This comes from an email attributed to a man by the name of Kevin Hamilton; as he notes, "Any errors are mine and in no way reflect official Church policy or doctrine." Please keep that in mind.
The Facts:
1. Mormons make up less than 2% of the population of California. There are approximately 800,000 LDS out of a total population of approximately 34 million.
2. If one estimates that 250,000 LDS are registered voters (the rest being children), then out of a total of 5,661,583 yes votes, LDS voters made up 4.4% of the Yes vote and 2.3% of the total Proposition 8 vote (11,050,301).
3. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) donated no money to the Yes on 8 campaign (except for a nominal, and legal, in-kind donation of $2,078.97, to cover the travel expenses of leaders coming from Utah for a meeting). Individual members of the Church were encouraged to support the Yes on 8 efforts and, exercising their constitutional right to free speech, donated whatever they felt like donating.
4. The No on 8 campaign raised more money than the Yes on 8 campaign. Unofficial estimates put No on 8 at $38 million and Yes on 8 at $36 million, making it the most expensive non-presidential election in the country.
5. Advertising messages for the Yes on 8 campaign are based on case law and real-life situations. The No on 8 supporters have insisted that the Yes on 8 messaging is based on lies. Every Yes on 8 claim is supported.
6. The majority of our friends and neighbors voted Yes on 8. Los Angeles County voted in favor of Yes on 8. Ventura County voted in favor of Yes on 8.
7. African Americans overwhelmingly supported Yes on 8. Exit polls show that 70% of Black voters chose Yes on 8. This was interesting because the majority of these voters voted for President-elect Obama. No on 8 supporters had assumed that Obama voters would vote No on 8.
8. The majority of Latino voters voted Yes on 8. Exit polls show that the majority of Latinos supported Yes on 8 and cited religious beliefs (assumed to be primarily Catholic).
9. The Yes on 8 coalition was a broad spectrum of religious organizations. Catholics, Evangelicals, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims - all supported Yes on 8. It is estimated that there are 10 million Catholics and 10 million Protestants in California. Mormons were a tiny fraction of the population represented by Yes on 8 coalition members. (Christa's note: In the LDS Church broadcast to its members, it was noted that the Church was invited to join the coalition by the Evangelicals and Catholics - they were in no way the ones pushing the efforts or running the show.)
10. Not all Mormons voted in favor of Proposition 8. Our faith accords that each person be allowed to choose for him or her self. Church leaders have asked members to treat other members with "civility, respect and love," despite their differing views.
11. The Church did not violate the principal of separation of church and state. This principle is derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." The phrase "separation of church and state," which does not appear in the Constitution itself, is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, although it has since been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court in recent years. The LDS Church is under no obligation to refrain from participating in the political process, to the extent permitted by law. U.S. election law is very clear that Churches may not endorse candidates, but may support issues. The Church has always been very careful on this matter and occasionally (not often) chooses to support causes that it feels to be of a moral nature.
12. Supporters of Proposition 8 did exactly what the Constitution provides for all citizens: they exercised their First Amendment rights to speak out on an issue that concerned them, make contributions to a cause that they support, and then vote in the regular electoral process. For the most part, this seems to have been done in an open, fair, and civil way. Opponents of 8 have accused supporters of being bigots, liars, and worse. The fact is, we simply did what Americans do - we spoke up, we campaigned, and we voted.
For more information go to http://whatisprop8.com
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Setting the facts straight - Mormons and Prop. 8
Thousands protest against Mormon Church at Salt Lake temple
Opponents of a measure that banned gay marriage in California took their outrage to the spiritual hub of Mormonism on Friday.
More than 3,000 people swarmed downtown Salt Lake City to march past the LDS temple and church headquarters, protesting Mormon involvement in the campaign for California's Proposition 8. The measure, which defined marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman, passed this week.
A sea of signs in City Creek Park, where the march began, screamed out messages including, "I didn't vote on your marriage," "Mormons once persecuted . . . Now persecutors," and "Jesus said love everyone." Others read, "Proud of my two moms" and "Protect traditional marriage. Ban divorce."Former Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson and three openly gay state legislators, Sen. Scott McCoy and Reps. Jackie Biskupski and Christine Johnson, spoke out in support. At one point, the crowd took up the mantra made famous by the country's new president-elect: "Yes, we can!"
Then, the masses headed west, weaving between cars, waving at those who watched from windows in the LDS Church Office Building and shouting chants such as: "What do we want? Equality! When do we want it? Now!"Across the street on North Temple, a group of about 50 - the majority not LDS members - defended the church's support of the successful ballot measure. "The people voted," they shouted at the protesters. "YOU are intolerant!"
Others screamed: "Marriage is between a man and woman. You'll never be a man and woman!"
Some marchers offered heated arguments to the counterprotesters, others responded by kissing their partners. The romantic moments were greeted with cheers.
Thousands of people packed a Salt Lake City park and then paraded through downtown streets Friday night for a vocal but peaceful protest of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' participation in California's new ban on gay marriage.
An estimated 3,500 members and supporters of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community gathered at City Creek Park to speak out against the LDS Church for encouraging its members to support Proposition 8.
"We're here because we've been hurt, some of us very personally," said Jacob Whipple, who organized the protest as a show of solidarity with Californians who have been staging such events since Election Day.
"I would like to thank the (LDS Church) for what they've done," Whipple said. "They have helped awaken this spirit in the gay community. For way too long, we've been complacent in our own rights. ... Now we have this momentum."
It is disturbing that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is being singled out for speaking up as part of its democratic right in a free election.
Members of the Church in California and millions of others from every faith, ethnicity and political affiliation who voted for Proposition 8 exercised the most sacrosanct and individual rights in the United States — that of free expression and voting.
While those who disagree with our position on Proposition 8 have the right to make their feelings known, it is wrong to target the Church and its sacred places of worship for being part of the democratic process.
Once again, we call on those involved in the debate over same-sex marriage to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility towards each other. No one on either side of the question should be vilified, harassed or subject to erroneous information.
Granted, none of us like, or should like, to be disregarded, to be silenced, to see a flawed argument prevail, or to endure a gratuitous discourtesy. But such circumstances as these seldom constitute that field of action from which meekness calls upon us to retire gracefully...
Meekness will permit us to endure more graciously the cruel caricaturing and misrepresentation that accompany discipleship, especially in the rugged last days of this dispensation. Remember the fingers of scorn in Lehi's vision which pointed and mocked at those who clung to the iron rod (see 1 Nephi 8:2633)? The mockers were not a small minority. And they were persistent and preoccupied in their scorn of the saints. You will come to see that preoccupation.
Meekness permits us to be prompted as to whether to speak out or, as Jesus once did, be silent. But even when the meek speak up, they do so without speaking down.
Religion and America: A Prop. 8 U.S. history lesson
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I think it's worth noting that the original wording of the First Amendment proposed by the Senate on March 9, 1789, is that "Congress shall not make any law establishing any religious denomination." The second version stated "Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination." Notice the nuanced difference. For the Founders, the terms "religion" and "denomination" are interchangeable. As a writer, I can appreciate why they would leave one and not both. It would have been redundant in their eyes to have both!
Fisher Ames, the Founding Father who offered the version we now know as the First Amendment, wrote in an 1801 magazine article that he was concerned that the Bible might eventually take a backseat in the classroom: "Why then, if these new books for children must be retained, as they will be, should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a school book?"
And he's the one who finalized that Congress shall not make a ruling on religion!
I respect the protestors' First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly - but their argument should be directed to the government, not the Church. And even then, the people. voted. twice. on. this. Against every odd they stacked against us. Their reaction is so irrational!
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
While a few of the Framers were religious skeptics, most were committed churchmen - and even the skeptics appreciated religion's power to promote civic virtue. The question was, how to bring such power to bear? Some delegates argued for a mild religious test, requiring officeholders to embrace mainstream Christianity.
Experience had shown, however, that religious tests, however mild, had the effect of cementing an official tie between church and state. Several of the Framers regarded such a tie as desirable. No republican society, they argued, could succeed without some official religion. But most of the delegates took the opposite view. Official religion worked two kinds of mischief, they said. It opened the way for the official church to corrupt the political system, and conversely opened the way for the political system to corrupt the official church. Those delegates representing states where a religious establishment still persisted could testify to the baneful effects.
By prohibiting a religious test, the Framers aimed not to destroy the influence of religion on politics but to purify it. The theory went something like this. All believers, now lacking any official capacity, were welcome to exert their influence on govermnet in any way they saw fit - just as any citizens were. And since no denomination stood to gain by the way of patronage, the motives of all must be relatively pure. The only real message a church might have under the Constitution would be to urge integrity, responsibility and a sacralized civic virtue.
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Protests to rage at the Salt Lake temple tonight
On Thursday, about 1,000 gay-marriage supporters demonstrated outside the LDS Church's Los Angeles Temple. Even more are expected tonight outside the Salt Lake Temple and the church's world headquarters.
At 6 p.m., protesters plan to gather at City Creek Park on the corner of North Temple and State Street. The three openly gay members of the Utah Legislature — Scott McCoy, D-Salt Lake; Christine Johnson, D-Salt Lake; and Jackie Biskupski, D-Salt Lake — are expected to address the crowd, as is human-rights activist and former Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson.
After an hour-long rally, the group plans to march around the two city blocks surrounding Temple Square and The Church Office Building — "until we're cold, tired and hungry," Whipple said.
The passage of Proposition 8 has energized the gay community, he said.
"We need to use this momentum and stand up for our rights," Whipple said.
Salt Lake City police plan to have extra officers patrolling the area, including 10 motor cops to help keep traffic flowing and to make sure people cross the street safely, said spokeswoman Lara Jones. Extra officers will be called for traffic control as needed.
This is amazing and appalling to me that these groups can be out in front of the Mormon Church waiving signs like "Mormons go to hell". This kind of practice should be banned from all aspects of protest. It is no different than the persecution of Jews in Germany from the Nazi’s of the 1930’s and forties.
If this was happening in front of a Jewish temple, the backlash would be great from the Jewish community as well as the government and ACLU...I can't believe what I am witnessing...It is shameful to be true and a sad day in US history. The democratic process is in place to govern our lands…it was followed and now the loser of the process wants to challenge its validity? WOW…this can’t be happening!!!
I had to go through all of this to include signs being stolen and my house being egged, just to define the word marriage. It has been decided…go find your own word if you don’t like Domestic Partners…change that…but don’t try to vilify and intimidate African Americans and Mormons and Christians just because your side was able to raise more money than the Yes side…and you still were not able to get the job done…it is the process…work within the process. Quit trying to change the process just because it does not suit your agenda.
Domestic partners have the same rights in CA (Still, even after the vote) as married couples. They can file a joint tax return; get dependant health care from their employer, visitation in the hospitals and inheritance.
I am Catholic and I don’t particularly agree with all aspects of the Mormon Church, but I thank them for their support and I stand with them as all religious groups should in this time of outlandish acts or hate and deceit.
“The right to amend California’s constitution is not granted to the People, it reserved by the People” (Andrew Pugno).
LA Temple protest update
I got this via email this morning - I hope its author won't mind my sharing it with you, but he says it better than I could:
It's getting ugly in LA. Hopefully it will die down in a few days, but for now it's ugly. I received the following from a good friend who just got back from the LA temple grounds:
I was there...crazy...after i asked a cop if i could take down the mean signs...and he said he wouldn't stop me....i went about tearing signs down off the temple fence and got harassed for it...and two people tried to grab them out of my hands ...they kept blocking my path...trying to get me to stop pulling their hate posters down....one even physically put their hand on me to stop me...i finally dropped the signs and walked away..... they also put graffiti on the outside temple fence walls...they wouldn't let people drive out of the temple parking lot....they yelled, waved signs....flipped off the temple....sat in the middle of the road and wouldn't let cars go by.....i can't believe this!!! it started at 2 pm today...i didn't get there til about 7 pm...but when i left around 11 pm... they were still going....a fight broke out between a tongan girl and a no on prop 8 person...then the tongan mormons jumped in to protect her.....a girl got her nose bashed it....unfortunately i missed this part because i was running around the other side of the temple looking for my friend....after the people wouldn't leave me alone....no worries...i'm home safe....please pray for these people..they need help! sorry for all the rambles...just a little fired up...
Please pray for the members in California, and for the temples there. Threats are being made against both. (And it's not just California - I've heard that a protest is planned for the Salt Lake temple today, and protestors are going to target the Newport Beach temple on Saturday.)
In the mean time, while an angry mob gathered outside the temple, the Church issued the following statement:
It is important to understand that this issue for the church has always been about the sacred and divine institution of marriage -- a union between a man and a woman. Allegations of bigotry or persecution made against the church were and are simply wrong. The church's opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility toward gays and lesbians. Even more, the church does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.
The Church has been unfailingly civil in the midst of this heated debate... a beacon of courtesy in a sea of heated rhetoric.
We truly live in interesting times. Proposition 8 was never about discrimination. We can love our gay and lesbian neighbors, respect them and wish the best for them, and still believe and comprehend that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. It is a slippery slope to say, "If you don't agree with my political ideas, you are a bigot and we can't be friends." But that is essentially what the 'No on 8' crowd is saying. And it's not right, it's not fair, and it's not a good way to live in a democracy.
p.s. A couple of articles worth checking out:
Opponents of Prop 8 converge on Mormon Temple in Westwood, California: http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/politics/local_elections&id=6493052
Two Arrested Near Los Angeles Mormon Temple in Anti-Proposition 8 Protest: http://www.myfoxla.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=7808264&version=5&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1
An Evangelical rises in defense of the Mormons: What A Long Strange Trip It's Been: http://www.article6blog.com/2008/11/06/what-a-long-strange-trip-its-been/
For more information go to http://whatisprop8.com
Thursday, November 6, 2008
L.A. Temple to close because of No on 8 protest
More than 3,000 protesters marched near the landmark Los Angeles California Temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Westwood today to protest the church's strong support for Proposition 8. Santa Monica Boulevard is closed and nearby traffic is gridlocked.
Opponents of Proposition 8, which outlawed gay marriage in California, were waving banners and chanting. A similar protests occurred on Wednesday night in Hollywood and West Hollywood.
Los Angeles Police Department officials say they won't be caught off-guard as they were last night, when they were required to call a tactical alert after a few members of the mostly peaceful crowd got out of hand. The protest is scheduled to begin at 2 p.m. off Santa Monica Boulevard.
In the wake of the passage of the state proposition banning gay marriage, Wednesday night saw thousands protest in West Hollywood and Hollywood, forcing police to shut down some streets and the LAPD to call a citywide tactical alert that required officers from one watch to stay on duty during the next watch.
At least seven people were arrested, four at the intersection of Hollywood and Highland, where one man jumped on top of a police car. Television cameras captured one protester struggling with officers and being struck on the legs by batons.
The Mormon temple is apparently being targeted because of church members' funding and support of the proposition.
Voters and marriage: The people have spoken - again
This excellent article came to me via email - it's originally from the Wall Street Journal:
On the same day that Barack Obama carried California by 24 points, the state's voters nonetheless amended its constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Late yesterday Proposition 8 was ahead 52% to 48% with 95% of precincts reporting.
This is a big event -- less for the merits of gay marriage than as a statement about democracy. In a referendum in 2000, 61% of California voters had voted to bar same-sex marriage in the state. But in a raw display of judicial power, a 4-3 Supreme Court majority erased that referendum by declaring in May that same-sex marriage was protected by the state constitution. So opponents of gay marriage had to return to the electorate to amend the state constitution. One of the more effective TV ads contrasted the millions who voted for that proposition in 2000 with the four judges who chose to impose their cultural will. And this is California, where the media portray anyone who opposes gay marriage as a bigot or yahoo.
Similar amendments also passed in Florida and Arizona Tuesday, bringing the number of states that have done so to 30. Arizona voters had defeated a similar measure two years ago, but it passed this year 56%-44%.
Clearly many of the voters who came out for Mr. Obama also voted for the gay marriage ban. The marriage amendments outperformed John McCain by 14 points in Florida and 15 in California. So what changed? The fact that two state Supreme Courts declared same-sex marriage a constitutionally guaranteed right this year -- California in May and Connecticut in October -- no doubt played a role in pushing the Florida and Arizona measures over the top.
All of which is a warning to the Obama Administration as it bids to seed the federal courts with judicial liberals. Mr. Obama says he opposes gay marriage, but he also opposes the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act that says states needn't honor same-sex marriage laws in other states. Opponents of that law, which was signed by Bill Clinton, are hoping Mr. Obama will appoint judges who will declare it unconstitutional.
Tuesday's vote shows that's a risky strategy. Instead of trying to impose gay marriage by judicial fiat, perhaps some democratic persuasion is in order. Same-sex marriage was not a divisive political issue until courts legislated it from the bench.
For more information go to http://whatisprop8.com
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
who wouldn't want an international holiday?
MEDIA ADVISORY, Nov. 4 /Christian Newswire/ -- In response to the truly despicable, bigoted advertisement, Home Invasion, produced to defeat California's Proposition 8, the members of the Ruth Youth proclaim November 5, 2008 to be International Mormon Appreciation Day.
for the full statement, click HERE.
For more information go to www.whatisprop8.com
Not to rain on the parade, but...
We knew this was coming, right?
The LA Times reports that gay-rights advocates will be heading to the courts to challenge Prop. 8 (surprise, surprise):
After losing at the polls, gay-rights advocates filed a legal challenge today in California Supreme Court to Proposition 8, a long-shot effort that the measure's supporters called an attempt to subvert the will of voters.
Lawyers for same-sex couples said they will argue that the anti-gay-marriage measure was an illegal constitutional revision -- not a more limited amendment, as backers said.
The legal action contends that Proposition 8 actually revises the state Constitution by altering such fundamental tenets as equal-protection guarantees. A measure to revise the state Constitution can be placed before voters only by the Legislature.
Opponents of gay marriage expressed outrage at the move.
"This is exactly the type of behavior that brought us to this position to begin with," said Proposition 8 co-chair Frank Schubert. "The people voted eight years ago overwhelmingly in favor of traditional marriage and they seem to be saying in pretty strong terms again . . . that they favor traditional marriage, and yet this is not accepted by gay-rights activists."
"Now, if they want to legalize gay marriage, what they should do is bring an initiative themselves and ask the people to approve it. But they don't. They go behind the people's back to the courts and try and force an agenda on the rest of society."
Former California Supreme Court Justice Joseph Grodin said the legal challenge will be a "tough battle" for supporters of same-sex marriage.
Gay-marriage proponents see it differently. "A major purpose of the Constitution is to protect minorities from majorities. Because changing that principle is a fundamental change to the organizing principles of the Constitution itself, only the Legislature can initiate such revisions to the Constitution," said Elizabeth Gill, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California.
It is a matter of fairness, said Jenny Pizer, a staff attorney with Lambda Legal. "If the voters approved an initiative that took the right to free speech away from women, but not from men, everyone would agree that such a measure conflicts with the basic ideals of equality enshrined in our Constitution. Proposition 8 suffers from the same flaw: It removes a protected constitutional right -- here, the right to marry -- not from all Californians, but just from one group of us," she said.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Equality California and six same-sex couples who did not marry before Tuesday's election but would like to marry now.
The state high court has twice before invalidated measures as illegal revisions, but some legal analysts expressed doubt that the Proposition 8 challenge would succeed. Similar attempts to overturn anti-gay-marriage measures have failed in Oregon and Alaska.
A spokesman for San Francisco City Atty. Dennis Herrera said he would also file a legal challenge.With more than 96% of precincts reporting in the state, the measure leads by a margin of 52% to 48%, prompting The Times to call the race. Opponents of the measure have not yet conceded defeat.
And thus we see why I've refrained from a victory dance of any sort.
(Although I do have to ask - and please, if you have the answer, do tell - but where exactly does the Constitution outline a "right to marry," and where does that so-called right entail the right to change the definition of a word? I'm not being facetious - if someone can give a good answer on that one, I'd love to hear it.)
What a bittersweet victory, too. Although I'm amazed and delighted that Prop. 8 passed, there are such tender hurt feelings on both sides. My heart - and my prayers - really do go out to the gay community, to those who feel slighted with this outcome. I know their sense of loss and anguish is real, and I can empathize with that. Please, everyone, keep them in your prayers, too.
For more information go to http://whatisprop8.com
Reporting outstanding news...
California has been officially called a state that supports and recognizes Traditional Marriage only. Friends and loved ones, it is official!
This is also true for Florida and Arizona alike.
Check out: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27523989 for more information.
You all have been an incredible strength to me and my testimony has definitely grown through all of this.
I think you are amazing - thanks for all you have done!
For more information go to www.whatisprop8.com
it's not over yet.
for a little light reading, courtesy of the la times by way of the drudge report, click HERE. before you click on the link, take a minute to say a little prayer for prop 8. things are looking good, but it's not over yet.
For more information go to www.whatisprop8.com
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
The LDS Church responds to "Home Invasion" No on 8 ad
For more information go to http://whatisprop8.com
PROPOSITION 8: A CLEAR MESSAGE FROM SOMEONE WHO'S BEEN THERE
It may be too late to change someone's mind at the polls, but it's never too late to understand one another. I got this email today and it touched me. Thank you Erin!
PROPOSITION 8: A CLEAR MESSAGE FROM SOMEONE WHO'S BEEN THERE
I am going to attempt the impossible: I want to try to discuss Proposition 8 in an honest, equitable manner.
To demonstrate the divisiveness of the issue, let me first point out that I could only call it "Proposition 8." If I'd called it by its original name, "Proposition 8: California Marriage Protection Act," you would think that I want you to vote "Yes on 8." After all, who wouldn't want to protect marriage? If I'd called it by its new name, as determined by California's attorney general and legislative analyst in July, "Proposition 8: Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry," you
would think that I want you to vote "No on 8." After all, who would want to eliminate someone's rights?
And, to demonstrate how far-reaching its effects, I didn't even need to call it "California' s Proposition 8." No matter where this email goes, to any of the 50 states that may have propositions up for vote, I'm confident people will know which state's "Proposition 8" I'm talking
about.
Laurie Goodstein of the New York Times describes the Proposition with poetic imagery: "it is raging like a wind-whipped wildfire in California." More poetic still...from an article in Monday's San Francisco Chronicle:
"Michelle Sundstrom and her husband gave $30,000 to the Yes on 8 campaign and put a sign on their home. But in response, two women parked an SUV in front of their home, with the words 'Bigots live here' painted on the windshield. Sundstrom believes such responses must come from deep places of pain-and that gays and lesbians are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals, just not the word marriage. Any animosity toward gays or lesbians is wrong, she said.
"There must be such deep, deep, deep hurt; otherwise there couldn't be so much opposition," she said. "They've lived with this. I guess we're getting a taste of where they live."
Wow. Perhaps all this craziness and hate-slinging is actually getting us somewhere. A heterosexual Mormon couple has a "Bigots live here" sign parked in front of their house, and what's their response? "They've lived with this. I guess we're getting a taste of where they live."
And she didn't just say "deep hurt." She said "deep, deep, deep hurt." I know the depth of that pain. I grew up Mormon and gay back in the 1970s. That was when we were shunned, ridiculed, bruised, battered, and discriminated against by nearly everyone, religious or otherwise. We hid in the closets because it hurt too much to come out. People who did come out were called perverts, child molesters, predators, queer, sick, you name it. For those of us who were Mormon, it was even worse. We were attracted to the same sex, yet Mormon doctrine stated we were supposed to get married only to a member of the opposite sex. It is a direct conflict between the two strongest, most significant desires in life.
When I was in college, I met a woman with whom I thought I'd spend the rest of my life. But after a couple of years, we broke up. That was when I had this feeling, an impression, to talk to my bishop. I had no idea who he was because I hadn't gone to church in years.
That bishop used the power of the priesthood in my behalf, just as the divine plan had been laid out. He met with me for almost three years as I struggled and faltered. Suicide was a very real threat. I feel blessed, or lucky, or both, not to be among the many who have already pulled the trigger. I wasn't suicidal because of the Church's unwavering stance on marriage, however. I hadn't been forced to believe, or guilted into it. I had not been brainwashed. My testimony came from the heart.
In time, my spiritual identity began to gain strength over my sexual identity. I was finally able to choose the right. But it was a troubling choice. I had no desire, whatsoever, to spend a lifetime with a man - much less an eternity. So that left me with celibacy. To this day, sacrificing same-sex relationships is the greatest sacrifice I have made.
Years ago, a friend said: "The sacrifice of a loved one for an attempt to live righteously cannot go unnoticed. The loss is real, the sadness is real, in a world where so few things are real." Now, the loss and pain are being publicly recognized by Church leaders. In a fireside for Latter-day Saints in California, Elder Quentin L. Cook said, "There are faithful temple-worthy members of the Church who struggle with this great challenge, often in silence, fear, and great pain. Our hearts go out to these good brothers and sisters even as we uphold the divine truths the Lord has revealed about marriage."
Back when I was struggling with same-sex attraction, I couldn't find any LDS resources that dealt specifically with the issue. I'd insist, "The Church doesn't understand. They don't even care enough to help." Finally I realized the Church I was critizing was not just "they", it was also "I". And perhaps "I" should quit complaining and start writing. So I did. The title of my book sums it up: Born That Way? A True Story of Overcoming Same-Sex Attraction. Few people were offering hope back then for people who wanted to overcome same-sex attraction. I felt compelled by the spirit to provide hope for others with struggles similar to mine.
The secular resources did more harm than good. Back then, the only claims you heard from the "experts" were: "Sexual attractions are a permanent part of who you are. They're indelible, unchangeable, and unavoidable. " Fortunately, the "experts" are now realizing that, just like other aspects of who we are, sexual attractions are influenced by genetics, environment, upbringing, experiences - all of it. Nature and nurture are no longer pitted against each other.
I've had the unique opportunity to witness the journey of many people who struggle with same-sex attractions. In 1990, I volunteered as a phone counselor - originally referred through Evergreen, an organization established to help Mormons who face this trial. Over the span of almost 20 years, I've seen some Latter-day Saints get married in the temple, and others work to remain celibate - either because they have not found a spouse yet, or because they have not developed attractions toward the opposite sex. I also have friends, who once had very strong testimonies, who tried desperately to bring their lives into accordance with gospel principles, but finally gave up. At least for now.
THIS IS SO IMPORTANT:
Some people, no matter what they do or how hard they try, will never find themselves attracted to the opposite sex, in this life. They deserve our utmost respect. So do those who identify as gay or straight or bisexual or none of the above. They all deserve our respect.
It's not difficult for me to understand how the body of the Church in California has become divided over this issue. I have felt divided, too. Our family lived in California in 2000, when the Defense of Marriage Act came up for vote the first time. My husband and I were sealed together for time and all eternity, and our children were born under the new and everlasting covenant. We, as an eternal family, were and are the direct beneficiaries of the Church's unwavering stance on marriage. What once created angst so severe I considered suicide has led me to a life I never thought possible. One in which I have been happily married - to a man - for 15 years.
However, I know all too well what it's like to be discriminated against. "Eliminating" someone else's rights seems wrong. And up until this past week, it seemed to go against my sense of fairness, democracy and justice as a citizen of the United States. It also seemed to run contrary to the core of my faith - the second greatest commandment - to love one another.
Despite my apprehensions in 2000, my husband and I acted in faith and supported Proposition 22 because the prophet asked us to. I hate to admit this, but it wasn't until this week that I was finally able to reconcile the opposing viewpoints I continued to debate with myself. I finally realized why the leaders of the Mormon Church have been taking such an active role in all this. It happened when I read a National Public Radio report entitled "When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash". It says, "In recent years, some states have passed laws giving residents the right to same-sex unions in various forms. Gay couples may marry in Massachusetts and California. There are civil unions and domestic partnerships in Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Oregon."
I was astonished when I read: "So far, the religious groups are losing." They listed examples such as Catholic Charities in Massachusetts. They had to pull out of the adoption business because they refused to adopt to same-sex couples. Even individuals' religious rights are being revoked. A woman declined to photograph a same-sex couple's commitment ceremony, saying her Christian beliefs prevented her from sanctioning same-sex unions. She was found guilty of discrimination.
When I read that article, it was like a light bulb went on. More importantly, I also felt a spiritual confirmation that the prophet truly is prophetic. Here is the impression that came to me as I read:
It's not that the Mormon Church is trying to get into politics. It's that politics is trying to get into the Church. And not just our church. Any church or congregation or individual who believes that only a marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.
I'm sorry I couldn't see what the prophet could see-until this week. I'm sorry I'm not sending this letter out till now. And I'm sorry for my apathy - for being "lukewarm". Why, just last week I thought it was only a matter of time before same-sex marriages became legal everywhere. How wrong I was.
Unfortunately, someone has to lose with Proposition 8. Somebody's right to something will be limited at the end of the day on Tuesday. I, for one, do not want it to be my right to worship as I please.
Sincerely,
Erin Eldridge
P.S. For those who would like to respond to this letter - whether in anger or frustration or support - I will do my best to respond to every email I receive. But please, be patient. All our kids are still at home and I work part time. Email riverwalk8@gmail.com
Catholic Conference Criticizes Outrageous No on 8 TV Commercial
SACRAMENTO, Nov. 3 -- The California Catholic Conference today criticizes as "bigoted and intolerant" a new 'No on Proposition 8' television commercial scheduled to run on TV stations tomorrow.
The ad, produced by a group called 'Courage Campaign Issues Committee and viewable here, depicts supposed missionaries from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints conducting a home invasion of a lesbian couple's home to steal their wedding rings and rip up their marriage license.
Bishop Stephen Blaire, the President of the California Catholic Conference decried the new advertisement from opponents of Proposition 8 as "a blatant display of religious bigotry and intolerance." He expressed dismay that any public media outlet would give it an airing. "The YES on 8 campaign is not about discrimination and intolerance; it is about restoring the traditional definition of marriage for the good of society and children," said Bishop Blaire. "All individuals and groups, whether religious or not, have both a right and a responsibility to participate in a civil debate about this important issue. From the beginning of this campaign the Catholic Conference has stressed the importance of mutual respect and denounces this type of religious bigotry."
http://www.protectmarriage.com/article/catholic-conference-criticizes-outrageous-no-on-8-tv-commercial
For more information go to www.whatisprop8.com
Outrageous No on 8 Commercial Sinks to New Lows, Utterly Condemned for Religious Bigotry and Intolerance
Protect Marriage/Yes on 8 Campaign Demands No on 8 Campaign Call on Television Stations To Refuse to air “Courage Campaign” Television Commercial
The ProtectMarriage.com- Yes on 8 campaign today condemned as “bigoted and intolerant” a new ‘No on Proposition 8’ television commercial scheduled to run on TV stations tomorrow and demanded that No on 8 campaign leaders, including US Senator Dianne Feinstein, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and California Schools Superintendent Jack O’Connell publicly denounce the ad and urge television stations to refuse to run it.
The ad, produced by a group called ‘Courage Campaign Issues Committee’ and viewable at http://www.kutv.com/content/news/topnews/story.aspx?content_id=e1f83189-843f-41d7-84c4-2029fbd9a2ce , depicts supposed missionaries from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints conducting a home invasion of a lesbian couple’s home to steal their wedding rings and rip up their marriage license.
“This ad reaches new lows of religious bigotry and intolerance,” said Yes on 8 Chairman Ron Prentice. “We hope that the leadership of the No on 8 campaign – including Senator Feinstein, Mayor Newsom and Superintendent O’Connell -- as well as all Californians regardless of their position on Proposition 8, will not only condemn the ad but join us in asking television stations to refuse to air it. After all, the No on 8 campaign has been running their own television commercials saying we must all oppose discrimination and intolerance whenever we see it. The bigotry this ad shows to members of the LDS church demands action now.”
Echoing Prentice’s call, Yes on 8 Campaign Manager Frank Schubert tonight emailed Steve Smith, Campaign Manager for the No on Proposition 8 Campaign the following request:
“Steve – Below find a link to a deplorable No on 8 television commercial hitting the airwaves tomorrow. This commercial depicts faux Mormon Missionaries invading the home of a lesbian couple, ransacking the house in search of the couple’s marriage license, taking the couple’s wedding rings, etc. This is a blatant display of religious bigotry that has no place in political discourse. We urge Equality for All, Senator Feinstein, Superintendent O’Connell and the No on 8 Campaign to immediately denounce this commercial and join us in urging television stations to refuse to air it. After all, we must always oppose discrimination and intolerance whenever we see it.
Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter.”
Separately, an interfaith coalition of religious leaders representing many faiths will be releasing a statement condemning the ad. That statement will be available shortly.
http://www.protectmarriage.com/article/outrageous-no-on-8-commercial-sinks-to-new-lows-utterly-condemned-for-religious-bigotry-and-intolerance
For more information go to www.whatisprop8.com
Monday, November 3, 2008
Conversation with a "No on 8er"
I have a friend that I've known since high school. His sister is a lesbian and he feels very strongly about defeating Prop 8. We have been emailing back and forth and his most recent email basically said that homosexuals have made tons of progress in the past 30 years and that science has now proven that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.
He went on to say that those of use in favor of Prop 8 are like Leonardo DiCaprio shouting "I am the King of the World!" from the deck of the Titanic. He thinks that he and his children will live to see a better world in spite of our efforts in support of Prop 8.
The exchanges have been cordial and respectful, and I thought that I would post my response to his arguments which I've summarized above:
************
[Dear Friend]--
One of the tragedies of the Prop 8 issue is the fact that people who support traditional marriage are put on the defensive and made to feel as if they are intolerant or bigoted. Tolerance is a two-way street. Just as those who are against Proposition 8 demand tolerance, they must also be tolerant of those who feel that traditional marriage should be supported and protected. I appreciate that your response did not seem to attempt to put me on the defensive or claim that I was bigoted in any way. I certainly do not think that I am, and I hope that you agree. I believe that we are all children of the same Heavenly Father and that we are all entitled to respect, love, and happiness.
Though we may not agree on this issue, I wanted to take a second to share a few additional thoughts with you that I had after reading your reply.
First, you eloquently expound about the changing views of society on homosexuality. I agree that attitudes have changed and that our society is more accepting of homosexuals than it was 30 years ago. If same sex marriage is a right that our society wants to extend to its members, the proper way to do so is by a vote of the people. Not by having four unaccountable judges foist it upon the people. That is how our society has chosen to operate.
Second, there is a real distinction between same sex marriage and laws against miscegenation. They are not the same. Race and gender are immutable characteristics. No one can change his or her race or gender and a person’s race or gender are (generally) obvious. We have enacted laws to protect people from being discriminated against on the basis of one’s race or gender.
Sexual preference, whether one is “born with it” or not, is not patently obvious and is expressed not by one’s appearance, but by one’s conduct. I can not tell whether someone is heterosexual or homosexual just by looking at someone and I am pretty sure that no one else can either unless they are relying on stereotypes--which are themselves wrong.
I would not be so quick to diminish someone's religious views on this topic. I do not know your views on religion, but the fact that someone is religious or perhaps atheist does not make their opinions any less valid. And it certainly does not make those views inferior to those that claim to be based on "science." The funny thing about science is that very often it is based not on facts, but on theories. Theories change and are also subject to societal pressures. I have seen very, if any, little scientific research on homosexuality and its effects that constitutes "fact" as opposed to "theory." I worry that much would even fall into the category of "advocacy."
Speaking of research, we do not know what the effects of re-defining the family or traditional marriage will be. You yourself cite the change of attitudes over the past 30 years, but that is certainly not enough time to see how children will be affected or to see what the macro effects on our society will be. I fear that if marriage can be defined to mean whatever someone wants it to mean, its value as a societal institution will be diminished and people will be less inclined to enter into a legally binding marriage. Yes, children will still be born, but they will be without a mother and a father who are legally bound to them. That will cause very real negative effects for our society.
Finally, I wanted to address your comment about children being educated about homosexuality and same sex marriage in schools. Parents in California would not be able to "opt out" of the curriculum in all cases. I personally want to be able to teach my children sexual education topics at home, at the proper time. I think that parents ought to be able to have that right and that the government should not be allowed to invade our homes to force that type of instruction on families. The choice ought to belong to parents--not to teachers, teacher's unions, or social activists.
Again, thank you for your reponse, and I welcome the opportunity to continue our conversation if you want.
Sincerely,
Greg
Find your polling place
Google might be anti-8, but that doesn't mean this map isn't amazing. Type in your address, and it'll pull up your polling location.
URL: http://maps.google.com/maps/mpl?moduleurl=http://maps.google.com/mapfiles/mapplets/elections/2008/us-voter-info/us-voter-info.xml
For more information go to http://whatisprop8.com
New low for the No on 8 campaign
So, I hesitate to post this vid when it's pretty appalling, in my opinion - but, well, watch for yourselves and go comment on the YouTube link:
So. Not. Cool.
*********************************
Again, it amazes me that Mormons are "fair game" for mockery. You don't see us producing any ads slamming the No side - except for bringing up their attacks on us. And you'd never get away with skewering any other faith. Let's not remember that the Catholics and Evangelicals are Yes on 8, too? Sheesh.
Thanks, Kimball, for this additional info:
From the couragecampaign.org regarding the new videos - notice they will be airing the fake missionary one on TV.
That's why we need you to VOLUNTEER for the "NO on 8" campaign on Election Day. Need some more motivation? We've got two -- that's right, two -- online videos that we have produced in the last 24-48 hours. And we want you to watch them right now and share them with your friends, if you feel so inspired:
(1) "No on Prop 8: 17,345 signatures delivered to the Mormon Church" (2:43): Your signatures were rejected by the Los Angeles Mormon Temple last Tuesday, so we took them straight to Salt Lake City, Utah, to be delivered by two friends of Courage, both of whom are former Mormons.
(2) "No on Prop 8: Home Invasion" (60 seconds): A provocative people-powered netroots-produced TV ad that we will be airing on CNN, MSNBC and Comedy Central in selected markets on Election Day. Two of our friends in the progressive movement -- netroots activists and brothers Dante Atkins and David Atkins -- produced this 60-second ad that satirically skewers the Mormon Church's dictation of public policy to Californians. It has been featured on Daily Kos, AmericaBlog, Calitics, and Wonkette in the last 48 hours, garnering tens of thousands of views.
For more information go to http://whatisprop8.com/
Thinking Out Loud
I've been thinking for the past few weeks about how the opposition to Proposition 8 seems to want to denigrate, belittle, and completely disregard any support for Prop 8 that is based on one's personal religious belief. There has been a concerted effort to put Prop 8 supporters on the defensive as though we have to apologize for what we know in our hearts to be true principles.
I have, however, noticed that many of the "No on 8" crowd appear to base their opinions on Prop 8 on their own personal beliefs. Perhaps they have a family member or friend who is homosexual and they do not want to have that individual's rights taken away.
The truth is that the personal beliefs of the "No on 8" crowd, however, which are based on secularist or atheist views are no more valid than my views which may be based on my own religious beliefs. In our nation, we all have the right to our beliefs and are able to express those through the democratic process.
What I think is great about this site is that it has given me arguments to use to support my beliefs and to help me to realize that I am not alone in supporting Proposition 8.
Thanks for all the great posts and comments. Let's go out and finish strong! :)
My thoughts on Proposition 8
I’m voting tomorrow. I’m glad it’s over. However I vote, however you vote, I’m glad it’s over.
I hear “things are heating up”. Definitely an understatement. I have worked on the issues I thought were important. I have listened to the candidates, watched the TV spots. I have studied it out, made my personal political decisions, and I always thought I was entitled to my opinions. After all, I have always believed you are entitled to yours.
It doesn’t bother me if you disagree. I grew up in a family that was politically divided, and there were very lively and even heated discussions among family and friends. But through the years, I have never witnessed the dishonorable, disrespectful, and hateful dialogue and behavior that I have during this election.
Opinions and effort made on behalf of every candidate, every issue or proposal that is out on the table seems to be open season. There are no rules. No boundaries. No respect. No honor. No lively discussions; just nasty, disrespectful and ridiculous behavior.
I had a sign in my yard. It was stolen. It’s my yard, my sign, my opinion. I don’t steal your opposing sign during the night. That’s breaking the law. It’s your sign, your yard, your opinion. There were signs on the busy corner in my neighborhood. They were torn down. My daughter walked down the street to put them back up, and a driver called out, “I HATE YOU, “B----”!” Why in the world would someone think that is okay? These are people who live by me, work by me, drive by my house and wait in the grocery line with me. Call me crazy, but it hurts and disappoints.
I worked the phone banks for a proposition that I felt strongly about. While involved in taking a generic poll, the caller said to me, as if he were wishing me a pleasant day, “You are evil, and I hope you die soon.” Why in the world would a human being think that it is okay to say that to another human being? Obviously, we disagree on the issue, but I would never in a million years think to wish that on anyone, no matter how vehemently I felt. What is wrong with “I disagree strongly, and this is how I am voting.” Or how about, “I don’t wish to divulge that information.” Or even “It is my business how I vote.” Or even better, “What are the reasons you are for or against this?”
I’ve heard of way worse experiences from other people. It isn’t exclusively my observation. Just go on You Tube and look at the comments on the issues. I can’t help but feel disappointed and disillusioned in humanity. It’s depressing.
From where I sit, I see a world that is vastly different from not so many years ago, where differences of opinion were freely expressed, without fear of having beer bottles thrown at you from passing cars, obscenities screamed at you, called evil, having your car keyed because you display a sticker displaying the names of the candidates you endorse, and even being swerved at by a car.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions; it is part of what makes America amazing. But I will never, ever understand why people cannot respectfully hold opposing signs, express opposing views, and endorse opposing candidates without fear, hatred, and violence. I know it can happen. I saw both YES on 8 and NO on 8 supporters rally together at some intersections. But the many who are ridiculous are the ones who lose credibility for their entire group.
This whole situation is just plain wrong. Yes, there are things that are still wrong. And treating other people the way I have seen people treated over the last few weeks, and calling it “passion for the cause” is just wrong. I can’t imagine how it will be next time. I’ll admit that some of the things that were said I won’t forget soon. I’ll admit that I allowed their arrows hit the mark and I’ll be feeling the jabs that some of my fellow citizens inflicted for a long time to come, which, I also admit, is giving some kind of validity to that kind of behavior. Shrugging it off is what I’ve tried to do, but it’s just the darn human in me that feels the sting.
Not for a minute do I think you care what I think, especially after witnessing the hate and disrespect I have witnessed and felt. But I'll say it anyway, because I can, and I appreciate that. So, for and in behalf of all of the respectful, motivated, and involved citizens that have tried to make a difference and experienced the same thing…no matter what age you are, what religion you are, or what political issues you support or don’t, there is something to be said for being passionate with restraint and respect, for good old self-control in the face of heated disagreement and, oh, yeah, human decency. I’m just glad it’s almost over. And I hope that when the street corners are empty, the phones silent, the voting booths closed, and the wildly flaming issues have burned themselves out, that those who behaved in incredibly shameful and disgraceful ways will feel just that, ashamed. One can only hope.
- Sherri Bewsey
History repeats itself
I thought this was an interesting thought from the late LDS President Ezra Taft Benson (Ensign, July 1973):
Edward Gibbon, in 1788, set forth in his famous book, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, five basic reasons why that great civilization withered and died:
1. The undermining of the dignity and sanctity of the home, which is the basis for human society.
2. Higher and higher taxes: the spending of public money for free bread and circuses for the populace.
3. The mad craze for pleasure, with sports and plays becoming more exciting, more brutal and more immoral.
4. The building of great armaments when the real enemy was within.
5. The decay of religion, whose leaders lost their touch with life, and their power to guide the people.
If that doesn't describe modern America, I don't know what does!
For more information go to http://whatisprop8.com
Thoughts after seeing signs shredded in my neighborhood this weekend
I’m tired. I’m tired of people on both sides of Prop. 8 participating in uncivilized behavior, such as shredding signs or yelling names. In the same vein, I don’t appreciate people thinking that I’m homophobic, or some kind of right wing religious fanatic that wants to shoot animals with Sara Palin (I’m not even a Republican) because I’m voting Yes on Prop. 8. I’m not trying to attack anyone’s lifestyle, and I don’t believe that hate speech is ever ok. Turning this into a battle of who is right, not over rights, is something that has been deeply troubling to me.
I do believe that people have a right to live in a way that’s pleasing to them: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but having rights doesn’t mean stepping on someone else’s right in the process. Maybe I’m selfish, but I also want to be free to live my life in a way that’s pleasing to me. I’m not asking people to believe what I believe, I’m just asking that we respect a diversity of opinion. For me, Yes on 8 means being able to practice my religion in a way that is pleasing to me. If a church as part of it’s religious doctrine decides that marriage means one man and one woman, that is a set of beliefs that you can disagree with, and since churches are voluntary organizations, you can go to another church, or no church at all. That’s your right. However, for the government of California (and when this becomes a national issue, the federal government) to change the definition of marriage moves this beyond a mere set of beliefs. Governments are not a voluntary institution, and thereby as citizens under their jurisdiction must face the consequences if we propose not to abide by the laws of the state, which is a precursor to legal action. I support the separation of church and state, which is why I don’t think that redefining marriage is ok, because this does force many churches to go against their religious beliefs. I don’t want government telling me what can be taught at my church anymore than religious Jews want the government defining their Sabbath day practices, or telling Hindus that it’s wrong to be a vegetarian.
I say redefining marriage because that is the issue. The argument of “when people love each other they should be able to get married” does not stand up to rigorous scrutiny. Marriage is more than about being in love, otherwise we have a slippery slope of what constitutes “love.” When marriage is open to everything, then it is nothing at all. This is not about discrimination, this is about having limits. Governments have to make decisions about limits, even if they don’t treat everyone exactly the same: as a woman I’m not required to register for the draft, but am still free to join the military; not being born in the U.S. my grandmother is not allowed to run for the office of President, but can become a Senator. This being said, I want to make it clear that I believe in treating all human beings with dignity, and I don’t want anyone to be fired, harassed at school, or denied the ability to visit their partner in the hospital because they are gay. I do believe in equal rights, but I don’t think that redefining marriage is one of them.
I don’t think No on 8 is the way to give gay couples rights and still protect religious free exercise.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486191
What You Ought to Know
I don't know if you've heard of this website before -- whatyououghttoknow.com
This guy is the brother of a friend of ours, so we've been enjoying his videos for a few months now.
He did one on gay marriage recently. Even if you're against Prop. 8, I think the relationship he tells of after a sign-stealing incident is useful for all to see.
Here's the link: What You Ought to Know -- Gay Marriage
I can't find a way to embed it -- sorry!
For more information go to www.whatisprop8.com
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Absentee Ballot Info
Dear Prop 8 Supporters--
Please remember to vote, if you haven't already. I am reminded of Matthew 23:15 where the Savior takes the scribes and Pharisees to task for basically going all over "land and see" to get one convert, but not having their own houses in order.
We have worked so hard to try and persuade others on this issue, but we also need to make sure that we have exercised our own right to vote.
If you have an absentee ballot and have not mailed it yet, DO NOT PUT IT IN THE MAIL at this point in time. It has to be received by Election Day. If it gets to the Registrar's office the day after the election, it will not count, even if it is postmarked before election day. The best thing to do is to turn it in yourself at your polling place on election day. I have done this and it is quick and easy.
Also, please be sure to sign the envelope or your vote will not be counted. If you can't drop it off, a registered voter in your household can do so. Look at the back right hand side of your ballot envelope for details.
Finally, if you requested an absentee ballot and it never arrived, just go vote at your polling place instead of returning an absentee ballot. You have a right to vote...please, please, please, make it count!
YES on 8!!!
--Greg
Story of Proposition 8: Great new video from ProtectMarriage.com
I just saw this on another Proposition 8 blog, and I thought it summed us up perfectly.
Remember, respond lovingly and respectfully - but don't be intimidated or afraid to stand up for what's right. We can win this!!!
For more information go to http://whatisprop8.com/
Countdown: Two Days
Steve Young's wife Supports No on 8!
Steve Young's wife lines up against Mormon church on Prop. 8
The signs on the front lawn of former 49er quarterback Steve Young's Peninsula home say "No on Prop. 8," which normally wouldn't be much of a story in the Bay Area, a gay-friendly region which is the center of opposition to the effort to ban same-sex marriage in the state.
But Young isn't only a Hall of Fame quarterback. He's also the great-great-great grandson of Brigham Young, the second president of the Mormon church. The church has pushed hard and publicly for Prop. 8 and Mormons have pumped millions into the campaign.
Young also isn't just any church member. During his years in the NFL, he was one of the nation's most visible Mormons. He graduated from BYU, which was named for his ancestor, and received his law degree there. In a 1996 "60 Minute" interview, he said that he still had plans to go on the church mission he missed in college and had no problem tithing 10 percent of his earnings to the church. He retains close ties to Utah, married his wife, Barbara, at a temple in Hawaii and even served as narrator for a short video on the Mormon church and its history, done for the 2002 Winter Olympics in Utah.
Given all that, it's surprising to see Young's family lining up on the opposite side of the church, especially after Mormon leaders in Salt Lake City sent a letter last June that asked all California church members to do all they could to support the Prop. 8 effort by "donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman."
While it's Barb Young's name that appears on the checks, she made it clear in a statement issued today through Equality California that the contributions are a family affair.
"We believe ALL families matter and we do not believe in discrimination, therefore, our family will vote against Prop. 8," she said.
Later, she clarified her remarks with this update: "To expand on my earlier email, I am very passionate about this issue and Steve is completely supportive of me and my work for equality. We both love our Church and are grateful that our Church encourages us to vote our conscience. Steve prefers not to get involved politically on any issue no matter what the cause and therefore makes no endorsement."
To leave some comments go to:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=32216
For more information go to http://whatisprop8.com/
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Laguna Beach woman writes how "Locals support Prop. 8, too"
This guest column by Jennifer Wilson ran in the Laguna Beach Independent:
I am a nearly 40 year resident of Laguna Beach. I have always loved our city. I am also a Mormon, very active in my church. In fact, I am the preacher's wife. My husband, Chris, is the local bishop. In my support of Prop. 8, I find myself in the uncomfortable and somewhat painful position of being at odds with much of my city. I regret this schism, but because I feel that this proposition has important consequences for us all, I choose to speak up for Prop. 8. I am writing to explain my (and my church's) stance on this issue, and to dispel some misconceptions.
Rumors abound that the Mormon church is the instigator of this proposition, and that the church is solely funding and staffing it. The Mormons actually joined a coalition of churches under the title of ProtectMarriage.com, which is running the campaign. It is true that Mormons have donated large sums of money, but the Catholic church, several evangelical churches and other Christian groups have also donated large amounts of both money and time. Only California residents are working on the campaign; the coalition and the church have actively discouraged non-California residents from volunteering, and certainly no one was sent from other states. Those people you see walking neighborhoods or waving signs are neighbors.
I (and my church) have no hidden agenda. Our stance has nothing to do with homophobia and everything to do with the sanctity of traditional marriage. Along with many other Christians, we really believe that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and is sacred to Him. We also believe that the family formed from this union is the backbone of society, and that the family's (and therefore society's) best chance of survival is in maintaining a traditional family. Science has backed up this claim. There have been numerous studies which show that children thrive best when conceived and raised in love by mother and father. History backs it up as well.
I have many gay friends and associates who I respect and love. I certainly want them to have rights, to have happiness, and to have stability in their lives. That's why I'm so grateful for California's many laws, which protect their unions. As stated in the Los Angeles Times, California has more laws to protect gay partnerships than any other state. That's a wonderful thing and I'm glad that Prop. 8 will not change or diminish those rights in any way. But I am not willing to open the door further to include homosexual matrimony, introducing a whole new social order and risking a loss of protection for children.
I am very concerned about how a new definition of marriage will affect our public school education. I do not believe that elementary school is the place to introduce children to details of same sex marriage or homosexual lifestyles. Yet, under the law, not only will these issues be taught, but parents in many cases will not have the right to withdraw their children from the classroom.
According to the National Center for Lesbian Rights, "State law explicitly provides that 'instruction or materials that discuss gender, sexual orientation, or family life and do not discuss human reproductive organs and their functions' is not subject to the parental notice and opt-out laws…so long as these programs do not include sexually explicit content (i.e. discuss the human organs and their functions), parents are not entitled to prior notice and the opportunity to opt their children out."
This very scenario was played out in a Hayward public school just last week at a planned "Coming Out Day" during "Gay and Lesbian History Month." Parents were not informed of the event, and kindergarteners were expected to participate in this event without parental consent.
Many gay marriage proponents claim a "fundamental" right of marriage. But is there such a right? If the right of marriage is "fundamental," then why can so many groups not marry? Cousins in many states are not permitted to marry, or brothers/ sisters or parents/children. Laws don't allow people to marry more than one partner at a time. Many people with diminished capacity cannot marry, and minors cannot marry without parental consent. Marriage has always been viewed as a specific contractual and covenantal relationship, instigated for the protection of a family unit, and specifically for the bearing and raising of children, our most defenseless citizens. Safeguards have always been in place to protect both the marriage and the parties involved. Concern for children is paramount. The next generation needs us to take a stand to keep marriage what it was always intended to be: children's best hope for the future.
Jennifer Wilson, a (near) 40 year Laguna Beach resident, is a homemaker, non-practicing attorney, mother of five children and a Laguna Beach High School graduate (class of '79!).
For more information go to http://whatisprop8.com
Friday, October 31, 2008
Orange County teachers reject CTA's anti-8 stance
O.C. teachers push for Prop. 8, reject state union's stand
Grassroots group slams the state teachers union for fighting the measure, saying it should focus on less divisive, education-oriented issues.
By SCOTT MARTINDALE
The Orange County Register
Teachers across Orange County have launched a grassroots effort to show support for Proposition 8 and their anger over the state teachers union's decision to spend
$1.25 million to fight an initiative that would define marriage as being only between a man and woman.
"I'm tired of having them suggest all teachers support it," said Jeff McPherson, 43, a sixth-grade teacher at Parkview Elementary School in Garden Grove. "I know not all teachers support it."
"They've always endorsed candidates and issues, but we have so many problems in education and all that money should be funneled toward protecting class sizes and teachers' jobs," said Chris McLaren, 57, a kindergarten teacher at Chaparral Elementary School in Ladera Ranch. "Many teachers at my school are looking at getting pink-slipped for the fourth year in a row."
Prop. 8 Rally in the 909!
Posts
