Thanks for passing this along. Thought your last paragraph was great.

While I voted No on 8, I have found it very difficult to get on board with tactics and general direction of the pro-gay marriage movement. I think the words “hate” and “bigot” have been thrown around too loosely in describing the opposition. I can understand the anger and frustration that those within the movement feel, but there is clearly a double standard which Dave summed up nicely in the last paragraph.

The plus side is that Brother Pimental has had a chance to educate a nationwide audience about the private, local charity that an ordinary Saint does.

Is a letter “poison-pen” if the claim in the letter is true? I thought not.
Of what relevance is the local churches contribution to the shelter? No one has argued that the LDS church doesn’t do some charity just that it is very bigoted against gays. Both claims can be equally true. Even the most bigoted outfits in history had charitable sides to them. In the church I attended they ran a mission for the homeless and drunks yet they were outright bigots in many ways. One does not exclude the other.
If someone in my neighborhood supported a Klan effort to repeal the Civil Rights Act I’d like to know who it is. But I suppose you would call informing me of such a thing an act of bigotry. Stripping people of equal rights is not bigoted but telling people who supported such a drive is bigoted. I just don’t have faith so I guess I can’t see the logic in that.

Brother Pimentel is/was the Bay Area’s Director of Public Affairs for the LDS church. Just another ordinary Saint. Got it.
Mormon friends, pls try to keep this in mind (from an LDS leader of the grassroots Prop 8 campaign):
“I will concede that Prop 8 would not have passed without Mormon grass-roots and fund-raising support. To use political science terminology, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a potent force in elections in those rare cases when it gets involved, because the Church is both vertically-organized (i.e., central command and control, so to speak) and geographically distributed throughout California (i.e., because the Church’s congregations are based on geography, it has organized units of members everywhere). As such, the Church is a perfect political grass-roots organization when it wants to be, and its members are relatively affluent.”
But you’d rather just whine and play the victim, wouldn’t you?

Chino, it is the voters of California who are responsible for the outcome on Prop 8, not Mormons. Write that on a 3×5 card and tape it to your mirror so you read it every morning. The voters of California are responsible for the outcome of the election. Denial won’t change that. Stop blaming Mormons for an election outcome you don’t like.
As for financial contributions, it’s a free country. There were substantial contributions to both sides, from both Californians and those outside the state. There was nothing different about LDS contributions or participation — what makes it seem wrong to you is that (from your view) they were contributing to the “wrong side.” There were plenty of Mormons who contributed to No on 8 or voiced public support for gay marriage. I haven’t heard you complain about their contributions, opinions, or political activity.

CLS, the relevance of the contribution is that the (presumably anonymous) letter criticized the Pimentels for not contributing to that charity, even though they did. That’s what’s called a lie. Or to put it slightly more charitably, “making stuff up.” So no, everything in the letter isn’t true. And in any case, the truth or falsity of the information isn’t what defines a poison pen letter, so I’m not going to quibble with Van Biema’s characterization of the letter. And yes, if someone distributed a letter in a conservative neighborhood warning them of gay neighbors that the residents “SHOULD BE AWARE OF,” I would call that a poison pen letter too, even if the neighbors were truthfully identified as gay, and even if the letter didn’t make stuff up about what charities the gay residents were or were not supporting.
If you informed me that someone in my neighborhood supported the repeal of the Civil Rights Act, I would find their position reprehensible, but I don’t know what you would expect me to do with that information. Likewise, if someone informed me with an anonymous letter in all caps that I “SHOULD BE AWARE OF” my gay neighbors, I might be a bit concerned of what they seem to expect I will do with that information.
CB, I’m afraid I don’t see what relevance Pimentel’s Public Affairs position has to his 15 years of truck driving. And even if is position somehow disqualifies him as an “ordinary saint,” one would presume that the other volunteer truck drivers in his ward (and many others) who also take turns driving truckloads of food ought to qualify as “ordinary.”

Can agree with a couple of posters above. What has the fact that Pimental drives a truck to a shelter have to do with his contribution to stop support Prop.8, which is his stance against the right of homosexuals to marry? Nothing.

pagansister, you should ask that question of the author(s) of the anonymous letter. That’s who brought up the issue of the Pinmentel’s support or nonsupport of the Midway Shelter for Abused and Homeless Women and Children. Whoever wrote the letter seemed to think it was important enough to lie about. Given that the lie is out there, I’m not sure why you might have some objection to setting the record straight.

Left Field, where’s the lie? The money was donated. He participated in the political process, and even won! Congrats! Nuf said. He made a public donation. The letter was the truth.

One more time, very slowly:
The letter claimed that the Pimentels did NOT support the Midway Shelter for Abused and Homeless Women and Children.
This claim is false.
In fact, the Pimentels DID support the Midway Shelter for Abused and Homeless Women and Children, and had been doing so for 15 years.
Does that help?

Dave, but I already have this 3×5 card taped to my mirror:
“When something needs to get done, we know how to do it.”
– M. Russell Ballard commenting re the Prop 8 victory on ABC’s Nightline
You have a quaint view of how elections are won and lost in this country.
And you’re still a whiner. Case in point:
You start off by complaining that the author of the TIME article “manages to impute ‘seamless unity’ to the Mormon community” … but then feel no compunction about making this statement: “It is still an exercise in doublethink to reconcile the gay view of things with the facts.”
What, pray tell, is “the gay view of things” ? Or is it only bad to impute “seamless unity” when it’s the Mormons who are being talked about?

Chino,
You’re hardly one to accuse others of playing the victim card and whining.

dmt,
Examples?
In any case, I haven’t been quoting myself in my comments here. The Mormon leadership that ran the Yes on 8 campaign recognizes and readily admits the decisive role that the membership played in getting Prop 8 passed (I quoted Lowell Brown, one of those leaders, in my initial comment). Not to mention the professional campaign managers (e.g. Jeff Flint) who’re on the record thanking the LDS for their 90,000-strong army of canvassers who helped win the contest.
And for the record, those 90,000 Mormon canvassers were going door-to-door in Cali distributing a certain flyer titled “Six Consequences if Prop 8 Fails” … and you wanna change the subject and talk about one(!) poison-pen letter?

I don’t have the text of the letter in front of me, left field, but the clear reading is that the gentleman in question, Jay Pimental, could better have spent the $1,500 donation to Prop. 8 on a local charity. That he donated to one of those charities (with other money) is beside the point.
I actually think the letter was very unneighborly. However, as a mormon, I think you need to get your own house in order before you condemn others for the exact short of shunning and shaming that is part and parcel (maybe even the fun bits ) of the actual practice of Mormonism. I lived in Salt Lake for years, and deeply regret the damage it did to my children because of the cruelty and absolute viciousness that they experienced from members of your (and my former) church. Shame. They were children. Just because no formal letters were sent (presumably) does not excuse such behavior. So, just deserts. Eat up.

Your Name: Do I understand this correctly? Your children were treated cruelly by people of a certain religion. Somebody else, who does not even live in the same state is also treated badly by a different group of people. That person has the same religion as the people who treated your children cruelly. In what universe does that constitute “just desserts”???
Chino: You play the victim card when you try to blame Mormons for convincing 52% of California voters to vote a certain way, as if all of those voters were mindless robots under the control of a cadre of Mormon conspirators. A free vote was held and most people voted in favor. This is not Iran, and the election was not rigged. Personally, I disagree with the result. But I disagree with lots of election results. I am a big boy, and feel no need to blame certain constituencies for election results that I profoundly disagree with.

My apologies. That last post from “Your Name” was from me.rz

Gary,
Well, if you’re going to attribute stupid arguments to me that I’ve never made here or elsewhere, carry on, big boy. I never suggested that Mormons convinced 52% of California voters to vote a certain way. Most of that 52% would’ve voted the same way, with or without a campaign.
In any case, I’m not sure how disagreeing with you or Dave or anyone else here somehow means I’m playing “the victim card” … So, are you saying, since the LDS leadership of the Yes on 8 campaign also disagrees with you and Dave as well, they are also guilty of playing “the victim card”? Give me a break. My sense is that you have a fairly dim understanding of how the Yes on 8 campaign was actually conducted but you enjoy taking potshots. Fire away. I promise not to cry.
By the way, what to make of that W. Scott Simpson? That was a smooth move getting a BYU Law grad to help write the Motion to Dismiss in Smelt. Nothing like making sure a Mormon is involved in defending DOMA, and then copying and pasting lame arguments that invoke incest and under-age marriage as precedents. At least it’s reassuring on one level – it’s so incompetent it can’t be malevolence.

Chino: Maybe I have misinterpreted your remarks. When Dave made the point that it was the voters of California, and not the Mormons, that were responsible for the result, you told him he had a rather quaint view of how elections are won and lost. I interpreted that to mean that you disagreed with him, and that his view was incorrect. I assumed that you meant that the Mormons were indeed responsible for the election results, and that he was naive to think otherwise. If that is not your view, then I apologize for the misunderstanding. However, I am not sure what you are saying if that is the case.
Look, I get that you hate the Mormon church and you profoundly disagree with their stand on this issue. So work to change the result, and make your arguments. It is the vitriol and seemingly compulsive need so many have to blame the Mormons that I don’t understand and which I think is dangerous.
And no, I am not saying that because the LDS leadership disagrees with me they are guilty of playing the victim card. That would be a preposterous reading of what I said.

One final point. I don’t want to live in a society where it is considered acceptable for my neighbors to circulate letters condemning me for supporting pro-life political causes, or for donating money to Planned Parenthood, or to pro-gay rights groups instead of to charities that my neighbors think I should support. If I don’t want the right wing fringe doing things like that to me, then I must protest when gay rights advocates or others do that to others.

Gary,
Well, if you’re going to attribute stupid arguments to me that I’ve never made here or elsewhere, carry on, big boy. I never suggested that Mormons convinced 52% of California voters to vote a certain way. Most of that 52% would’ve voted the same way, with or without a campaign.
In any case, I’m not sure how disagreeing with you or Dave or anyone else here somehow means I’m playing “the victim card” … So, are you saying, since the LDS leadership of the Yes on 8 campaign also disagrees with you and Dave as well, they are also guilty of playing “the victim card”? Give me a break. My sense is that you have a fairly dim understanding of how the Yes on 8 campaign was actually conducted but you enjoy taking potshots. Fire away. I promise not to cry.
By the way, what to make of that W. Scott Simpson? That was a smooth move getting a BYU Law grad to help write the Motion to Dismiss in Smelt. Nothing like making sure a Mormon is involved in defending DOMA, and then copying and pasting lame arguments that invoke incest and under-age marriage as precedents. At least it’s reassuring on one level – it’s so incompetent it can’t be malevolence.

Not sure what just happened, but my previous comment just automatically reposted itself instead of the one I typed in. Dave? In any case, here’s what I thought I was posting:
Gary -
In no particular order other than the one that I’m going with here that minimizes how much scrolling I have to do in order to read and comment at the same time:
1) I get your final point, but this is also a chance for me to mention a pet peeve of mine: manufactured outrage based on incomplete local accounts. Some of the LDS folks profiled in that TIME article are not political novices, i.e., Prop 8 was not their first foray into the political scene. The average TIME reader will not bother to follow up by getting online and familiarizing himself with local Alameda school board politics and the like, but if he were to bother, he might soon come to realize that some of the neighbors who bridled at the latest LDS political activism were not merely responding to a single instance of political involvement vis-a-vis Prop 8, but rather a pattern and history of aggressively representing certain POVs on a community level. In some ways, the way TIME reported this was analogous to the way in which reports were breathlessly delivered by the Yes on 8 campaign of schoolchildren attending their lesbian teacher’s wedding in SF. To the parents who knew the teacher (and their own kids), to suggest that there was anything amiss with allowing these kids to enjoy that day smacked of unwelcome meddling and exploitation of an event that should have never been anyone’s concern outside the local community of parents that understood perfectly well the whys and wherefores of happily consenting to their children’s participation in a blessed event.
2) Disagreement does not equal hate. Criticism does not equal bigotry. I’m no anti-Mormon bogeyman, but if that’s how you choose to view me, whatever. It won’t be the first or last time. That said, I’m not the one running the assignment desk for the bloggernacle. As long as Mormon bloggers feel compelled to post on the issue of marriage equality, I’ll continue to consider it an invitation to yet again play the only tune this one-note Johnny happens to know. That said, I have a fairly clear understanding of why marriage equality matters to me. Why does it matter so much to y’all? It’s not like any of us are advocating you adopt our position regarding civil marriages and regardless of whatever slippery slope cold sweat that invokes, rest assured, your symptoms are all psychosomatic. I happen to believe that the rewards marriage and family bring deserve to be extended to all worthy adults, regardless of orientation. Sorry if that makes me a hater.
3) My point re the 52% was simply that it was never necessary to persuade a huge swath of California voters to cast their ballot one way or the other. The reality is that the No on 8 campaign had no ground game. They did nothing to identify potential supporters and get them to the polls. There are several steps involved in that process and they completed none of them before election day. Look, I’m someone who comes at this after having volunteered too much time making the case to the No on 8 crew that Mormons are twice as smart, three times as wealthy and a 100 times better organized than any Evangelical or Catholic opposition that our executive board could possibly imagine. And sadly, that’s why we lost, they simply couldn’t imagine it. They had to learn the hard way. And so we got our *sses handed to us on a plate fair and square. Not that I think civil rights should be up for a plebiscite, but you don’t always get to choose the terrain in these kinds of things, and so I freely admit that we blew it and that the Yes on 8 side, particularly the Mormon grassroots operation, performed in stellar fashion.
On a new tangent, since I’ve gone long, I want to throw in a told-you-so … when this whole thing got going a year ago, I told y’all that one day you’d be pointing to the Mormons who didn’t get onboard with Yes on 8 as evidence that the LDS church is not monolithic. A year later, now that it’s clearly become the case that the membership is not unanimously behind same-sex marriage prohibitions, sure enough, here’s Dave pointing out that fact in order to demonstrate just how diverse the membership happens to be and to drive home the point that there is no Morg threat.
Whatever you think of me, keep this in mind, it’s folks like me who make that diversity claim possible. You can thank me later or not at all, I don’t care. Like I said, I know what I’m about in this contest and cherish the values that drive my commitment. Just something for y’all to consider next time before you decide to run me down as some kind of hater.

I consider it offensive and un-American to target ordinary people for how they vote on an issue. If we’re talking about a politician, it’s fair game to bring up his or her record during a debate or discussion of that politician’s candidacy. But to single out members of the community, for shame and ostracism, because they voted “the wrong way” on a particular vote, is despiccable.
That said, Dave Banack is not without flaws of his own. I’m referring to the following line: “It is still an exercise in doublethink to reconcile the gay view of things with the facts.” Is it really helpful to write a line like that? Was this poison-pen letter a reflection of “the gay view of things?” Doesn’t it reflect a certain disconnect to write something like that in an article complaining that Mormons have been “misunderstood?”
If Dave Banack wants to be taken seriously, he should proofread his own work before he submits it. Part of that editorial process is taking a second look at lines like “It is still an exercise in doublethink to reconcile the gay view of things with the facts.” What, exactly, is “the gay view of things?” Such a statement says more about Banack than it does about this incident. Is it fair to even assume the poison-pen letter was distributed by gays? Lots of people are upset about Prop 8 and for different reasons. And what if Banack is right, and the culprits are gay? Does that mean their actions reflect “the gay view of things?”
Banack’s unintended slur is an example of how far we all have to go in showing a little respect for one another, enough at least to keep our differences from pushing us to the edge of silliness.

“Yet the poison-pen note still steams him”
What poison? I saw only facts.
“even though in May the California Supreme Court validated Prop 8 as constitutional.”
It is only ‘Constitutional’ because the California Constitution can be changed with only a majority vote. It is clearly UN-Constitutional in that if takes the Equal Protections clause away from being applied to gay citizens.
“the letter’s author didn’t bother to find out that every other Saturday for 15 years, he or someone else from Alameda’s 184-member Mormon ward has delivered a truckload of hot meals to the Midway Shelter for Abused and Homeless Women and Children”
If it was a shelter for beaten homos, you people would go near it. Fear of catching AIDS, or – worse – ‘the gay’.
“It is still an exercise in doublethink to reconcile the gay view of things with the facts. Mormons who deliver truckloads of food to homeless shelters are mean and hateful.”
No, David, that is not the reason we consider you mean and hateful, and you well know it. Stop being disingenuous. We consider you mean and hateful because you do not want all citizens to be treated equally before the law. You succeeded in getting gay citizens booted out of the protections of the Constitution, if only temporarily.
“Gay activists who circulate “poison-pen notes” about Mormons”
Kindly point out the poison. Until you do, I continue to see only facts.
“equating themselves with civil rights crusaders”spit!” (TM).
“while acting like people who would burn crosses in your front yard”
Quite honestly, from what I’ve read on this blog, I wouldn’t put that past you either.

Nate F.
” I think the words “hate” and “bigot” have been thrown around too loosely in describing the opposition”
I reserve the words “bigot” and “hateful” for the ‘Christians who liken our relationships to incest, rape, beastiality, necrophilia, child-molestation, “marryin’ a plant” (or a rock, a bicycle, etc.).
These ARE bigotted, hateful words. And they are readily found on this site.
Sorry you think that’s “loose”. I think it’s quite apt.

Oh, and Nate, I also use the word bigot to describe someone who doesn’t think gay citizens deserve equal treatment under the laww. You know, the people who work to deny equality, to ensure the Full Faith and Credit Clause never applies to legally married gay couples. The same ones who don’t think gay citizens deserve to be listed under the Equal Protections Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
I use it for them because it applies to them.

” As such, the Church is a perfect political grass-roots organization when it wants to be”
Holy Sh!t, Batman. You mean Mormons don’t believe in separation of church and state either? Boy are we f*cked as a nation.

It isn’t whether the vote was ‘won’ (or ‘lost’, depending on your POV) but that there was a vote at all. Since when can citiens vote on other citizens’ rights?
As Chino said, “Not that I think civil rights should be up for a plebiscite”.

“It is only ‘Constitutional’ because the California Constitution can be changed with only a majority vote.”
I wonder who’s rights will be voted on next?

I don’t remember if links are allowed here or not? Here goes …
Dry Kindling: A Political Profile of American Mormons (PDF)
Otherwise:
Dry Kindling: A Political Profile of American Mormons (PDF)
http://www.echols.info/dry%20kindling.pdf

Ahh, so the HTML does work here. Great!
Idaho – Why We Fight I: Lt. Colonel Victor Fehrenbach

“Mormons who deliver truckloads of food to homeless shelters are mean and hateful.”
No. Mormons who vote to take away others’ constitutional right to marry the person of their choice are mean and hateful.
Please do try to get things correct.

Hmmm, “Dave” sez: “The voters of California are responsible for the outcome of the election. Denial won’t change that. Stop blaming Mormons for an election outcome you don’t like.”
Meanwhile, a representative of the Mormon Church sez: “I will concede that Prop 8 would not have passed without Mormon grass-roots and fund-raising support.”
Gosh, whom to believe?

“I don’t want to live in a society where it is considered acceptable for my neighbors to circulate letters condemning me for supporting pro-life political causes, or for donating money to Planned Parenthood, or to pro-gay rights groups instead of to charities that my neighbors think I should support. If I don’t want the right wing fringe doing things like that to me, then I must protest when gay rights advocates or others do that to others.”
But Gary, the right wing (not-so) “fringe” do that all the time. it’s called push polling. It’s called robo-calls. Etcetera. Let’s see you actually “protest” that (the way you “must” when it goes the other way).

“I consider it offensive and un-American to target ordinary people for how they vote on an issue.”
Me too. What is un-American is putting people’s civil rights to a popular vote in the first place.