Proposition 8: the good, the bad and the ugly
By Christian Probasco, 11-23-08
 |
|
 | |
|
Contributions for and against California’s Proposition 8 reached $75.2 million, making it possibly the “costliest state ballot measure ever,” according to an article in the Salt Lake Tribune. And all the numbers aren’t in yet.
Five percent of the money for and against, but mostly for, came from Utah. But the Mormon Church also contributed volunteer aid towards the passage of the proposition.
“Mormon members were instrumental in the campaign, there’s no question,” said ProtectMarriage.com’s spokesman Fred Schubert.
The proposition passed by a four percent margin.
Lest you be confused about the paper’s take on the outcome, the Tribune also ran another “news article” on the issue, “Prop 8 involvement a P.R. fiasco for LDS Church.”
A fiasco, it turns out, for gays, for those who already opposed the Church’s involvement or its positions, for liberals, some scholars, and most importantly, the Tribune. Other evangelical groups seemed to look favorably on the Church’s activism. As a majority of people in most states seem to favor defining marriage as between a man and a woman, one might even argue that the Church had improved its image.
But that wouldn’t be the Tribune’s line of reasoning.
As of 11:14 a.m., Saturday, the article had garnered 111 comments. This from “Jenny B”:
“I’m a liberal democrat, and I have been appalled by the fascism and racism in the gay community since the election. I used to support gay rights, but I never will again until they purge the haters from their movement. From what I’ve read, individuals and groups contributed to both sides of the issue, and the ‘No on Prop 8’ side received more money, especially from foul corporations like PG&E, a company that is responsible for dumping the carcinogen, chromium 6 into groundwater and killing untold numbers of California citizens, including children…it’s all about harassing and persecuting religions…”
“Nadine” quoted Prop 8 campaign leader Gary Lawrence, whose son, she says, is gay:
“If same-sex marriage advocates [win], the whole structure collapses — the family, the nation, and in time civilization itself. The time has come for those of us who believe that God, not man, created marriage ... to take a stand and defend it. “
Said “Tumbleweed Tom”:
“Let me understand. The LDS people have a choice of following the Word of God through His prophet OR worrying about their ‘P.R.’”
Said “JohnJacobs99”:
“The Prop 8 involvement maybe a P.R. issue for the vocal minority but not necessarily for the silent majority.
“One Sunday at my building, a gentleman came to Church early and waited in the parking lot until a member showed up. He said he wasn’t a member but he wanted to thank the Church for all that it was doing for Prop 8.”
From “me2wired”:
“The amount of ‘church is dividing families,’ and ‘PR fiasco for church’ and more articles that are spewing forth from this newspaper is ridiculous. It’s quite clear what the Sale Lake Tribune’s position is on this issue but the one-sided bias articles that they are producing can’t be ignored.”
From “Lover of Lake Powell”:
“I received phone calls from Utah urging me to support Prop 8. I told the young men who called to stuff their holy underwear where the sun don’t shine. Mormon’s have a unique religious bias and their bigotry blinds them to this changing world we live in.”
From “peterandrew”:
“Sexual repression seems always to lead to violence, either against oneself or against others.
“As for myself, I’ve come to the conclusion that Christianity--whether as a story or as an historical event--was itself a homosexual cult. I don’t see how you can ‘follow Christ’ and not be either homosexual or completely accepting of homosexuality.”
And so on, for about 12 pages. Meanwhile another article by the Trib. focuses on Equality Utah’s gay rights petition which has only garnered 2,000 signatures. According to the article, the LDS Church doesn’t oppose the initiative. However, it has yet to endorse it. The first “Common Ground” bill, which would allow gays to take legal action in case of a partner’s wrongful death, passed a legislative committee, but not before Rep. Lorie Fowlke, R-Orem equated it with weakening traditional marriages.
The Deseret News ran one link to a story in MormonTimes.com calling attention to the Church’s statement following the passage of Proposition 8, “urging civility and reaffirming its position on the issue.”
“All people of faith,” the statement reads, “have cause for concern when others try to remove their legitimate voice from the public square.”
Following the statement, defenses of the Mormon Church’s right to participate in the political process from the Anti-Defamation League, the Dallas Morning News, the First Amendment Center, the Christian Post and a few bloggers and academics.
The article in the Deseret News had garnered 144 comments by 8 p.m. Saturday. Here’s a few:
The Nit: “The more sane members of the “homosexual community” need to step up and tell their radical members that they are only hurting themselves. The way I see it now, all members of this group are loons and I presume that they want us to perceive them as anarchists, as well as outside the norm of American culture. The political process worked and the PEOPLE of three states have spoken. Let it go - you/they have a civil union which should be enough if you/they were true to their espoused agenda.”
Nick: “Making Prop 8 somehow a referendum on CHURCH rights is a sick example of confusing the victim with the perpetrator. The one group DIRECTLY losing rights here is the gay/lesbian community. The biggest donor to that effort is the church. The church is not the victim here, they are the perpetrator. If they want to establish a respected and permanent place in the public square in the future, they should choose to support topics that help people, not hurt people.”
Paperboy: “Anyway you cut it, the decision to deliver such a highly visible position on Prop 8 may end up setting back the LDS church more than 30 years in public relations goodwill. Its decision to reverse more than 100 years of doctrine on the worthiness of Blacks cleared the way in 1978 for the Mormon Church to enter mainstream society and take a seat at the table of public acceptance. In a puff of smoke, suddenly that goodwill has evaporated. It’s not too late, but it will take different thinking and leadership to make the necessary changes.”
Luther: “Homosexual politics and gay life style is a major and fast growing danger to family, home, community and national social standars (SIC). If left unopposed it will contaminated civilization as we now accept it beyond recovery. All church groups, social institutions and goverment (SIC) agency need to work together to stop it before it is too late.”
Non Mormon: “These people (the media, gays and their supporters) don’t care one way or the other about ‘truth;’ all they care about is shoving gay marriage down our throats. The ‘truth’ is that this WILL be shoved down our throats if we don’t fight back.
Thank God for your guys (MOs). As a Catholic, I never heard ‘my’ Church ever speak up about the issues you guys have. They are afraid to say anything for fear of not being ‘loving.’ Don’t kowtow to them (media, liberals and gay establishment) because in the end, they’ll knife you in the back.
We (conservatives) need to make sure we don’t sit back ‘now’ and think this is over because it isn’t.”
Hey, who are you calling a conservative?
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
The days of winning campaigns and fattening your Church coffers by hating gays/lesbians is OVER.
LDS and rsidents of UT will get a teaching moment when their 6 Billion dollars of tourism CRATERS. The companies scheduled to have conventions in the Salt Palace will need to decide if angering LGBT patrons is worth their event inside UT. Companies deciding to build in UT will likewise decide how much angering LGBTs is worth. Nearly every Fortune 500 Company provides LGBTs partner benefits, because they realise, if you want the BEST most innovative, creative employee base, you'd be crazy to exclude gays/lesbians.
I lost my right to marry because of 8 and I am very angry. I've marched the streets with thousands of others and written a lot of comments online.
Somehow we need to find a way to discuss this instead of playing dueling ballot measures and court rulings. Having grown up in the south in the 60s and 70s I know you cannot legislate morality or change a racist by a law. The most effective way to move forward as a society is to build a dialogue based on respect. Where can we do this?
There are many instances of religious liberties of individuals who dared speak out against a homosexual lifestyle being violated. Let me quote a few:
Case 1:
David Parker, a Massachusetts parent, was arrested when he tried to prevent his kindergartener from being exposed to pro-gay marriage books.
Case 2:
In the case of Benitez v. North Coast Women's Care Medical Group, the California Supreme Court ruled that a physician was required to perform artificial insemination for a female lesbian client or face loss of right to practice medicine.
Case 3:
In June of 2008, the University of Toledo summarily fired Crystal Dixon -- a high-ranking administrator and an African-American -- for writing a letter to the editor objecting to the comparison of "gay rights" with the civil rights struggles of African Americans.
Dixon simply wrote:
"As a Black woman... I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are 'civil rights victims.' Here's why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a Black woman. I am genetically and biologically a Black woman and very pleased to be so as my Creator intended."
As a result of this personal letter and exercise of her First Amendment rights she was fired.
Case 4:
Boston public school teachers were threatened with termination if they failed to portray same-sex marriage in a positive light.
Case 5:
Canadian pastor Stephen Boisson was ordered by the Alberta "Human Rights" Commission to publicly apologize for a letter to the editor denouncing the homosexual agenda as "wicked" and stating that: "Children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights." He was then given a gag order to "cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals.
Case 6:
In April 2008 Elaine Huguenin, owner of Elaine Photography, was fined over $7000 by the state Human Rights Commission of New Mexico for refusing to photograph the 'commitment ceremony' of Vanessa Willock and her partner. She based her refusal on the fact that it was against her religious beliefs to do so.
Case 7:
STOCKHOLM, July 5, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Ake Green, the pastor of a Swedish Pentecostal church in Kalmar, Sweden, was sentenced to one month in prison by a Swedish court, for inciting hatred against homosexuals. Green was prosecuted in January for "hate speech against homosexuals" for a sermon he preached in 2003 citing Biblical references to homosexuality.
Case 8:
LEXINGTON, MA, October 8, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The United States Supreme Court left intact a lower court ruling that allowed Massachusetts schools to promote homosexuality in the classroom without telling parents or allowing them to opt out.
Case 9:
London, Jun 7, 2008 / 09:32 pm (CNA).- A Catholic adoption agency in Britain has ended its service of placing children in new homes because a new anti-discrimination law forbids the agency from turning away homosexual couples. A Minister of Parliament has said the new law "smacks of a secular attack on the Catholic Church."
Case 10:
On Mar. 10, 2006 Boston Catholic Charities decided to pull out of adoption services after a century of service, rather than comply with Massachusetts law that requires adoption agencies not to discriminate against homosexual couples.
Case 11:
In October of 2007, the Boy Scouts of America 'Cradle of Liberty' Council was given eviction notice from their headquarters in Fairmount Park, Philadelphia. The building was originally built in 1928 by the Boy Scouts and has been maintained by them ever since. The eviction is a result of the stand of the Boy Scouts against allowing homosexuals to be part of the organization's leadership, and is spearheaded by openly homosexual city solicitor Romulo L. Diaz, Jr.
Case 12:
The Methodist Church's Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association in New Jersey was stripped of its tax-exempt status for part of its property after it refused, for religious reasons, to allow a lesbian couple to hold a "civil-union" ceremony at a pavilion on the camp's property.
Anyone who says that this issue is just about allowing same-sex couples to get married is either ignorant or lying.
NONE of the cases you quoted have a thing to do with whether a same sex couple can marry.
THREE aren't even in America.
Most involve public accomadation laws which include sexual orientation. If you live in a state with sexual orientation as a protected class, that's the law. just as you couldn't tell a person with a disability you wouldn't have them as a tenant, or photograph them.
States where sexual orientation is a protected class, means LGBTs, bisexuals and heterosexuals are provided the same rights. I couldn't say I won't rent to a heterosexual, I can't say I won't photograph a heterosexual event.
The same groups now charging it’s a lie (public schools will teach about gay marriage whether parents like it or not) — were just in court in Massachusetts filing amicus briefs arguing parents don't have any right to opt their children out of the pro-gay marriage curriculum.
From the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Amicus Curiae Brief:
“In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where the right of same-sex couples to marry is protected under the state constitution, it is particularly important to teach children about families with gay parents.” [p 5]
From the Human Rights Campaign Amicus Curiae Brief:
“There is no constitutional principle grounded in either the First Amendment’s free exercise clause or the right to direct the upbringing of one’s children, which requires defendants to either remove the books now in issue – or to treat them as suspect by imposing an opt-out system.” [pp1-2]
From the ACLU Amicus Curiae Brief:
“Specifically, the parents in this case do not have a constitutional right to override the professional pedagogical judgment of the school with respect to the inclusion within the curriculum of the age-appropriate children’s book…King and King.” [p 9]
Which side is really telling the truth here about its aims? I suspect the “Yes on 8” folks keep many more of the Ten Commandments (including “Bearing false witness”) than the “No on 8” side (some of whom subscribe to the “Ten Suggestions”).
Religious freedom should trump special classes (by choice) rights.' Because you might have a genetic inclination to murder or sexually abuse, should you be able to trump my religious right to insist on the Ten Commandments in people with whom I associate? (Thou shalt not murder or commit adultery).
Do the math, that means that homosexual priest commited sexual abuse 81 times as frequently as heterosexual priests.
Shouldn't the Boy Scouts of America be able to insist that adult leaders be heterosexual (and preferably a father of one of the Scouts)?
When the rest of the world want to engage in promiscuity - they will be critical and insulting of those who try to tell them it is bad behaviour.
Although I cannot imagine their lovemaking without getting a queasy, sick feeling--if I stop to think that our heterosexual procedures are not all that attractive--a beast with two backs leaps to my mind.
.
As a couple of lesbians have reported to me, the most complimentary of descriptions make a female appear froglike; and there is little question that it is primarily patriarchal in conception.
Perhaps lovemaking is not a pastime which profits from the imagining.
It has always struck me as rather odd that rightwingcrazies have almost always been at the root of our political concerns about human sexuality of any kind...
Look, for centuries, Catholic priests have been celibate. If someone cannot abide heterosexuality, there is always celibacy, which is acceptable to our Creator.
Quit breeding, and we'll stop growing in YOUR wombs.