that the Mormon Church has become the aggressor after having suffered persecution.

As previously stated, religion and churches are on the defensive. They are not the aggressors. Who attacked who's churches?

And finally:

"if you want to win a culture war, stand up and live your convictions - don't impose your views on others by law. If you want marriage to survive, honor your marriage and support those who do the same. Don't start destroying the marriages of others in the name of saving marriage."

I think by voting for the California Marriage Protection Act, we were standing up and living our convictions. If you don't want us to impose our views on you by law, why are you trying to impose your's on us? We don't want gay marriage to be legal. And again, you have no marriages to destroy.

Thank you for your support. Though our Theological arguments are different mainly on the nature of God we have the same traditional values.

Amazed,

(Well, I'm amazed at how much false witness can be born by people in the name of religion, considering doing so is a SIN.)

You ask: "[W]hy should religion ... need to be on the defensive?" I would ask the sme of you, since I was married in my church. What right have you to deny my freedom of religion?

You also falsely state, "it is not possible to take away a right that you never had. As I understand Prop 8, it seeks to codify that marriage is between a man and a woman. It does not take away non-existent rights."

Well, you definitely misunderstand it then, for what you wrote is quite false. The official wording of the Proposition is in its very title (which you also got wrong - it's not called the "California Marriage Protection Act"): "Proposition 8 - ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX" COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT."

Also, you must have not been informed about the decision by the California State Supreme Court that found the law prohibiting same-sex marriage to be UN-Constitutional under the equal protections clause. Since that decision, more than 18,000 same-sex couples have exercised their (very real) right to marry.

Prop 8 is likewise UN-Constitutional, and will be found so shortly. Besides, the Constitution cannot be single-handedly changed by a popular vote - it needs to be approved by 66% of the legislature. Heck, your side can't even get it right procedurally. So much ignorance to combat.

Interesting read from the Baptist Press.

http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/BPnews.asp?ID=29451