Comments

1. #1 lfsalt

   January 31, 2010

   Vicious and Intolerant? That’s exactly how the losers on Prop 8 have behaved following their defeat in 2008. They have gone after their opponents in their workplaces, at their places of worship-even at their homes-harassing people who disagree with them. They have proven themselves to be intellectually dishonest, not to mention hypocritical with respect to the issue of rights. On the one hand they want us to believe that gays being able to ‘marry’ is a fundamental human right, but at the same time, this same group makes no bones whatsoever about depriving unborn babies an even more fundamental right-the right to LIVE.

2. #2 netzach

   January 31, 2010

   The Constitution? You mean that document which protected Mormons as they were driven from 4 states, because of their beliefs? Protected them, after they had been driven from the US, by sending a third of the US Army after them and camping on their borders? Protected them, later in the same century, by throwing their leaders into prison and threatening to confiscate their temples and places of worship – just because Mormons had a little different idea about marriage than did the US government?

   Mormons believe the Constitution to be divinely inspired – but have learned the lessons of history with respect to being protected by it.

   Beautiful plumage, by the way. Not so nice as the Norwegian Blue, in my humble opinion, but nice just the same.

3. #3 Jeff Knapp

   January 31, 2010

   Nice conflating of two completely different issues. Yet, look at your hypocrisy even in your statement here. It is OK to insist on the rights of one group (unborn babies – your terminology) yet deprive another group of their rights, gay and lesbian people.

   Yeah, we have gone after the h8ters – in form of voicing our anger and outrage at your actions that took our rights away. Let me be clear here – we have done nothing whatsoever to take away any of your rights. Nothing at all. All we have done is voice our anger and outrage at you. You, on the other had did take the rights away of gays and lesbians.

   Shame on you.

4. #4 Jordan Licht

   January 31, 2010

   The Constitution? You mean that document which protected Mormons as they were driven from 4 states, because of their beliefs? Protected them, after they had been driven from the US, by sending a third of the US Army after them and camping on their borders? Protected them, later in the same century, by throwing their leaders into prison and threatening to confiscate their temples and places of worship – just because Mormons had a little different idea about marriage than did the US government?

   At the time all that happened, the fourteenth amendment wasn’t around (i.e. the amendment used to apply the Bill of Rights to the states as well as the federal government) and the current ruling of the Supreme Court was that the Bill of Rights didn’t apply to how state governments treat people. Relevant Wikipedia page.

   The situation with the early Mormons in the 1800s is not analogous to the current one regarding GLBT rights, as the constitution has changed since then.

5. #5 Phillip IV

   January 31, 2010

   netzach @ 2:

   Mormons believe the Constitution to be divinely inspired – but have learned the lessons of history with respect to being protected by it.

   And the result was that you spent millions to have discrimination written into the California constitution? I daresay you haven’t yet learned quite the correct lesson from history, there.

   The sad thing is that, when the shoe is on the other foot (where it’ll increasingly end up) you’ll find that your new-found Evangelical friends, to whom you have been so useful, will not lift a single finger in your defense. Because, you know, to them you’re still just hell-bound heretics. And liberals will have to hold their noses and defend your right to freedom of religion, because nobody else will do it…

6. #6 netzach

   January 31, 2010

   Phillip IV @ 5

   And the result was that you spent millions to have discrimination written into the California constitution? I daresay you haven’t yet learned quite the correct lesson from history, there.

   We learned enough to know what pressure the Federal Government will bring to bear if you don’t march in lock-step to their definitions. That’s why we don’t want to see this particular definition changed.

   The union of one man and one woman has been the teaching of the Judeo-Christian scriptures and the core legal definition and practice of marriage in Western culture for thousands of years. Under this definition, every adult in the United States, with very few exceptions, has the right to marry – that is, to enter into a union between one man and one woman. This is true whether the adult is homo- or heterosexual.

   That’s why this is not a question of “discrimination.” We are not insisting that a particular group of people be denied a basic human right. The group in question already has the right; they choose not to exercise it because nobody on their sexual preferences list is included. As the right as presently defined.

   And liberals will have to hold their noses and defend your right to freedom of religion, because nobody else will do it.

   Erm, no, they won’t. As they already did with plural marriage, they’ll just say that the Constitution allows us to BELIEVE anything we damned well please, but it is in the best interest of the government to disallow the PRACTICE of hetero-only marriages. And, should we not comply, they’ll send the military, as they did in 1847-48.

   Or worse, the IRS.

7. #7 netzach

   January 31, 2010

   Jordan Licht @ 4

   At the time all that happened, the fourteenth amendment wasn’t around (i.e. the amendment used to apply the Bill of Rights to the states as well as the federal government) and the current ruling of the Supreme Court was that the Bill of Rights didn’t apply to how state governments treat people.

   Surely you’re not saying that it was OK for Gov. Boggs of Missouri to decree that Mormons “should be exterminated or driven from the state” – because the 14th Amendment had not yet been ratified?

   The situation with the early Mormons in the 1800s is not analogous to the current one regarding GLBT rights, as the constitution has changed since then.

   But the definition of marriage hasn’t. This is not an issue or rights, it’s an issue of definition.

8. #8 Jordan Licht

   January 31, 2010

   @netzach #6

   You’re being disingenuous. Again, the situation in the 1840s is irrelevant. The government, laws, and constitution have changed since then. If I were to try to use the Mountain Meadows Massacre as “proof” that we can’t trust Mormons not to murder us, it would be rightly dismissed as absurd and fallacious. It’s not true that all Mormons are like those that carried out those murders 150 years ago. Similarly for the current situation.

   The union of one man and one woman has been the teaching of the Judeo-Christian scriptures and the core legal definition and practice of marriage in Western culture for thousands of years.

   And for most of that time, women were considered property and nonwhite people were thought nonhuman. Something being tradition doesn’t necessarily mean we should keep it.

   And yes, it is discriminatory to allow straight people the right to marry whom they choose and deny it to others.

   Erm, no, they won’t. As they already did with plural marriage, they’ll just say that the Constitution allows us to BELIEVE anything we damned well please, but it is in the best interest of the government to disallow the PRACTICE of hetero-only marriages.

   Ignoring for the moment that I’m not sure what you mean by disallowing the “PRACTICE of hetero-only marriages” (is that like the government only allowing same-sex marriages or something?), yeah, you can’t use your person religion to overrule the law. If we allowed that, there’d be no point in having any law, since everyone could override it. My religion allows me to rob banks and murder homeless people! You can’t arrest me!

   Surely you’re not saying that it was OK for Gov. Boggs of Missouri to decree that Mormons “should be exterminated or driven from the state” – because the 14th Amendment had not yet been ratified?

   Of course not, the opposite. My point was on the *legal* reasons why it was an irrelevant analogy, not any moral considerations.

9. #9 NoDoubt

   January 31, 2010

   Interesting isn’t it how such a small minority group (Mormons) can make so many Californians vote the way they did?

   Think they were afraid the Mormons would come after them and attack them the same way the “tolerant” prop 8 supporters are attacking Mormons??

10. #10 GrayGaffer

    January 31, 2010

    The constant defense of 8 is that it’s passing expressed the will of CA voters. The unsaid thing about it is that that expression was imposed by the financial clout of a special interest group mostly based outside CA and therefor NOT a CA voter. A special interest group who clearly believe that lies and misrepresentation are honorable ways to force others to do your will. And that forcing others to do your will is an honorable thing to do in and of itself.

    And then arguing for their testimony to be kept off camera for fear of retribution when the campaign not only pushed out the propaganda but also intimidated the less organized opposition out of their rights to be heard. Well. Makes my head explode trying to figure out how that can all fit into one mind.

    Gah!

11. #11 Phillip IV

    January 31, 2010

    netzach @ 6:

    That’s why we don’t want to see this particular definition changed.

    Too late – the definition of marriage has already changed, as it did regularly throughout its long (but not really universal) history, in reaction to socio-economic changes. If it didn’t, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion, in fact – back when marriage was mainly about child-rearing (a model of marriage that emerged in the mid-18th Century, and is probably the one you’re thinking of) nobody would have ever thought about something like gay marriage.

    But marriage is different today, not because some definition in a legal text was changed, but because millions of people are entering into marriages under completely different economic and technological circumstances and (thus) with different motives than their parents and grandparents. For the majority of people today, marriage is mostly about commitment – and that’s why it has even become relevant for gay couples.

    The fight is not about redefining marriage by decree, it is about adapting the legal definition of marriage to its changed nature.

12. #12 wrpd

    January 31, 2010

    “The union of one man and one woman has been the teaching of the Judeo-Christian scriptures and the core legal definition and practice of marriage in Western culture for thousands of years.”
    This is a stupid statement but it is even stupider coming from a mormon whose own church practiced polyamy for over 40 years.

13. #13 Johnnie Roper

    January 31, 2010

    I regard this Gay Marriage uproar as something that should never have come about. It has been thrust to the fore by the screaming and rantings of Perverts, who attempt to justify their perversions by making lots of noise. The American Public nowadays is very afraid of noise. Look at what happened in the OJ Simpson Case. Those jurors were so petrified that the blacks would riot and wreck Los Angeles, thEy were afraid to find the murderer guilty! So these perverts scream and rave and call “Normal,” people biased, so as to FORCE US to accept their disgusting perversions as normal. The word of the Lord in Leviticus Chapter 18 verse 22 states: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination.” Yet again in Chapter 20 we are instructed in verse 13 that: “If a man also lie with mankind,as he lieth with a woman,both of them have committed an abomination:They shall surely be put to death; their bloood SHALL be upon them.”
    I do not think it would take too great a stretch of the imagination, as to what our Heavenly Father would think of innocent children being brought up by a pair of perverted men or women! Commonsense seems to have gone out of style. These perverts scream and rant at public meetings, and the cowards on the committees have not got the intestinal fortitude to turn around, and have the bailiffs evict these screamers for causing disorderly conduct! They cause such a fuss, that the Spineless ones give way to their rantings! This of course sets a precedent for the next bunch of perverted screamers! Maybe one day there will be a REALLY HUGE GAY Gathering in that sinful state of California, and our Heavenly Father will cause the San Andreas Fault to give way, and dump all the Filth into the pacific Ocean! We were told to go forth and multiply! That takes a Man & A Woman. Thank God for That! “Because Frankly Old Boy, I don’t fancy you in the slightest!!!”
    Johnnie Roper.

14. #14 CC

    January 31, 2010

    Strange how the Mormons have such mind control over more than 50% of the California population. Did they hold guns to the heads of all the Catholics, Protestants, Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics, forcing them to vote against gay marriage? Did they put something in the water supply that only affected these groups? Or, did they all really just vote their conscience. Why are Mormons, (a very small percentage of the CA voting population), targeted for doing the same thing as all these other groups, just voting their conscience, which is a freedom guaranteed by the Constitution. How is it possible Mormons are responsible alone for the passage of “8″? They are not responsible alone. Free speech is also guaranteed by the Constitution. Both sides are free to put their money where their mouth is in support of their beliefs. If gay marriage and homosexuality is such a desirable thing, where were all those extremely wealthy Hollywood types, who spout support for gays and their agenda and then leave them without the funds to defeat “8″. Certainly, they could have put their money where it would help their gay pals in their fight for gay marriage. If money is the only thing that wins the vote, and the gays are accusing the Mormon Church of funding the win with their millions, seems to me like celebs let their gay pals down. Boy, you really find out who your friends are when it comes to money, don’t ya! In any case, money was not the issue in this vote, values were the issue, and more people in that state had the values to say no to gay marriage, than vice versa. Nobody held a gun to their heads…

15. #15 CC

    January 31, 2010

    wrpd…don’t know what polyamy is, but if you mean polygamy, as it was practiced in the Bible by various prophets, it is still a union between one man and one woman for the purpose of pro-creation and protection of the offspring of that union, which is how God intended it to be when he commanded mankind to multiply and replenish the earth. In polygamy, that one man just happens to have more than one wife, but he can still only be literally, physically “one” with one wife at a time. Sorry to tell ya, but boy-boy parts don’t make babies, nor do girl-girl parts make babies…never has, never will. And, it’s a darn good thing that Adam and Eve weren’t queer! Where would we all be then? Yes, Mormons practiced polygamy in the 1800s, until it was outlawed in the United States, long after Mormons started the practice. But, polygamy is not a sin against God, or nature, if God commands it, as He commanded some Biblical prophets to take more than one wife. Look it up in the Bible, along with the parts about homosexuality being an abomination in God’s eyes!

16. #16 Bobington

    January 31, 2010

    In summary, Mormonism is bad.

17. #17 netzach

    February 1, 2010

    Phillip IV @ 11

    … marriage was mainly about child-rearing (a model of marriage that emerged in the mid-18th Century, and is probably the one you’re thinking of) nobody would have ever thought about something like gay marriage.

    Marriage is still about child-rearing. Don’t believe me? You don’t have to look any further than the laws we make /about/ marriage.

    For example, we have laws against people who are first cousins (or closer) marrying. Why? Because we’re concerned about the genetics of the children, and the increased possibility of birth defects.

    We have laws about age of consent. Why? Because children shouldn’t be having children.

    And the laws about the ending of marriage. Ever been involved in a divorce? It’s all about property. Who gets to keep the house, the bank accounts, the cars, the dogs. And the children.

    The fight is not about redefining marriage by decree, it is about adapting the legal definition of marriage to its changed nature.

    Either way – it’s about definition. Not about rights. Just like I’ve been saying. Thanks for helping me make my point.

18. #18 llewelly

    February 1, 2010

    Adam, Eve, god … myths, one and all. Not a shred of evidence supporting them, and overwhelming evidence against them. And we should be grateful; god’s purported “scriptures” are full of hate and genocide.

19. #19 netzach

    February 1, 2010

    wrpd @ 12

    This is a stupid statement but it is even stupider coming from a [M]ormon whose own church practiced poly[g]amy for over 40 years.

    On the contrary. Even our own scripture – the one the offshoot fundamentalists try to use for justification of polygamy in the 21st century – defines marriage as a covenant between “one man” and “one wife” (See D&C 132:19)

20. #20 Jordan Licht

    February 1, 2010

    @netzach:

    Either way – it’s about definition. Not about rights. Just like I’ve been saying.

    Would you do me a favor and stop repeating this false dilemma?

    Re the purpose of marriage: if marriage is about child rearing, then why do we allow sterile people to marry? Why don’t we forcibly divorce those who choose not to have children? Are adoption or surrogate pregnancy acceptable? If so, are two men or two women allowed to marry so long as they adopt/get someone outside the marriage to help conceive/bear the child?

    Even our own scripture – the one the offshoot fundamentalists try to use for justification of polygamy in the 21st century – defines marriage as a covenant between “one man” and “one wife” (See D&C 132:19)

    Setting aside the fact that yes, the LDS church condoned polygamy for a long time, and many of its members practiced it up through the early 20th century, regardless of what shows up in canon, looking at my copy of the cited scripture, all I can see is “if a man marry a wife by my word…” Nothing about “one man” and “one woman”.

21. #21 Phillip IV

    February 1, 2010

    netzach @ 17
    

    Marriage is still about child-rearing. Don’t believe me? You don’t have to look any further than the laws we make /about/ marriage.

    That argument has been rejected by the courts on these very grounds: child-rearing is obviously not the legal purpose of marriage, as evidenced by the fact that our laws do not prevent heterosexual couples who are unable or unwilling to procreate from marrying.

    Either way – it’s about definition. Not about rights. Just like I’ve been saying. Thanks for helping me make my point.

    That’s not an either/or question – it is both about rights and about definition, but fundamentally it is about social change the Mormon church isn’t willing to acknowledge and is futility struggling against.

    In other news, your attempts at portraying the Mormon Church’s involvement as reasonable and secularily motivated has in the meantime been undercut somewhat by the appearance of Misters Johnnie Roper and CC – are we to assume they are from a different cult or do you wish to disavow their remarks?

22. #22 Sapphocrat

    February 1, 2010

    Gee, GrrlScientist, the Green Jell-O Eaters descend like locusts on nearly every post you make! (You must be high on their List of Enemy Blogs to Monitor and Swarm.) Well done; you’re hitting many raw nerves.

23. #23 Buffy

    February 1, 2010

    I see you brought the DNA crowd out of their hidey holes to do more Lying for the Lord.

24. #24 lfsalt

    February 1, 2010

    Reading the arguments from the marriage-for-everyone-and-everything crowd is really entertaining. And quite sad. Even more delusional is the insistence that a right which NEVER existed was suddenly and abruptly taken away. Furthermore as I stated in the first post, its beyond me how gays and liberals can on the one hand, support gay marriage because its supposedly a ‘basic human right’ and then at the same time oppose the most basic huma right of all to unborn babies-the right to LIVE. I am so proud that I along with 2 Million other Democrats voted Yes on Prop 8. I am especially pleased having seen the response of the No-side. Sour-faced and vitriolic. They have not sought to build bridges of understanding but have embarked on a REAL campaign of hate and bigotry against people who disagreed with their point of view-out of nothing more than spite. They rely on the garbage being fed to them by disgruntled ex-members. How insane is that? Do they actually think they are going to get an honest perspective of the church by speaking only to haters? That’s absurd-but not surprising. Furthermore, rest assured that should this issue come up again to a vote in California, we WILL REMIND VOTERS quite explicitely of you behavior after losing in 2008. Make no mistake. I can see the commercial now…let’s start with the video of that old lady in Palm Springs being physically pushed around by a bunch of angry gay men. Or how about that video of African Americans being slurred against while protesting WITH the no-people in front of the LA Temple. Or how about a video showing activists distributing flyers to all the neighbors of a 92-yr old woman who donated $25. And so on. It only gets uglier. Congratulations, you have officially become FAR worse than the church you condemn could ever dream of being.

25. #25 Jim S

    February 1, 2010

    I’ve been listening to the arguments presented by both sides of this issue for awhile now and have detected enough hate on both sides to go around. I believe both sides are feeling attacked and wronged. The present approach to solving this issue will only create huge polarization and strife and lead to nothing good.

26. #26 essay

    February 1, 2010

    GrrlScientist, you act like the Mormons did something illegal. It’s called “democracy”. The “rights” were granted by an activist State Supreme Court, which was overturned by voters in favor of the definition of marriage being between a man and a woman, just like in every other state where it’s been brought to the people for election. Mormons (or “cult” in your uninspired vernacular) make up a small minority in CA, and though campaigned for Prop 8, obviously couldn’t have passed it. That’d be a scientific impossibility.

27. #27 jay

    February 1, 2010

    I agree wholeheartedly that prop 8 is an unreasonable and presumably unconstitutional invasion into private life. But it’s also true of the federal government’s historic assault on polygamy (even with fully consenting adults). Maybe they’re trying to do to others what was done to them.

28. #28 Phillip IV

    February 1, 2010

    essay @ 26:

    GrrlScientist, you act like the Mormons did something illegal.

    You are acting as if illegality is the only legitimate reason to criticize something. The Mormon Church’s political activism was perfectly legal, that doesn’t make it right.

    Mormons (or “cult” in your uninspired vernacular) make up a small minority in CA, and though campaigned for Prop 8, obviously couldn’t have passed it.

    Prop 8 passed by 4.5 percent, why should a small minority with huge amounts of out-of-state cash not have made up that difference?

29. #29 netzach

    February 2, 2010

    Jordan Licht @ 8

    And for most of that time, women were considered property and nonwhite people were thought nonhuman. Something being tradition doesn’t necessarily mean we should keep it.

    Agreed. But we should be honest and admit that we’re examining whether or not a traditional definition ought to be changed – rather than whining about discrimination where none exists.

    And yes, it is discriminatory to allow straight people the right to marry whom they choose and deny it to others.

    We’re not denying the right to marry – that is, to enter into a union with the member of the opposite sex – to anybody.

    I’m not sure what you mean by disallowing the “PRACTICE of hetero-only marriages” (is that like the government only allowing same-sex marriages or something?)

    That’s where the government would take exception to us neither recognizing nor performing same-sex marriages, and revoke our authority to perform any marriage whatsoever.

    But before you dismiss that a nonsense, remember that we’ve already had the US Army camped at our border – and they weren’t there to protect our right to practice religion as we see fit.

    Those who fail to learn the lessons of history, etc.

30. #30 Paul Murray

    February 2, 2010

    “The Constitution? You mean that document which protected Mormons as they were driven from 4 states, because of their beliefs?”

    Not to mention the way ot protected the human rights of black people.

    Still, I understand their motives now – sheer dog-in-the-manger spite. Since their own form of – shall we say – variant matrimony was squelched by law, they want to do the same to other people with alternative lifestyles.

31. #31 kathy

    February 2, 2010

    The Prop 8 campaign, as mentioned previously, was largely funded by religious groups from out of state, ie. Mormons and Catholics. One thing that has not been mentioned as of yet is the unscrupulous tactics that were used. They produced ads that used false assertions about what legal gay marriage would mean. They said that if Prop 8 wasn’t passed then kids would be taught about homosexuality in school. They completely distorted facts to try and make their case and played upon people’s ignorance. They played dirty to win with ads like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7352ZVMKBQM&feature=related.
    And how much longer will churches be tax exempt?

32. #32 kathy

    February 2, 2010

    And this is some testimony from the pro Prop 8 “expert” witness -
    “Extending marriage rights to same-sex couples would probably reduce the proportion of homosexuals who marry persons of the opposite sex, and thus would likely reduce instances of marital unhappiness and divorce.”

    “Gay marriage would be a victory for the worthy ideas of tolerance and inclusion. It would likely decrease the number of those in society who tend to be viewed warily as ‘other’ and increase the number who are accepted as part of ‘us.’ In that respect, gay marriage would be a victory for, and another key expansion of, the American idea.”

    “Because marriage is a wealth-creating institution, extending marriage rights to same-sex couples would probably increase wealth accumulation and lead to higher living standards for these couples as well as help reduce welfare costs (by promoting family economic self-sufficiency) and decrease economic inequality.”
    Because even their witnesses can’t come up with legitimate reasons to not allow gay marriage.
    More can be found at http://www.prop8trialtracker.com

33. #33 Phillip IV

    February 2, 2010

    netzach @ 29:

    That’s where the government would take exception to us neither recognizing nor performing same-sex marriages, and revoke our authority to perform any marriage whatsoever.

    That’s also why I think we should urgently repeal freedom of religion. If we don’t, one day the government could conceivably take exception at my disrespect and force me to shut up about it – and I think my right to calm my paranoia in this regard ranks higher than other people’s right to exercise their religion.

    (/snark)