Looks Like the Same-Sex Marriage Amendment Passed

What's offensive about the ad? It's completely true. The Mormons flew in many people, including former missionaries, to go door to door in California. Mormons were the single largest bankroll for the YES on Prop 8 campaign, most of it from out-of-state. I have my (gay) marriage license tucked safely in my drawer, but scholars are arguing whether it's valid now. IF I HAD THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF EVERY "YES" VOTER, WOULD I GO TO THEIR WEDDINGS, THE WEDDINGS OF THEIR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN, FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN TO RUIN THEM? RUIN THE MOST BLESSED DAY OF TOTAL STRANGERS? Thanks, California Yes Voters, for doing that to me. And yes, the Mormons used money and fear more than any other group to make this happen. Perhaps I'll start with the Mormon weddings. . . if only they weren't held inside the Temple closed to outsiders (one has to have special underwear, and have one's private parts washed by old people, in order to enter the sacred temple - AND THEY CALL GAY PEOPLE 'FREAKS'???).

I live in CA. Yes, the mormon church poured - and I do mean poured - millions of dollars into the Prop 8 campaign to ban marriage between same-sex couples. They used Lies in all of their campaign ads. They used unbelievable scare tactics to create fear. Personally I do not find the ad offensive because that is what they have done in my state. They have walked in and taken away the marriage rights of same-sex couples with their churches money and lies.

You have been clearly misguided. The support for YES on 8 came mostly from ProtectMarriage.com. Many religious INDIVIDUALS donated, just like I'm assuming you donated to NO on 8. Let's stick with the facts.

The reality is that many of the same men and women - of all colors, races and religions - who voted for Obama voted for Prop 8. Although the vote was lower than that in 2000, it appears that the citizens of California are not ready for a re-definition of marriage.

The citizens of California had already approved civil union laws that were comprehensive. I wondered whether, unlike other contracts concerning partnerships, inheritance and powers of attorney, they would have been recognized as valid in Texas for division of property or custody because they were specifically for same sex couples.

THE TRUTH: This posted ad is the epitome of "lies and scare tactics." It is pathetic how helpless the NO on 8 campaign felt, that they had to target the Mormon faith. American people voted yesterday throughout the nation in support of PERSONAL beliefs, INCLUDING yourselves. There is no reason why we should point out a particular group.

If you know a single Mormon, you would know that this ad is a big lie. All religious missionaries, IN GENERAL, simply INVITE people to hear about their religion. If you are a true American, you would respect diverse religions and respect their right to vote.

Dear Anonymous,
I've met plenty of Mormons in my time, and I've seen both those Mormon missionaries who invite people to consider their faith and also unfortunately those Mormon missionaries who arrogantly try to force their beliefs on everyone else. Incidentally, a vote for Prop. 8 was a vote against religious freedom and diversity. It's one step towards making American a tyranny.

Well, the ad was pretty weak and stupid. The prop was unconstitutional and the religions lied. It should have targeted that more directly. Instead i get something that looked like a morning tv soap opera.
***
If you know a single Mormon, you would know that this ad is a big lie. All religious missionaries, IN GENERAL, simply INVITE people to hear about their religion. If you are a true American, you would respect diverse religions and respect their right to vote.

And if they don't like you, kiss goodbye to your basic state rights because they have lots of money and are happy to lie and cheat you out of them. I can't wait to see what they will target next. Can't wait to wear my little pink triangle.

I live in Florida where we also had the same sex marriage amendment on our ballots, which unfortunately passed. I don't believe government has the right to tell someone how they should live or who they can or cannot marry. I would like to someday see all people treated equally and I will continue to fight for these rights.

All an ad like that does is infuriate religious people and encourage them to vote yes on 8. This is where I think stupidity runs rampant with Atheists who think a brutal confrontation with religion is a step forward.

Mormon bashing in particular has gotten really out of hand. A friend doing his MBA mentioned an Atheist who went out of her way to bring up Mormonism specifically to goad the one Mormon classmate. He found it appalling as a secular humanist and an agnostic apatheist.

Then there are the anti-Mormon protests which involve streaking religious articles of clothing in shit. Be anti-Mormon/anti-religion all you want, but I have a real problem with people who really make it their business to go out of their way to offend people in order to assert moral superiority. It's not convincing. It's not conducive to creating a community where people respect each other enough to let each other alone- which is fundamentally how you get religious people to vote no on 8.

If you want to know what Mormon's do and believe, why don't you ask one? I'm a Mormon. I was a missionary. This ad is the exact opposite of what any Mormon missionary would do. Their job is to invite all to follow Jesus Christ. That's what they do all day long. You can choose to accept or reject the message. Jesus never forced anyone to accept his message and LDS missionaries never will either.

It's appalling that anyone would attack any religious group the way this ad does.

I should note my comment above was scattershot and slightly OT. The chip on my shoulder was doing a lot of the talking.

Separate from the add for the moment, I'm going to talk about Mormons, surprise.
Whatever their tactics in Prop 8, they did give a lot of money to a position that not only has been found unconstitutional in a number of states, but that totally repugnant.
Whatever they do politically or religiously, the fact that they are homophobic is asinine and repugnant.

If you want to know what Mormon's do and believe, why don't you ask one?

Yeah! Tell us all about the magic rocks and holy underwear!

I stand by my comments 100%. I personally know many Mormons, and everything I said about them pouring 40% of the YES money in from out-of-state. And bussing in their lemmings to go door-to-door. Of course there are exceptions, like Steve Young (or at least his wife) who broke rank and supported NO on 8 because of a gay brother and a willingness to think beyond the party line handed to the rank and file Mormon.

Yes, I do hold Mormons personally responsible. If they had kept their nose of CALIFORNIA's business, we might very well have a different and RIGHT result. And yes, I know toe-the-line Mormons, who've told me with a straight face (no pun intended) that I could join their church as a gay person SO LONG AS I NEVER ACTED ON MY FEELINGS. What, love the woman I married this summer, whose kids I adopted and support? And too I know the born-Mormon, born-gay teens who had electrodes strapped to their penises and shocked while they were shown gay porn. Yes, I know many Mormons, so don't pretend that it's NOT true. Of course the ad isn't literal but figurative, but as true as true can be. I myself am putting my considerable energies, as a first order of business on this dark day, to spread the truth about this so-called religion, where "dark skin" means sinners, whose own edicts until 1978 prevented African-Americans from being member, whose very origins are based on a convicted con man's "visions", a man who wed many teenagers, including wives of other men, after receiving a "vision" from God to do so. Until this day, I've operated under a "live and let live" philosophy, but the Mormons don't, so I too shall join that fight and call upon all I know to join me, to spread the truth about Mormons. Maybe their special "funny" underwear can save them - I intend to find out.

Thanks to all of you who voted NO ON 8. The fight is not over. For the rest, shame on you. Tend to your own marriages and BUTT OUT of other peoples'.

Yesterday bigotry and hatred and ignorance won a major victory. And on the same day we elected a black man to the White House. Obama is right. We have come so very far over the last century but we have even farther to go.

And what the fuck is wrong with the Democrats in this state? They have a registered majority. People voted in record numbers. Prop 4 failed. That means a good number of Democrats voted for Prop 8. I cannot find the words to describe my disappointment.

And the word that wasn't spoken in the whole fiasco was, "Loving."

No, I'm not referring to the emotional relationship, I'm referring to Loving v. Virginia

The whole stupid exercise is moot. Dead. Deceased. An ex-issue. Pining for the fjords. All that. As long as one State in the 50 United States grants "unnatural" marriages, the remaining 49 have no say in the matter.

If you know a single Mormon, you would know that this ad is a big lie. All religious missionaries, IN GENERAL, simply INVITE people to hear about their religion.
-anon

This ad is the exact opposite of what any Mormon missionary would do.
-Brian

The ad does not suggest that this is what missionaries do, nor even that we are on a slippery slope to them doing these things in the future. The ad is clearly a metaphor. The ad might be interpreted as asking, "You would recognize this behavior as oppressive and inappropriate, but isn't it the essence of what you're doing by supporting this law?"

I suspect that both anon and Brian know all this and are just misdirecting. I just wanted to spell it out to disarm their faux outrage.

The ad is clearly a metaphor.

I'm boring a popular election phrase here, again, not to belabor the point, it's an asinine metaphor.

"Borrowing" not "boring". Sorry. Asinine typo.

I'd like to know exactly why you consider this ad offensive.

There has been a lot of reporting on the Mormon's focus on this proposition. This was not individuals acting on their own, this was organized by the church.

The Journal reported in September that Mormon donors gave $15M to the yes campaign, while the Knights of Columbus only scraped up $1.25M:

See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122186063716658279.html

The Chronicle reported: "The church largely stays out of politics. But in this case, the Salt Lake City-based church has sent letters, held video conferences and in church meetings asked for volunteers to support the campaign. In response, some church members have poured in their savings and undertaken what may be an unprecedented grassroots mobilization for the effort."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/27/BAP113OIRD…

EXACTLY, TE and FIONA! Are Mormons crying "foul" because it suggest the absurd extremism of what their money and their lemmings sent door-to-door were TRYING (and sadly, did) accomplish? No sympathy. The Mormon population in California is tiny compared to the money and bodies sent in from Utah. They have no dog in this fight except their own self-righteous desire to foist belief systems on others by disingenuously deceptive ads. They pretend to "love everyone" provided you don't act on feelings they don't like, or happen to have the wrong color skin. That one must have a "Temple Recommend" to step foot in their sacred temples speaks of secret societies, wear strange white garments (KKK anyone?), in order to keep under wraps their absurd belief systems.

The problem they have with this ad is that it discloses the truth, that out-of-state money and people were sent it with an agenda, and they had no issue with lying and scaring people to "save traditional marriage". I have no idea what my gay marriage has to do with anyone else's marriage - certainly no straight person's marriage affects mine. Want to protect traditional marriage? Start in Utah, where the divorce rate and the use of Prozac is higher than the national average. Maybe spend your Prop money on outlawing divorce or some other silly notion. Just keep your stinking racist, sexist (yes, a female Mormon can't go to the "real" heaven located on the planet Kolob - seriously - unless her husband gained entry), and homophobic notions to yourselves. Or if not, be honest about who you are, so the people whose doors you knock on know ALL there is to know about the LDS faith. For these reasons, the ad is SPOT-ON - it's just too bad people got hoodwinked.

I'd characterize it more as hyperbole than a metaphor, though the difference there is more a matter of degree. The ad is basically saying that those delegalizing private marriages might as well be people going into your house and tearing up your marriage license. It's exaggerating the case to show the individual impact of this legislation, rather than looking at it in the broad terms of religious groups versus gays. To any individual couple whose marriage was broken up by this law, it certainly feels that personal.

Is it overblown? Of course, but that's par for the course in politics. What isn't par for the course is the blackmail and federal crimes that were committed by the Yes supporters. If anything, that's the part of the campaign we should be upset about.

And if you have a problem with people attacking religious beliefs, then I have no sympathy for you. No idea should be free from criticism, because otherwise there's no way to prune out wrong and harmful ideas. Frankly, this is what I believe Mormonism is (and most other religions as well).

The ad is cheesy, and it doesn't really focus on what's wrong with proposition eight or the lies of the pro-eight campaign.

It's not inaccurate, though. The mormon church has bankrolled a constitutional amendment that does grievous harm to some California citizens.

First, as a Californian, there are 4-5 million absentee ballots not yet included in those numbers. We're still awaiting an official update from the Secretary of State as to what the exact count is, but absentee ballots in CA tend to be significantly more liberal than those cast at polls. The count isn't over yet.

Secondly, this ad truthfully reflects the activities of the Mormon church in response to 8, and I'm hoping that under a more just administration the LDS church will lose tax exempt status for such abuse of the political system. What's with all of these anonymous Mormons commenting on this blog and lying about its accuracy? Aren't they supposed to value honesty as a part of their faith, or did they chuck that out when they moved into the political arena?

Thank you Josh in California. It's a shame we don't have 20 million of other peoples money to spend or maybe we could have made a better advert. It's a shame we aren't a militant force ready to do whatever our leaders say on a whim. Then we could winge and cry as much as them.

Mormons removing others rights through deception and lies and then playing wounded minority when people complain. How pathetic.

very nice web site i found you looking for stuff on our sons birth defect esophageal atresia and other complications i wish you nothing but the best. If there is any way that you would be willing to exchange links i would be so greatful, thanks again so much.

This ad is the exact opposite of what any Mormon missionary would do. Their job is to invite all to follow Jesus Christ. That's what they do all day long. You can choose to accept or reject the message. Jesus never forced anyone to accept his message and LDS missionaries never will either.

Thank you for completely missing the point. Jeebus Tapdancing Cripes. Didn't you hear that loud whooshing sound above your head?

Invite all to follow mythical messiah
!=
Amend constitution in different state to strip people from civil rights because you find their lifestyle icky.

How would you react to gay people sponsoring and organizing in Utah to pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting Mormons from wearing their magic underwear? Because magic underwear is icky, you know.

The only truthful thing any Prop 8 supporter ever said about the amendment was that it would ban gay marriage. Their entire argument for it was based upon lies and misconceptions and repudiated studies. Even the name of their website is a lie. The prop does nothing to protect marriage. I really wish the No on 8 campaign had spent more time debunking the lies of the bigots and theocratic bullies who supported the prop.

Perhaps those of you who are getting after members of the Mormon church for donating their time and money to passing Prop 8 should make a deal (as they say, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em). How about trying to get laws or constitutional ammendments that allow for every type of alternative marriage: gay marriage, polygamy, and so on. Mormons might join you on the gay marriage issue if you allow them the polygamy issue.

Frankly, to me, as a legal scholar, any argument made against polygamy or any other alternative marriage could also be (and has been) made against gay marriage. So either you are for marriage being between one man and one woman or else you must be for any sort of marriage. I personally don't care which. However, it is clear that any argument that there is a middle ground (i.e. allow for gay marriage but none of the other non-traditional forms of marriage) is hollow and hypocritical. Just an objective legal opinion.

Let me get this straight, Amused. What you're saying is, it's ok to discriminate against one group of people because other groups of people face similar discrimination? That we shouldn't try to bring equality to sizable percentage of the population because these other groups are, for the time being, left out?

The status of homosexuals in our society has come a long way but polygamy and polyamory are still looked down upon by a very, very large majority. It is impractical to lump them together in some sort of all-or-none mentality.

Amused: anything involving consenting adults (and consenting adults only), in whatever number and/or gender is fine by me. As long, of course, marital tax deductions don't stack. That'd be a bit silly.

Polygamy never almost never happens outside the oppression of religion. It's a completely different matter than gay marriage. It's almost invariably control of women masquerading as freedom.

"Frankly, to me, as a legal scholar, any argument made against polygamy or any other alternative marriage could also be (and has been) made against gay marriage. So either you are for marriage being between one man and one woman or else you must be for any sort of marriage. I personally don't care which. However, it is clear that any argument that there is a middle ground (i.e. allow for gay marriage but none of the other non-traditional forms of marriage) is hollow and hypocritical. Just an objective legal opinion."

Um I'm pretty sure that in many cases of gay marriage, no one has ever been able to legitimately or even actually bothered to make the claim that it was about oppression of women.(you will notice they don't allow multiple male groups) Additionally, the vast majority of groups and individuals against polygamy are doing so because of the frequent abuses of the tax code, children, and women. None of which would be allowed by one to one gay marriage.

Polygamy never almost never happens outside the oppression of religion. It's a completely different matter than gay marriage. It's almost invariably control of women masquerading as freedom.

I suspect that your sample set is rather narrow. Quite a few cultures outside of the Semitic-religion set have practiced polygamy, including a few in North America which were/are not in the least religious about gender roles but were/are quite flexible about them.

Hunter/gatherer societies in particular have some strong survival incentives towards polygamous family arrangements; they can be very beneficial to the women in those cases.

Obviously, a society which is under survival pressure and has a high differential mortality rate disfavoring young males must adopt polygamy to maintain threshold birth rate.

I personally have no problem with the idea of polygamy, polyandry, or other "non-traditional" marriage arrangements. I would have no problem with allowing these types of arrangements between consenting adults. I strongly suspect, however, people who share this opinion are in a rather tiny minority and would be unable to muster enough support to even begin to consider a full-blown attempt at starting the initiative process on it.

The fact that no one is advocating for legalizing these types of relationships doesn't change the fact that the campaign for Prop 8 contained misleading statements at best and outright lies at worst. Trying to make it all about the children, as they did, was even worse, IMNSHO; if marriage is about the ability to have children then we have to deny marriage to any couples who either cannot have children based on biology or choose not to have children. Just because some folks don't want to have to explain to their kids why Johnny has 2 daddies isn't a good enough reason to deny this basic right to gay couples.

Also, I had never seen this particular ad until I found it online the other day. I don't think it was ever aired on TV here.

Perhaps im a bit of an asshole, but i don't find the ad offensive at all. Sure, of the many mormans i've met and worked with, i've never met one who wasn't respectful and kind. But if the LDS Church is directly funding the campaign, then unless every day mormans, who are tithing to their church, speak out, then the reap what they sow.

I did not think there was hyperbole involved. Deciding that a marriage is illegal is pretty much the most invasive assault other than a physical/sexual one...

I also did not find the add offensive. Hyperbolic, yes. Offensive, no.

By spending 15 million dollars to undo the marriages of citizens in another state, the Mormon church more or less did walk into peoples' homes and tear up their marriage licenses. When I saw the add, I imagined that's what it must feel like to be married and gay in California today.

So if Mormons don't want people saying mean things about them, perhaps they shouldn't spend millions to promote cruel and discriminatory measures that hurt innocent people. And yes, I do hold them responsible for the actions of their church. They are the church, and they are the only ones with the power to stop it.

If you know a single Mormon, you would know that this ad is a big lie. All religious missionaries, IN GENERAL, simply INVITE people to hear about their religion. If you are a true American, you would respect diverse religions and respect their right to vote.

Born and raised in Utah. Spent nearly all of my adult life here. Grew up Mormon. Read the book of Mormon, the Peral of Great Price, the D and C, many, many issues of the Ensign, and the New Era, read many books by people such as Bruce R McConkie. Related to Mormons on all sides. Lived and worked with them all my life.
All of the church-going Mormons I know, have said their church leaders have encouraged them to support CA's proposition 8, with money, and if possible, with volunteer effort.

No matter what they did or how they would have done it, the fact remains that the Mormon church supports an illogical and bigoted position against specific people.

Hey, spare a moment to bash John Templeton, won't you? He donated $1.1 million, which wasn't as much as some — but it ain't shabby, either.

What Leni said.
Yes on 8 was a victory for bigots. Do they ever wonder who's right will be the next to go?

Still not quite sure why an ad with an entirely reasonable metaphor is more offensive than, say, GOP race baiting ads. Unless for some reason somebody didn't realise it was a metaphor and thought it was intended as an actual portrayal of what Mormons did on prop 8 (cough, cough).

"Mormon bashing in particular has gotten really out of hand."

Are the Mormons deeply prejudiced (in a variety of ways), or are they not? Are they pseudoscientists, or are they not? Are they revisionist historians, or are they not? Feel free to assume "the Mormons" and "they" mean either the church itself or the average Mormon while answering, as you'd perfer.

Finally I've found something worthwhile for my anger and resentment to the devastating loss on Tuesday - the grassroots effort to revoke the tax exempt status of the LDS (Mormon) "church"!!! Read the facts and pass the word - you can sign the petition online - it's aptly called "MORMONS STOLE OUR RIGHTS":
http://www.mormonsstoleourrights.com/#petition

Oooooh, I would love to see some tax-exempt statuses get yanked because of shenanigans like this! Maybe then the churches would think twice about getting involved in politics.

I'm still curious why this is "maybe the most offensive political ad ever". Maybe Chris missed these? Come on! The "Big John" ad is way worse.

...

Lori, why just the LDS church? I'd rather see a social movement to rid all of them of their tax exempt status.
...

And Perky Skeptic, it isn't about making them think twice about participating in politics. They participate in a politics anyway. As far as I can tell there isn't a whole lot of thought, much less second thought, going into it. It would be more like legalizing prostitution or drugs.

At least we'd get money for having to suffer through their social political maneuvering. As things are now, we pay them, in more ways than one, to shift child molesting priests about, teach children about the evils of contraception and vaccination, and advocate (with millions of tax free dollars) discriminatory legislation that targets vulnerable minority populations. And then tax payers get the bill to clean up their messes when their well-funded, tax free efforts at social engineering go bad.

I don't see any reason they can't be non-profits like other secular charity and advocacy organizations.

I think it's a fantastic ad. It's accurate and fair, and lays out the real issue.

Pro-Proposition 8 people shouldn't be offended by this ad, since writing their personal religious beliefs into law, and taking away others' rights, precisely describes their goals. If you think that's noble and right, why would you be offended by someone describing it that way?

Did this ever actually air? All the No on 8 ads I saw or heard were fuzzy and bland and didn't make the kind of blunt arguments needed to frame the issue accurately. The closest they came to framing it as a moral issue was to say (softly) that discrimination is wrong.

If this ad had been on the air, it might have made a lot of people who say they "don't have anything against gays" and "aren't bigots" -- but who voted in favor of 8 anyway -- actually think about their votes.

Frankly, to me, as a legal scholar, any argument made against polygamy or any other alternative marriage could also be (and has been) made against gay marriage. So either you are for marriage being between one man and one woman or else you must be for any sort of marriage. I personally don't care which. However, it is clear that any argument that there is a middle ground (i.e. allow for gay marriage but none of the other non-traditional forms of marriage) is hollow and hypocritical. Just an objective legal opinion.
Whether or not the argument is hollow and hypocritical depends on the rationale.

Supporting legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" because of personal preference, a belief that such recognition is beneficial to society, or even a belief that denying such recognition constitutes wrongful gender discrimination does not necessitate supporting legal recognition of polygamy.

But supporting legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" because of a belief that sexual orientation discrimination is wrong, or that people should be able to freely marry any consenting adult they choose, must logically lead to support of legal recognition of polygamy. After all, applying equal protection on the basis of sexual orientation or preference for homosexuals but not polygamists is akin to applying equal protection on the basis of race for people of black descent but not for people of Asian descent.

Incidentally, there is a campaign to legalize same-sex "marriage" into the constitution; it would define marriage as between two persons regardless of gender. This would also continue the ban on polygamy, until a state constitutional amendment is passed overturning the ban, or the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the Constitution implies a right to legal recognition of polygamy.