AMERICAblog: Save traditional marriage, outlaw divorce
tacoeatingzebra
· 1 year ago
oh, god no! don't even joke about that! my divorce was the best thing that ever happened to me.
dommyluc
· 1 year ago
Just saw video on rawstory.com of dumbass Rethug Eric Cantor spouting off on FauxNews about how his party can run on the "sanctity of marriage" and win back the American electorate. Tell me, how fucking delusional does a person have to get before they drag you off in a strait jacket and commit you to an insane asylum? It's almost as funny as when Sen. Jon Kyl (Dickhead-AZ.) said that Obama had to appoint RW Supremos or face the wrath of the "center-right" American people and the powerful Republican coalition in the Senate. Hey, Jon, when you finally wake up, GO FUCK YOURSELF! Hey, remember the "Gang of 14". Sounded like a good idea at the time, didn't it, Jon? Until it bites you in the ass. So nice to have dimbos like Kyl, Cantor, Pearce, Boehner and the rest to make the Dems look soooooo good to the public. I can only hope they force them to filibuster in front of the TV cameras while Dems hold press conferences about the wonderful legislation the Rethugs are trying to keep the Obama administration from implementing. One great thing about these RW/Christianist Rethugs: they never remember the past, and they never think about the future.
Gingrich/Palin 08! Forward into the 12th Century!!!
fostert
· 1 year ago
That's a really dumb idea. Here's a better one: outlaw common law marriage. The idea that people can be married against their will is absurd.
WadeMD
· 1 year ago
I don't think it's so dumb. We get someone in a really Republican state like Utah to propose an amendment, get all the Mormons to support it, it passes, and then the Mormons will feel the wrath of everyone. Sounds good to me.
fostert
· 1 year ago
They'd really only face the wrath of liberals, and they're already facing that. Conservatives have an incredible ability of cognitive dissonance (lacking cognition helps). That's why they can accept that a person with three divorces is a strong defender of marriage. I guess there's a certain logic to that. They love marriage so much that they aren't satisfied with only doing it once. And they hate gays so much that they screw them (literally) all the time. Apparently, the way to support heterosexual marriage is to be a serial divorcer who has sex with gay prostitutes.
Busboy
· 1 year ago
Good Grief, John! I never thought you'd go for the "nuclear option". There would sure be a lot more states voting to allow assissted suicide ;-)
smiling_dog
· 1 year ago
I've always thought it would be fun to put all kinds of bogus propositions on the ballot in California. Outlaw divorce, don't allow people of Irish descent to marry someone from the Phillipines, require everyone to smoke marijuana and eat raspberry pie, send anyone who gets a speeding ticket to a 6 month reeducation camp, outlaw beef stew, require McDonalds to go vegetarian. The possibilities are endless.
fostert
· 1 year ago
"require everyone to smoke marijuana"
How's that bogus? We'd be a much more peaceful society if we were all baked all the time. It's much harder to be angry when you're stoned. And Frito-Lay would see an improvement in profits, for sure. That might be the best law we could pass.
Bush_Bites
· 1 year ago
Hey? Wasn't there some kind of Pot Proposition on the Calif. ballot this year? How'd it go?
Indigo
· 1 year ago
Well, okay, but no raspberry pie!
Busboy
· 1 year ago
Sorry, that typo wasn't meant as a pun......
Bush_Bites
· 1 year ago
It's a shame a religion that suffered from predjudice like the Mormons would choose to practice predjudice against another group of people.
Wish they could be more like most Jewish people, who identify with other underdogs because of their history of being repressed.
bbock
· 1 year ago
LOL. I'm assuming the irony is intentional. Unfortunately, history has shown the oppressed, once no longer oppressed, become the oppressors.
lauren1959
· 1 year ago
Totally agree with you on this one. It would discourage marriage (to put it mildly) and keep the government out of our relationships. In the 21st century we should abandon ritual, and stay together (or not) because we want to; not because there are laws.
Joneses
· 1 year ago
Take away their tax privileges! I'm so pissed right now. These so called people of God constantly lie their asses off.
In speaking with people, nurses, teachers, etc. the main issues was "Gay marriage will be taught in schools and they will try and turn our children".
It's the fear factor, what GOP do so well.
Bush_Bites
· 1 year ago
As I understand it, the evangelicals have made no secret of their attempts to outlaw "no fault" divorces.
shell
· 1 year ago
Baptizing without permission on their deathbeds? It is worse than that. Mormons baptize after death. I knew 2 Mormons. One had her 13-year-old son go to church (or temple or whatever they call it) every Saturday to stand in for the dead person -- to get baptized. Another Mormon was a convert, so none of her birth family was Mormon. And she had them all baptized, after death.
That is creepy to me. Any religion that will do this is whacked out beyond control, IMO. I am all for freedom OF religion, but stay in your own religion. Don't put YOUR religious insanity on the rest of us.
mirth
· 1 year ago
Not long after her death, at age 12 I was baptized in the SL temple for my mother and afterwards, one by one, for a long list of deceased relatives. Once my dead family members were finished, the names I served as proxy for baptisms were simply the next ones on someone's list and unknown to me. There were waves of approval as I was dunked and at the time I felt very proud...altho the white dress I wore became nearly transparent once it was wet and because of this I also felt huge embarrassment.
It took me a long time, and professional help, to shed my association with the cult that is the Mormon church.
Busboy
· 1 year ago
Mirth, I think your autobiography would be a best seller...
shell
· 1 year ago
I agree.
FunMe
· 1 year ago
The MORMONs sounds more and more like a CULT.
RainbowPhoenix
· 1 year ago
You're just figuring this out? The rest of us realized this ages ago.
FunMe
· 1 year ago
Well I thought they were primarily useful for GENEALOGY since I hear they maintain really good birth and death records. Then the Osmonds came around, "such a lovely family" ;-), and I thought they were good guys.
But LITTLE did I know that were more of a CULT than a Christian groups. Though lately a lot of these Christian group really act less and less like Christian so it's all very confusing.
Do the Mormons think of themselves as "Christian".
RainbowPhoenix
· 1 year ago
They maintain such good birth and death records in order to keep track of their megalomaniacal purposes.
In answer to your other question, mormons claim their holy book as the bible's third testement. Just like christianity considers the torah th old testement.
TPierce
· 1 year ago
That's why, if you ever need to run a geneaology search, you go to them. They have the best records on the planet, for just this purpose. They can search family documents to the time of William the Conqueror, in some cases, so a member can baptise all of their ancestors into the LDS faith.
TPierce
· 1 year ago
So funny I think I'll puke, Aravosis. Put me off my Sunday breakfast ice cream, why doncha.
The late Spy Magazine (1980s) once wrote the truest thing evar, or practically true: "In California they believe in everything." Well, obviously they don't believe in equal social rights for everyone, but they come close. If it wasn't a state that partially pays for its court system on fees racked up by divorces, you might stand a chance.
But don't go blaming solely the Mormons, folks, pleasurable as that is. The Catholic Church chipped in, as did a creepazoid religious wingnut named Howard Ahmanson Jr. (who will only be happy when biblical law is thoroughly integrated into our lives), and the equally fanatic mother of Halliburton's founder. Solely blaming the Mormons will let the other fundies slip by to do more damage next time.
FunMe
· 1 year ago
It's the 80/20 rule. Focus on the 80% ... and that so happens to be the MORMONs! They funded 80% of the YesOn8, so all eyes are on the main culprits: the MORMON cult!
TPierce
· 1 year ago
FunMe, are you sure you're not my husband? Because you certainly do type like him! ;-)
FunMe
· 1 year ago
You're funny. No I'm single and looking for Mr. Goodbar. ;-)
shell
· 1 year ago
That is true. The only reason the Mormons were singled out, IMO, is because they contributed 3/4 of the money -- and most from outside the state.
Ahmanson is a schizophrenic. And he is the leader of this. We all knew these right-wing freaks were mentally ill -- but THAT mentally ill?
TPierce
· 1 year ago
You say schizophrenic; he says he hears the voice of God. And ain't that scary?
Sometimes I hate believing this country is the home of the free. This is one of those times. Being the home of the free means you have to tolerate the scary people.
bbock
· 1 year ago
I realize that this is intended to be political theater, but this is the dumbest goddamned idea I've seen yet. The Evangelicals and the Mormons and the Catholic Church would love nothing more than to end divorce. Other states have had bills in their legislature to eliminate or limit divorce. Some use what they call "covenant marriage" to basically enslave women into marriages they can't end. If people did push this insanely stupid idea, my fear is that it might actually work and push this country further into their world view.
We need to stop flailing on this and take a well-reasoned, and hopefully effective approach.
zavlin
· 1 year ago
i like this comparison of banning gay marriage to banning divorce. Sure its somthing the far religious right wants deep down, but this isnt speaking to them. Its speaking to sane people and trying to get them to realize the state doesnt have the right to ban gay marriage anymore than they do divorce. Unfortunately aggressive campaigning like this was needed BEFORE prop 8 passed.
Asterix
· 1 year ago
I'd target my efforts a little more. End marriage annulment. In theory, at least, Catholics don't divorce--they annul. Usually, your chances of getting an annulment are directly proportional to the amount that you're willing to donate to the Church.
bbock
· 1 year ago
Anullment is a religious construct, not a legal one. You can't legislate it.
Beregond
· 1 year ago
This post is proof that when you meet hate with hate, you become as idiotic as the people you are fighting. I sometimes wonder if gay activists are really interested in protecting our rights, or in rubbing the religious right's noses in poop.
We should never have gone anywhere near the word "marriage," which is an outdated legal concept in any case. It is interesting that since Vermont create civil unions, more straight people than gay have taken advantage of it. What does that tell you? We have a chance to reform the whole antiquated system for everyone, but instead we are stamping our feet like babies and saying: "I want what my siblings have, or nothing!" What our siblings have is an institution so flawed, half the people who get married end-up divorced, and entangled in financial and legal messes the rest of their lives. Straights are welcome to it!
As for this silliness about baptizing after birth, why on earth would anyone care? Once I'm dead, they can conduct a ritual sending me to Fairy Hell, for all I care.
Stop acting like children, and come-up with a legal solution that helps everyone, straights included. And leave the word "marraige" behind. Are we still so desperate for approval, that nothing but the embrace of every portion of society will do? Grow up!
MNW
· 1 year ago
I support Proposition 86!
86 Marriage altogether...for everyone.
Repeal DOMA, and enact legislation that recognizes civil unions as equivalent to civil marriage at the federal level.
Then move to have all states abolish civil marriage and replace it with civil unions for everyone. Disentangle government from religion NOW! Repeal the powers vested in the clergy by the state NOW!
If my marriage is not free to be recognized by civil marriage, then nobody's marriage is free to be recognized by civil marriage.
Liberty and justice (and civil unions) for all.
bbock
· 1 year ago
I agree that this proposal is idiotic. BUT I also see no reason why gays shouldn't reach for marriage. It's a legal term. There's nothing in the law that requires a particular church from marrying any particular person. So if a church doesn't want to marry gays, that's fine. I found one that would. There's nothing infantile about wanting equality rather than separate but equal. If there's one thing African Americans showed is that separate is never equal.
And I don't get this exalted religious status for "marriage". It started as a business relationship.
mellowjohn
· 1 year ago
how about a proposition to allow stoning of adulturers? THAT oughta protect the sanctity of marriage.
decotodd
· 1 year ago
I am really loving the idea of the tax-exempt challenges. There is an article in today's LA Times about a lesbian couple in the very conservative "inland empire" Riverside area. Really touching piece about how they were feeling welcomed by their neighbors, only to now feel stabbed in the back by Prop 8.
Anyway, in the article it quotes a pastor from one of those mega-churches in the area and how he encouraged his parishioners (or whatever they're called in that movement) to vote for Prop 8. I'm going to be filing a protest with the IRS against him and his church.
FunMe
· 1 year ago
That's wonderful!
Can we file a protest with the IRS, too? Please send link. I understand one can submit a protest anonymously.
JOHN: perhaps that is an action item for us to take? I know you had a post asking for a listing on who supported Prop8. Maybe we can then have an organized NATION-WIDE campaign where we file a protest against each of the individual churches that supported Prop8 on their pulpit?
decotodd
· 1 year ago
I'll try to find the link (I have it at the office) but you can probably get it off the IRS website -- it is the form you file to report tax fraud and no, you don't have to provide your name
FunMe
· 1 year ago
Wait a second I just went and read the article and check this out:
Pastor Ron Armstrong moved from Orange County 17 years ago to "plant a church" in Wildomar, near Murrieta.
Now his massive Cornerstone Community Church has over 4,500 members and its own K-12 school. It offers men's groups, women's groups, singles' groups, "Mommy and Me" groups, recreational outings, classes -- in short, an instant community for the disconnected.
"The new housing was the key," Armstrong said. "People moving to new housing are in transition. Whether they ever attended church or not they are more open to community connection, and many get more involved in the church."
Armstrong describes himself as politically independent but said his congregation leans Republican. On Proposition 8, he sent members an e-mail saying that while the church was not against gays, it also believed that "marriage has a biblical foundation that has always been between a man and a woman," he said. "To us it was offensive to take a religious term and apply it out of context."
SO WHO IS PASTOR RON ARMONSTRONG AND HIS CORNERSTONE COMMUNITY CHURCH
We need to step back a long way from this and look at why we lose these fights, and the primary reason is that we let them get away with calling themselves Christians. They are bigots, and the most important step we can take is divorce these folks from being Christians. If I were a Christian, I'd sue these bigots for claiming to be like me, but it seems that too few Christians care about equal rights to fight that fight, so we'll have to do it ourselves. I even have the first tag line: Christian? Riiiight. And then you list all the un-Christian things that they do.
Let's start with gay folk: Has there ever been a single pro-gay bill that these folks supported? No. Not AIDS funding, not support for gay children, not domestic partnerships. Nothing. These bigots will even fight to stop state's from passing laws that protect gay kids from bullying in schools. They just hate gay folks. It's just that simple. Christian? Yea. Right.
And if their position was justifiable, why did they have to lie in their adds promoting prop 8. Isn't lying a sin? Christians? Yea, right.
And if the bible and marriage is so important, why is it that these folks supported the presidential candidate that cheated on his disabled wife, abandoned her and then married another women, and not the married-only-once Obama. We all know why, and it wasn't because they care about the bible and marriage. Christian. Yea, right.
These folks would not know Christ if they tripped over him (and if they did, they would just snarl at him and tell him to get a job), and it is time we start referring to them, not as Christians, but as the bigots they are. Right?
bbock
· 1 year ago
I believe someone else explained on another article that the Mormons are not bound to the truth when they are using a church doctrine called, and I kid you not, Lying for the Lord. You can pretty much ignore any thought that they even believe what they say. There's simply no way of knowing.
I think we should ALL join in support of the MINING COMPANIES who want to DRILL baby DRILL, and MINE baby MINE, all the NATIONAL PARKS in UTAH. Sounds like a GREAT idea to me.
SINGING_TROLL
· 1 year ago
You forgot KILL baby KILL
tbhull
· 1 year ago
Why don't we just burn down their places of worship, have our way with their women and then string them up from the local oak by the threads of their own magic underpants?
SINGING_TROLL
· 1 year ago
FESTIVAL!
cowboyneok
· 1 year ago
Unlike us gays, they are protected by "special rights" like Church Arson laws and Hate Crimes laws that protect them under the class of being "Mormons."
RainbowPhoenix
· 1 year ago
Lets not stoop to their level. Our entire ideology places us above that.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
It was not meant to be serious. The Slim Pickens Blazing Saddles approach was a poor attempt at humor.
bbock
· 1 year ago
You can have the women. We'll "take" the cute missionaries.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
I'll pimp out the men/boys to Ted Haggard and James Dobson at christian rates. I'll save the eagle scouts for daddy big bucks Rove and his band of boy craving sycophants.
Older_Wiser
· 1 year ago
Not a good solution at all. But denying such intereference in civil law by religious institutions would be a start. What the hell was CA thinking by letting the religious nuts craft such a referendum?
Also, why the appeal of marriage, a religious ceremony. I have been against it, and agree with Beregond (below), and I question why it is significant to have a religious blessing on something that should just be contract law anyway.
Why anyone who is fighting for secular rights would want to challenge religious myths and practices is beyond me.
Upland_Oddball
· 1 year ago
Institutional Mormon support for Prop 8 came about precisely because of the peculiarities of LDS theology. Gay marraige simply cannot be left standing. If it remans legal then heaven itself may be opened up to wedded same-sex couples. The wrench in the machinery that could foil even a dedicated homophobic God itself, as the LDS percieves it, is that in LDS teadhing and practice secular civil marriages of all sorts becomes ipso-facto full Mormon marriage. And by definition, all such newly minted Mormon marriage are therefore, acceptable to God. To think it can be any other way requires a basic overhaul of certain Mormon teachings and the LDS will not do that. The Mormon President and Prophet is not ready to have another one of his "prophetic dreams." Thus Prop 8 was born.
The Mormon relilgion is not "Catholic" in the oldest sense of that term. It is not Universal or above naked nationialism. The LDS raise the United States government and people above all others in the eyes and plans of God.. Our laws are touched with divinity to them, and in time must conform with LDS theology. Therefore, legal marriage is a very important matter to them. Not only does the LDS routinely baptize every recently deceased Ameican into their church without knowledge or permission, but by doing so, it makes every legal marriage a post-facto Mormon marriage. Morevoer, to the LDS, the legal marriage bonds perisists and binds the two souls to each other in the afterlife as well.
If we Think for a moment as a conservative Mormon would, that means that when gay and lesbians are judged, God judges them as Mormons who have sexually sinned, and will punish them accordingly. Among the crimes gay people have historically committed is the failure to be legally married (nevermind that we have been denied the marriage rights we would want). Traditional Mormonism insists on married life as an obligation. But if a gay post-facto Mormon shows up with his or her same-sex post-facto Mormon legal spouse, then they are still considered married and will be punished as a couple. That is TOO much for the old bigots who run the LDS. The thought of married gay couples, even if they are buning in hell, remaining married for eternity, galls them to no end.
Theologically, this is why Prop 8 was funded so lavishly by the LDS hierarchy.
kevinbgoode
· 1 year ago
And that is why it is time to shine the light on the Mormonism cult of religious tyranny.
bbock
· 1 year ago
It's ironic that the Mormons have had no issue with revising their core beliefs in the past. They accepted plural marriage. Now they reject it. They rejected anyone but white people. Now they accept them to some degree. Mormons and Catholics are very adept at modifying their doctrines when it suits their contemporary needs.
jackseary
· 1 year ago
I always said that if the government could figure out a way to make money on gay marriage it would be law...how about letting everybody get married to whomever they like, but charging a hefty penalty if it doesn't work out. (for early withdrawl so to speak)...if you can't honor the commitment then you don't get the benefits...no more worries about splitting assets 50-50 if the government takes 25% off the top...problem with that is the law makers have the same divorce stats as the rest of the country.
SINGING_TROLL
· 1 year ago
Louisiana has a two-tier marriage system... One is marriage, the other is COVENANT MARRIAGE. **
"What is covenant marriage?
A Covenant Marriage is an additional type of marriage made available to a man and a woman in Louisiana. Covenant Marriages differ from regular marriages by requiring couples to seek marital counseling before filing for divorce. Based on the belief that many couples unnecessarily end their marriage without sufficient attempts at resolving conflict, Covenant Marriages provide an opportunity to resolve the conflict without sacrificing the marital union in the process. Of course, in the event of a serious fault (adultery, conviction of a felony, physical or sexual abuse, etc.) a divorce will be granted to the non-faulting spouse.
How do you get a covenant marriage?
Couples choosing Covenant Marriage must attend premarital counseling prior to entering into marriage and agree to attend marital counseling to address future problems which threaten their marriage. " http://www.lafamilyforum.us/covenantmarriage.html
**
Maybe the gays need to just call it "gay-marriage". Then, "marriage" is still there but you have separated yourselves from the lunatic majority opinion of it's sacredness. I'm with you whichever way.
PinkDog
· 1 year ago
I actually think this is an idea that might work.
kevinbgoode
· 1 year ago
The fundie looney tunes who put that law into effect (it was supported by Huckabee in Arkansas) have a very dismal participation rate among the population. Seems like the "covenant" option isn't very popular, even among the hypocrite fundies.
And notice that the people didn't get to vote on that law, either.
bbock
· 1 year ago
Why? Atheists and agnostics and Buddists, and non-practicing Christians all get married all the time. They use the word "marriage". It's a word that's in California LAW. As far as the government is concerned, the issuing of licenses is a governmental duty and is non-secular. The "solemnization" of marriage licenses is left to priests and ministers, judges, or deputized civil servants. So all of our licenses are secular. It's the execution or solemnization that may, if you choose, be religious in nature. But it's your choice. There is no need for a separate, no matter how supposedly equal, category especially for gays. We don't have "black" marriages, mixed-race marriages, mixed-faith marriages under the law. We're all the same to the government and the law. At least we are supposed to be.
SINGING_TROLL
· 1 year ago
The first order of business should be outlawing dancing. That'll put a stop to the teen pregnancies!
mellowjohn
· 1 year ago
friend of mine once joked that at the baptist summer camp his parents sent him to the campers weren't allowed to have sex for fear it would lead to dancing.
bbock
· 1 year ago
I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE this! LOL. We'll call it the Footloose Proposition. We'll get Kevin Bacon to make ads. And his friends. I understand he knows everybody.
Indigo
· 1 year ago
We could revoke the abolition of slavery, outlaw race-based slavery, then raid Utah for slaves. I bet those healthy blond youngsters would bring in considerable revenue for the Federal government. Oh wait, that would be race-based again, wouldn't it? My bad.
SINGING_TROLL
· 1 year ago
OMG that is too funny
Older_Wiser
· 1 year ago
OK, so would someone explain to me why lovers of an authoritarian male "god" (and how convenient that he should have a "son" as opposed to a daughter?) should have the last word on what people can and should do with their lives? Demanding "marriage" is demanding inclusion in that. I no more approve of it than I would of worshipping female fertility "gods" which is what was done once people figured out how the human race was perpetuated. Of course, over time, that practice was struck down by a series of male psychos, like Abraham, Moses, etc...
And today, women can actually make real secular law...they're just not allowed to make religion, where men rule everything ultimately.
Can you imagine a world where people actually believed in each other and didn't selfishly pursue something as silly as an "afterlife?"
jmtaw3
· 1 year ago
They made doing this in CA as difficult as possible:
The first step in the process of qualifying an initiative measure is to write the text of the proposed law. The initiative measure’s proponent(s) may obtain assistance from the Legislative Counsel in drafting the language of the initiative measure. Proponent(s) must present the idea for the law to the Legislative Counsel, and 25 or more electors must sign the request for a draft of the proposed law. If it is determined that there is a reasonable probability the initiative measure will eventually be submitted to the voters, the Legislative Counsel will draft the proposed law (Government Code Section 10243). Proponent(s) may also seek the assistance of their own private counsel to help draft the text of the proposed law, or they may choose to write the text themselves.
But I've always hoped the following would someday be on a ballot measure:
remove all mention of marriage from state statute since it appears to be a religious ceremony (take breaks for first communions or bar mitzvahs?)
or
prohibit divorce and annulments prohibit inter-racial marriage (and require a person to proove their race) require proof that both the male and female are fertile prohibit the marriage of women over 50 (who most likely can't give birth, which is supposedly the purpose of marriage) prohibit second (3rd, 4th, etc) marriages unless the former spouse is dead prohibit divorced persons from other states entering CA to marry a new person require that both male and female live together a minimum of 1 year before applying for marriage require a $10,000 marriage license fee (eh, if your not serious about the gal...) require a tax of $10,000 per child after 3 children (why should single persons support your childs education, or lack thereof) require couples who have not had a child after 5 years of marriage to adopt a child from within the state of CA (no Chinese babies, thanks) require that the male be at least 5 years older than the female and gainfully employed at least 3 years require that both parties be high school graduates (GED's don't count)
prohibit circumcision, even if your religion insists (clearly child abuse and 99.999999% of the time totally unnecessary)
If we put, say, 100 such measures on the ballot all at once, wording them so that a voter could not just mark them all "yes" or "no", and sneak in one that says same-sex marriage is legal, it might work (and piss off the state and counties who would have to pay to print all the voter guides).
We've been lazy and letting ourselves be walked on by being nice for decades. It's time to get pissed, find our own marching songs, stop quoting MLK and lead our own battle.
AdrianBrowne
· 1 year ago
To me, the only valid argument for outlawing gay marriage is nostalgia.
It's like when my church wanted to retire the Christmas ornaments they had been using since the 1940's and replace them with new ones in the mid-80's. I was against it because I liked the slightly shabby old ones but then somehow I managed to get over it.
mirth
· 1 year ago
This link provides everything needed to file a complaint with the IRS against the Mormon church for their activities intended to influence legislation:
Just as when the Mormons suddenly got a "message from God" to stop polygamy (when the U.S. wouldn't allow Utah to become a state because of polygamy), they will do this too, someday. It is all about money. Mormons, Catholics, any religion. Take away their money, and they crumble.
If they lost their tax-exempt status, God would come to their leader and say that he said homosexuality is OK.
It has always been this way, it always will.
shell
· 1 year ago
Forgot this: Also included in the Mormons' sudden enlightenment: inclusion of African Americans. Yes, until rather recently, AAs were not allowed in the church. Why do you suppose that church suddenly decided to let them in? No doubt another visit from God to the leader of the LDS church.
mirth
· 1 year ago
The revelation to admit African-Americans to full membership in the Mormon church came after the US gov threatened to yank their tax exempt status (in the 70s or early 80s). Before this AA's were allowed to be baptized but males could not hold the priesthood (of course, then or now or ever have females been allowed to hold the priesthood). This act of admission to the priesthood is not intended to encourage AA membership. Mormon missionaries do not canvas AA communities.
betteporter68
· 1 year ago
It sounds good on the surface, but the problem with banning divorce is that it leaves too many women in a vulnerable position in regard to domestic violence. Divorce is the only way out for them. If you really want to apply the Bible to the law as the religious right seems to favor, how about a Constitutional amendment regarding adultery? The law would allow us to stone adulterers the way God intended. There would be so many sexual hypocrites from the right we'd all get carpal tunnel syndrome from throwing so many stones. Just a thought.
AZ_Birdlady
· 1 year ago
No, outlawing divorce is not the answer, that's literally a death sentence for a lot of women. But, I did hear that the way this law is written, a father can now marry his own daughter, an uncle his neice...you get the picture. A couple cases like this, and those good, "righteous" people may change their minds.
chris10858
· 1 year ago
I think this is a great idea! In fact, several friends and I were just joking last night about how a new amendment here in florida should be pushed so that marriage is the LIFETIME union of one man and one woman. I am sure there are a couple of hundred thousand pissed off Floridian gays and lesbians that would be glad to sign for it to be added to the next election. Plus, there are a lot of dumbass voters that would read that and vote yes for it. If it didn't pass, then it would only expose the hypocricy of the voters in this state.
BlueMatt
· 1 year ago
John, that's really a bad idea, just don't even think about doing it. Even though I'm not gay (and I'm not even in your country) I understand your rightful anger about this, but this is just counterproductive. The religious fundamentalists wouldn't love anything more than taking away divorce. It would play into their hands and would piss off anyone who would be affected by this, and not against the mormons or other fundies, but against the initiators of that measure (and that would be you). I'd say, instead of this bad idea pull their actions into daylight, go for their tax exempt status and try to dig up any dirt about them (like e.g. abuse of church members, especially if it involves children, criminal activity, abuse of welfare etc.) that might give them bad press. This cult needs to be exposed as the bigots they are, if that could be done, they'll rue the day they started that nonsense. They hate publicity of that kind, and it should be your task to give it to them.
shell
· 1 year ago
Attention Mirth!
No kidding -- write a book. I would definitely buy several copies.
mirth
· 1 year ago
lol
I just celebrated my 40th b'day last week, so I need to live some more before I could write anything worth reading.
But already I have plenty of opinions. :)
Butch1
· 1 year ago
If we're going to go that route, we should really make adultery a crime with a punishment included. You want to push your religion into politics, Let's go all the way. These right-wing fundamentalists are the christian equivalent of the Taliban and they won't be happy until they have a theocracy with their brand of religion as the model.
I say, remove their tax exempt status and let gays and lesbians be temporarily exempt from having to pay state taxes until the citizenry comes to their senses and realizes that equal rights are for all and not the their special religious majority.
RainbowPhoenix
· 1 year ago
Some people here bring up a good point. If we were the ones to put this on the ballot it would drive away the people we're trying to bring to our side. However, if we were to manipulate the fundies into bringing this to the ballot, the whole world will see them for what they really are and even more people would be driven away by them. I know this idea is underhanded and sneaky, but we tried playing nice and they didn't want to. Now it's time to pull of the gloves and put on the brass knuckles.
gbarela
· 1 year ago
Mr. Aravosis I find it sad and very hypocritical that although you exorcise your right to speak out against views and beliefs that oppose your own, you don't want me to be able to exorcise my right to speak out against those views and beliefs that oppose mine. I'm not gay and based on biblical scriptures and laws believe that it is a sin to be or act gay. If you oppose that fine you have the right, protected by the first admendment, to say so but under that same admendment I have the right to say how I feel and to vote and try to pursuade others to vote accordingly. You aren't for an equal voice Mr. Aravosis you just want to wipe out any opposing voice so that you can carry on how you wish without facing any responsibility. Well Mr. Aravosis I'll tell you this. Don't worry about the Mormons or born-again christians they are the least of your worries. You must worry about the Almighty God who destroyed two cities because the awful sin of homosexuality. By the way I hope that you get lots of publicity with your boycott of Utah. There are more people out there that will shop in or go to Utah because they support the outcome of proposition 8 than those who think they can boycott a whole state.
foxy
· 1 year ago
Sorry gbarela, my bible has no such stories about "homosexuality" because you know what no term existed for "homosexuality" in ancient Greece - there were only a variety of expressions referring to specific homosexual roles. Experts find this baffling, as the old Greek culture regarded male/male love in the highest regard. According to several linguists, the word "homosexual" was not coined until 1869 by the Hungarian physician Karoly Maria Benkert.
Gridlock
· 1 year ago
Yes, we're all terrified of your magic sky fairy who hasn't been seen or heard from in 2000 years according to some storybook written 300 years after his supposed jewish son became a zombie.
Really terrifying.
Frankly, people like you should be rounded up and dumped on an island somewhere in the frozen north.. maybe Baffin Island... and you can wander the wastes looking for ways to oppress and kill each other while the rest of the civilized planet promotes equality and happiness.
You twisted, bitter, delusional creature. Do us a favor: Go to a library, and pick up ANY book that is not labelled "holy bible" and try to absorb the knowledge therein.
liberaldemdave
· 1 year ago
gbarela, you need to go read your Bible. what john proposes is based in scripture, whereas there's nothing about gay marriage in the Bible. Biblically speaking, the only instance where divorce is acceptable is for adultery. if you wanna get all "literal", you're going to have a hard time justifying your misplaced, displaced fear, hypocrisy and hatred.
Wesinoregon
· 1 year ago
Obviously, you don't understand religion. You know what "faith" is? Sounds simple. But, it's belief NOT based on fact. What churches legislate is based on a person's "faith"....not fact. Think about it. Also, the comet that passed over the two cities crashed into a hillside in Austria. The destruction left behind could only be explained by a society who was very unscientific. The bible also said there were women, children, men, in the cities. Where did they all come from if all the men were gay. READ your bible and stop listening to all the lies. I hope UTAH dries up. If it does it's because of it's own people not taking a stand against that cult.
anokie
· 1 year ago
I am rather intrigued by this proposal. I can see it accomplishing several things..one of them being to call out the hipocracy of the very people who brought up Prop 8. As for "gbarela" isn't this what you want?...to protect the scanctity of marriage? I call bull$hit, once again.
canuck55
· 1 year ago
Live and let live I say. But when a church, a tax exempt church, engages in political activity as was the case here, their tax exempt status should be revoked. Seems to me a lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment to that effect is the best remedy. It is correct in law and a principled stance, without stooping to the level of the other side of the argument.
wibs
· 1 year ago
Why aren't the Mormons opposed to murderers marrying? Why don't they bankroll a proposition to amend the Utah constitution to prohibit convicted murderers from marrying? They don't seem to have any problem with other groups having equal civil rights (except for the blacks until 1978, remember the Mormon God made those white people who killed the original Mormons black as punishment, 3000 years ago in America - who knew?). Why can't law-abiding good gay citizens be allowed to enjoy the stability and benefits that marriage offers? Do the Mormons believe that gays are worse than murderers?
Dieuberfrau
· 1 year ago
Let's put ballots in CA and Mormon states about limiting the number of children each family can have! I say 2.5!
KwirDC
· 1 year ago
Let them have their marriage based on their religous beliefs. What we need to do is get after the Federal Government to take away the special rights the government gives them for being married. Once they are taxed for adding their spouse to their health benefits package like I was when I added my domestic parter (it rasied my taxable income around $9400 a year), I think they will come around.
bparker
· 1 year ago
As I understand it, any gay or lesbian couple who was married before prop 8 passed is no longer married. Therefore, if a prop that outlaws divorce is passed, that means that all divorces are null and void. How does this help homosexuals who were once in a heterosexual relationship? That would mean they'd still be married to a member of the opposite sex. Stupid idea, Arovosis.
BillFromDover
· 1 year ago
Hell, and while we're at it why not reinstate slavery. Majority rules in a democracy doesn't it. How can I get this on a ballot?
rextrek1
· 1 year ago
I say name it Proposition 7...with slogans like
SAVE TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE: "Yes to Prop 7,and Get into Heaven...BAN DIVORCE"
..after all divorce IS mentioned in the Bible Numerous times...as is adultery.
DavidinPS
· 1 year ago
Wow. You guys don't get it. No one wants it to pass, nor does it have a chance to. But by putting it on the ballot we get to punch holes in a bunch of the Prop 8 arguments: The Bible states specifically, over and over and over, that divorce is forbidden. ( Oh, so you just want to use the bible when it agrees with you, do you?) Jesus himself makes it clear divorce is a no-no. ( BTW, He never said a word about the gays). You shouldn't put peoples personal lives up for a vote (Oh, really?) Even if you do, it shouldn't be a simple majority---it should be 2/3s (Oh, really?) But what about cases where the woman is being abused? (Sorry, Bible says what it says--no excuses--just like abortion).
DavidinPS
· 1 year ago
Oh, yeah, another one: What if my religion says it's okay to divorce. Not everybody is a Fundie or Mormon. (Exactly! What if I believe it's okay for gays to marry?)
Mike_G
· 1 year ago
Petition for a Proposition to nullify all marriages performed in a Mormon church on the basis that it is an exploitive cult. A lot of fundies would sign on for it.
flowerofhighrank
· 1 year ago
Naw, naw, naw: we need to make divorce more difficult AND force people to publicly, I mean in the local paper! announce that they are cohabitating without the blessings of marriage. Have you listened to country music lately? 'Oh, Ginny found a fella and he spent the night...' They rationalize the premarital sex and then piss down our necks for being honest about it. You want to live in accord with the Bible? Do it. Do it or go to jail. I'm a pretty failed Christian. I have faith, I pray and I try to live in line with the spirit of Jesus...and I recognize that I fail at that often. Now it's their turn.
smallhandff
· 1 year ago
The abolition of divorce was, in fact, a plank of the Republican Party election platform.
WyomingJack
· 1 year ago
The "traditional" definition of marriage has always been "until death do us part." If you want to define traditional values then do, but don't leave the most important part of it out. Make it a life-long punishment. If you give your word to honor and obey, in sickness and in health, till death do you part, then make your promise a legally binding contract that cannot be broken.
nicebastard
· 1 year ago
Just outlaw Mormon divorce to preserve Mormon marriages! Let them taste their own shitty medicine!
All Comments
Gingrich/Palin 08!
Forward into the 12th Century!!!
How's that bogus? We'd be a much more peaceful society if we were all baked all the time. It's much harder to be angry when you're stoned. And Frito-Lay would see an improvement in profits, for sure. That might be the best law we could pass.
Wish they could be more like most Jewish people, who identify with other underdogs because of their history of being repressed.
In speaking with people, nurses, teachers, etc. the main issues was "Gay marriage will be taught in schools and they will try and turn our children".
It's the fear factor, what GOP do so well.
That is creepy to me. Any religion that will do this is whacked out beyond control, IMO. I am all for freedom OF religion, but stay in your own religion. Don't put YOUR religious insanity on the rest of us.
It took me a long time, and professional help, to shed my association with the cult that is the Mormon church.
But LITTLE did I know that were more of a CULT than a Christian groups. Though lately a lot of these Christian group really act less and less like Christian so it's all very confusing.
Do the Mormons think of themselves as "Christian".
In answer to your other question, mormons claim their holy book as the bible's third testement. Just like christianity considers the torah th old testement.
The late Spy Magazine (1980s) once wrote the truest thing evar, or practically true: "In California they believe in everything." Well, obviously they don't believe in equal social rights for everyone, but they come close. If it wasn't a state that partially pays for its court system on fees racked up by divorces, you might stand a chance.
But don't go blaming solely the Mormons, folks, pleasurable as that is. The Catholic Church chipped in, as did a creepazoid religious wingnut named Howard Ahmanson Jr. (who will only be happy when biblical law is thoroughly integrated into our lives), and the equally fanatic mother of Halliburton's founder. Solely blaming the Mormons will let the other fundies slip by to do more damage next time.
Ahmanson is a schizophrenic. And he is the leader of this. We all knew these right-wing freaks were mentally ill -- but THAT mentally ill?
Sometimes I hate believing this country is the home of the free. This is one of those times. Being the home of the free means you have to tolerate the scary people.
We need to stop flailing on this and take a well-reasoned, and hopefully effective approach.
Unfortunately aggressive campaigning like this was needed BEFORE prop 8 passed.
We should never have gone anywhere near the word "marriage," which is an outdated legal concept in any case. It is interesting that since Vermont create civil unions, more straight people than gay have taken advantage of it. What does that tell you? We have a chance to reform the whole antiquated system for everyone, but instead we are stamping our feet like babies and saying: "I want what my siblings have, or nothing!" What our siblings have is an institution so flawed, half the people who get married end-up divorced, and entangled in financial and legal messes the rest of their lives. Straights are welcome to it!
As for this silliness about baptizing after birth, why on earth would anyone care? Once I'm dead, they can conduct a ritual sending me to Fairy Hell, for all I care.
Stop acting like children, and come-up with a legal solution that helps everyone, straights included. And leave the word "marraige" behind. Are we still so desperate for approval, that nothing but the embrace of every portion of society will do? Grow up!
86 Marriage altogether...for everyone.
Repeal DOMA, and enact legislation that recognizes civil unions as equivalent to civil marriage at the federal level.
Then move to have all states abolish civil marriage and replace it with civil unions for everyone. Disentangle government from religion NOW! Repeal the powers vested in the clergy by the state NOW!
If my marriage is not free to be recognized by civil marriage, then nobody's marriage is free to be recognized by civil marriage.
Liberty and justice (and civil unions) for all.
And I don't get this exalted religious status for "marriage". It started as a business relationship.
Anyway, in the article it quotes a pastor from one of those mega-churches in the area and how he encouraged his parishioners (or whatever they're called in that movement) to vote for Prop 8. I'm going to be filing a protest with the IRS against him and his church.
Can we file a protest with the IRS, too? Please send link. I understand one can submit a protest anonymously.
JOHN: perhaps that is an action item for us to take? I know you had a post asking for a listing on who supported Prop8. Maybe we can then have an organized NATION-WIDE campaign where we file a protest against each of the individual churches that supported Prop8 on their pulpit?
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-redrive...
Pastor Ron Armstrong moved from Orange County 17 years ago to "plant a church" in Wildomar, near Murrieta.
Now his massive Cornerstone Community Church has over 4,500 members and its own K-12 school. It offers men's groups, women's groups, singles' groups, "Mommy and Me" groups, recreational outings, classes -- in short, an instant community for the disconnected.
"The new housing was the key," Armstrong said. "People moving to new housing are in transition. Whether they ever attended church or not they are more open to community connection, and many get more involved in the church."
Armstrong describes himself as politically independent but said his congregation leans Republican. On Proposition 8, he sent members an e-mail saying that while the church was not against gays, it also believed that "marriage has a biblical foundation that has always been between a man and a woman," he said. "To us it was offensive to take a religious term and apply it out of context."
SO WHO IS PASTOR RON ARMONSTRONG AND HIS CORNERSTONE COMMUNITY CHURCH
http://www.go2cornerstone.com/
OK! We now have something for the IRS to see!
Let's start with gay folk: Has there ever been a single pro-gay bill that these folks supported? No. Not AIDS funding, not support for gay children, not domestic partnerships. Nothing. These bigots will even fight to stop state's from passing laws that protect gay kids from bullying in schools. They just hate gay folks. It's just that simple. Christian? Yea. Right.
And if their position was justifiable, why did they have to lie in their adds promoting prop 8. Isn't lying a sin? Christians? Yea, right.
And if the bible and marriage is so important, why is it that these folks supported the presidential candidate that cheated on his disabled wife, abandoned her and then married another women, and not the married-only-once Obama. We all know why, and it wasn't because they care about the bible and marriage. Christian. Yea, right.
These folks would not know Christ if they tripped over him (and if they did, they would just snarl at him and tell him to get a job), and it is time we start referring to them, not as Christians, but as the bigots they are. Right?
http://www.mormonwiki.org/Lying_for_the_Lord
Also, why the appeal of marriage, a religious ceremony. I have been against it, and agree with Beregond (below), and I question why it is significant to have a religious blessing on something that should just be contract law anyway.
Why anyone who is fighting for secular rights would want to challenge religious myths and practices is beyond me.
The Mormon relilgion is not "Catholic" in the oldest sense of that term. It is not Universal or above naked nationialism. The LDS raise the United States government and people above all others in the eyes and plans of God.. Our laws are touched with divinity to them, and in time must conform with LDS theology. Therefore, legal marriage is a very important matter to them. Not only does the LDS routinely baptize every recently deceased Ameican into their church without knowledge or permission, but by doing so, it makes every legal marriage a post-facto Mormon marriage. Morevoer, to the LDS, the legal marriage bonds perisists and binds the two souls to each other in the afterlife as well.
If we Think for a moment as a conservative Mormon would, that means that when gay and lesbians are judged, God judges them as Mormons who have sexually sinned, and will punish them accordingly. Among the crimes gay people have historically committed is the failure to be legally married (nevermind that we have been denied the marriage rights we would want). Traditional Mormonism insists on married life as an obligation. But if a gay post-facto Mormon shows up with his or her same-sex post-facto Mormon legal spouse, then they are still considered married and will be punished as a couple. That is TOO much for the old bigots who run the LDS. The thought of married gay couples, even if they are buning in hell, remaining married for eternity, galls them to no end.
Theologically, this is why Prop 8 was funded so lavishly by the LDS hierarchy.
One is marriage, the other is COVENANT MARRIAGE.
**
"What is covenant marriage?
A Covenant Marriage is an additional type of marriage made available to a man and a woman in Louisiana. Covenant Marriages differ from regular marriages by requiring couples to seek marital counseling before filing for divorce. Based on the belief that many couples unnecessarily end their marriage without sufficient attempts at resolving conflict, Covenant Marriages provide an opportunity to resolve the conflict without sacrificing the marital union in the process. Of course, in the event of a serious fault (adultery, conviction of a felony, physical or sexual abuse, etc.) a divorce will be granted to the non-faulting spouse.
How do you get a covenant marriage?
Couples choosing Covenant Marriage must attend premarital counseling prior to entering into marriage and agree to attend marital counseling to address future problems which threaten their marriage. "
http://www.lafamilyforum.us/covenantmarriage.html
**
Maybe the gays need to just call it "gay-marriage". Then, "marriage" is still there but you have separated yourselves from the lunatic majority opinion of it's sacredness.
I'm with you whichever way.
And notice that the people didn't get to vote on that law, either.
That'll put a stop to the teen pregnancies!
And today, women can actually make real secular law...they're just not allowed to make religion, where men rule everything ultimately.
Can you imagine a world where people actually believed in each other and didn't selfishly pursue something as silly as an "afterlife?"
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/initiative_guid...
Starting with step one:
The first step in the process of qualifying an initiative measure is to write the text of the proposed law. The initiative measure’s proponent(s) may obtain assistance from the Legislative Counsel in drafting the language of the initiative measure. Proponent(s) must present the idea for the law to the Legislative Counsel, and 25 or more electors must sign the request for a draft of the proposed law. If it is determined that there is a reasonable probability the initiative measure will eventually be submitted to the voters, the Legislative Counsel will draft the proposed law (Government Code Section 10243). Proponent(s) may also seek the assistance of their own private counsel to help draft the text of the proposed law, or they may choose to write the text themselves.
But I've always hoped the following would someday be on a ballot measure:
remove all mention of marriage from state statute since it appears to be a religious ceremony (take breaks for first communions or bar mitzvahs?)
or
prohibit divorce and annulments
prohibit inter-racial marriage (and require a person to proove their race)
require proof that both the male and female are fertile
prohibit the marriage of women over 50 (who most likely can't give birth, which is supposedly the purpose of marriage)
prohibit second (3rd, 4th, etc) marriages unless the former spouse is dead
prohibit divorced persons from other states entering CA to marry a new person
require that both male and female live together a minimum of 1 year before applying for marriage
require a $10,000 marriage license fee (eh, if your not serious about the gal...)
require a tax of $10,000 per child after 3 children (why should single persons support your childs education, or lack thereof)
require couples who have not had a child after 5 years of marriage to adopt a child from within the state of CA (no Chinese babies, thanks)
require that the male be at least 5 years older than the female and gainfully employed at least 3 years
require that both parties be high school graduates (GED's don't count)
prohibit circumcision, even if your religion insists (clearly child abuse and 99.999999% of the time totally unnecessary)
If we put, say, 100 such measures on the ballot all at once, wording them so that a voter could not just mark them all "yes" or "no", and sneak in one that says same-sex marriage is legal, it might work (and piss off the state and counties who would have to pay to print all the voter guides).
We've been lazy and letting ourselves be walked on by being nice for decades. It's time to get pissed, find our own marching songs, stop quoting MLK and lead our own battle.
It's like when my church wanted to retire the Christmas ornaments they had been using since the 1940's and replace them with new ones in the mid-80's. I was against it because I liked the slightly shabby old ones but then somehow I managed to get over it.
http://lds501c3.wordpress.com/2008/10/29/how-to...
If they lost their tax-exempt status, God would come to their leader and say that he said homosexuality is OK.
It has always been this way, it always will.
This act of admission to the priesthood is not intended to encourage AA membership. Mormon missionaries do not canvas AA communities.
No kidding -- write a book. I would definitely buy several copies.
I just celebrated my 40th b'day last week, so I need to live some more before I could write anything worth reading.
But already I have plenty of opinions. :)
I say, remove their tax exempt status and let gays and lesbians be temporarily exempt from having to pay state taxes until the citizenry comes to their senses and realizes that equal rights are for all and not the their special religious majority.
Really terrifying.
Frankly, people like you should be rounded up and dumped on an island somewhere in the frozen north.. maybe Baffin Island... and you can wander the wastes looking for ways to oppress and kill each other while the rest of the civilized planet promotes equality and happiness.
You twisted, bitter, delusional creature. Do us a favor: Go to a library, and pick up ANY book that is not labelled "holy bible" and try to absorb the knowledge therein.
But when a church, a tax exempt church, engages in political activity as was the case here, their tax exempt status should be revoked. Seems to me a lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment to that effect is the best remedy. It is correct in law and a principled stance, without stooping to the level of the other side of the argument.
SAVE TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE:
"Yes to Prop 7,and Get into Heaven...BAN DIVORCE"
..after all divorce IS mentioned in the Bible Numerous times...as is adultery.
Have you listened to country music lately? 'Oh, Ginny found a fella and he spent the night...' They rationalize the premarital sex and then piss down our necks for being honest about it.
You want to live in accord with the Bible? Do it. Do it or go to jail.
I'm a pretty failed Christian. I have faith, I pray and I try to live in line with the spirit of Jesus...and I recognize that I fail at that often. Now it's their turn.