-
Website
http://www.americablog.com/ -
Original page
http://www.americablog.com/2008/11/schwarzenegger-mormonreligious-right.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
From my experience, the exact opposite happens: Different ways of life reassure the LDS community how right they are and how wicked the outside is. Brainwashed sheep that deep in trance are beyond cult stage...the elders are the law.
Otherwise, Mesa just another suburban shit-hole full of Targets and Applebee's plus the added benefit of pale-skinned bigots driving Suburbans that they euphemistically called a BMW for Big Mormon Wagon.
The problem with some sort of buycott is that the mormons benefit from that.
Creeps me out how they hate gays with a smile.
Maybe next time the Mormons won't be in such a hurry to take the rights from a group of people.
I hope you will continue to support us because we need all the help we can get.
I used to be in sales (many years ago) and had to fly into Salt Lake City about 4X/year. I would fly in early in the morning and back out by end of day because I could not let myself stay overnight in SLC.
Oh, you're SOOOO tolerant of others and their beliefs. You're an absolute model of what we should all be.
Utahns take back their state? Are you serious? You do know that until Mormons settled Utah in the mid 1800's, it was a desert, right? It's because of the Mormons that Utah even IS a state!
So, you wouldn't be willing to "take back your state" if it were returned to its original condition? Not even if it meant you were rid of such a powerful force of ignorance, intolerance and hatred? I sincerely hope you'll consider the destructive consequences of supporting such a scourge economically.
Stand up for what is right Arnold...(you got it in you, somewhere inside that steroid shell.)
Too bad too...I was considering the less expensive Utah to CO. No way.
BTW Colorado has tons of Mormons too.
Upon reflection, the win on prop 8 might force the courts to make a final decision and open the flood gates for gay marriage throughout the U.S.
I am proud of Schwarzenegger for making a dangerous career move in coming out for gay marriage.
Bottom line, I would be a lot more pleased if he had spoken up before the election. As for "making a dangerous career move," he cannot run for governor again in California (term limits) and if you're suggesting he might run for senate (and he might) it's difficult to see how he could lose because he supported gay marriage in this state.
More than one-third of California's lawmakers added their voices Monday to the chorus calling on the state's highest court to overturn the prohibition on same-sex marriage approved by voters last week.
Forty-four members of the California Legislature filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support one of the three lawsuits seeking to invalidate Proposition 8. The case, brought on behalf of gay couples who have not yet married, argues the ban should be tossed out because voters did not have the authority to make such a dramatic change in state law.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/...
"Voters Protect Gay Marriage"
http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/opinion/ci_1093...
dudd
hehe
It appears its an unwritten tenant of their religion to lie. They lied about Barrack's support of Prop 8. They lied about gay marriage causing Doctors to be unable to discriminate against lesbians (that was a whopper).
Other lies they tell is about one of their scriptures, The Book of Abraham. Joseph Smith supposedly translated from some Egypitian Papyri he purchased. He claimed it was a lost book written by the Prophet Abraham in Egypt. In 1966 the papyri were rediscovered in one of the vault rooms of the New York’s metropolitan Museum of Art. When modern egyptolgist translated it -- not one word was correct. The story is from The Book of the Dead.
They lie about their past racism.
Jasmyne Cannick had a great op ed in the LATimes Saturday (maybe it was Friday) about how the gay leaders made no effort to reach out to blacks. She also said this on NPR's Talk of the Nation today; gay leaders need to go back to the drawing board and stop assuming blacks will automatically be on their side if they don't make the case to them in a way that works.
I hope you realize that during his first term he put some pretty regressive initiatives on the ballot (the state leg. wouldn't approve them) and spent millions of our tax dollars to present them in a SPECIAL ELECTION. Of course the voters pounded them into the ground. After that he admitted that Maria (Shriver, his wife) had warned him what would happen and acknowledged that she was right. Since that time he has taken a more middle of the road approach - except for the above mentioned veto.
I tried to post this on Rex's "blog" but it doesn't seem to offer the opportunity for comments. How can you call that a blog?
Why not every thinking American has...
But every four years he goes to the Repub Convention and acts like a Wingnut.
First off, I can't believe that you're wanting to discuss someone's underwear in a public forum.
Secondly, you think that Gay Marriage is okay, but you're against Polygamy? On what grounds? That it's morally reprehensible? If Gay Marriage ever passes, Polygamy (which is currently illegal BECAUSE Mormons used to practice it over a century ago and it was made illegal with the goal of being able to arrest and imprision the Church's leaders) is the next legal battle.
And the whole 12 year old girl thing is NOT the Mormon Church. Those are offshoot religions that broke with the Mormons a LONG time ago. They have some of the same fundamental beliefs, but couldn't give up the polygamy thing when the Church stopped practicing it in the 1800's.
And, of course, like ANY group (religious, ethnic, regional, national, gender, etc) the Church has it's share of weirdos. Don't judge a Church because of what one person says, which may or may not be in line with Church beliefs and teachings.
1. If you think that's how polygamy worked, then you have no idea what you're talking about. It was always mutual, and by choice of BOTH parties, including the first wife. If she said no, then no it was. It was never forced.
2. How could you possibly be FOR gay marriage, but against bigamy or polygamy? On what grounds?
My point is that there is a compelling state interest in not recognizing polygamous marriages, that does not exist with respect to binary same-sex marriages. It will monopolize scarce judicial resources, require extensive new governing legislation, and will cost the taxpayers too much damn money. Enjoy your happy marital pig piles, but don't expect us to foot the bill when it all goes sour.
And thank you so much for your respectful and intellectually honest response. These discussions can get so ugly, so quickly.
Again, the main issue that those opposed are saying is it should be "one man, one woman". So, polygamy really isn't the issue since that is "one man, how ever many women".
i did not trounce on the Mormon beliefs, I trounced on them getting involved with something that A) they spread misinformation about and 2) butting into other people's lives in the first place.
And the point of polygamy is that it is the next step after allowing gay marriage. If gay marriage is made legal, then some nut is going to bring up his/her right to have as many spouses as they choose.
And by claiming that the Church spreads misinformation is indeed trouncing on our beliefs and is nothing less than slander. I can see the argument about supposedly "butting into other people's lives", but by denying the Church or it's members it's freedoms to express their opinions and vote, then you would be denying THEIR constitutional rights as well.
What does it matter if gay marriage leads to polygamy? As long as it doesn't directly affect me or my taxes don't go to support gobs of children then I don't care. Why should you?
Freedom to express opinions is valid - as long as it is not done untruthfully in an effort to hurt another group of people. THAT my friend is slander. The platform used in California was full of misinformation and outright lies. That is not fair.
And one more thing. Homosexuality is not a choice, it is science/genetics. Homosexuality goes back as far as time and has been interwoven in ALL religous factions because it is science/genetics.
I have NO problem with my beliefs. Heck, I have no problem with YOUR beliefs. But you'll never see me preach against it or attack you for it. And I'll certainly never put out false "documentaries" about your beliefs either.
... but not their basic rights.
got it
thanks for clarifying.
Perhaps your church should have left off the false ads along with false documentaries? They seem to be just a longer or shorter version of false.
The governments interests in limiting polygamy are very well spelled out. Now why is it that an entire religion can wage an incredibly campaign in state after state about the definition of civil marriage and yet know nothing about the subject?
The government allowed Mormons to be killed and driven from state to state, having their lands seized and their civil rights trounced upon without lifting a finger. So, the Mormons LEFT civilized areas to keep to themselves. It is HISTORY and FACT that the laws against polygamy were passed to arrest the Church leaders at the time who had more than one wife, because those who had the law passed knew that those men would never divorce or leave their wives and families to comply with the law. The law still exists because the Church stopped the practice when it became law. Talk about a government impinging on a religion and their beliefs.
Why don't you people on this blog just admit that you are filled with the same hate and venom that you claim to despise. Look at the pathetic comments on this "article" if you need any proof.
No, I'm not Mormon, and I couldn't give a rat's ass if any of you losers on here believe me or not. I am from Utah originally, and to boycott the ski areas; where hardly any of the residents are A.) Mormon B.) from the fucking state to begin with, shows how stupid all of you people who follow this blog are.
You obviously do not know why the Mormon church is being protested on this board or the various other avenues of protest that are being discussed.
The failure of the gay community to rip into the black and latino communities, who voted for this proposition overwhelmingly, shows you lack a spine. You won't go to the Cavalry Baptist Church because you are intimidated, just admit it. Instead you target the Mormon temple workers that are typically well over 70 years of age.
I know damn well why the Mormon church is being eviscerated here. They asked their members to support a measure that is in-line with beliefs that they consider holy. They brought in a lot of money from out of state by way of individual donors. However, there are an estimated 490,000 Mormons in CA, how many people voted for the measure??? Maybe you mental midgets should focus on combating the people that hate you just because you're gay, rather than a church that is just trying to protect what they believe is a sacred ritual.
There is a difference between boycotting and intolerance. The Mormon church, which is non-profit, should not be donating millions of dollars in a political campaign. If they wish to blur the lines then their non-profit status should be revoked. I have worked for many non-profits and their stance was very clear - as a non-profit the only "politicing" they do is related to program funding or direct legislation for themselves.
In my OPINION, these protests wouldn't even be necessary if religious groups stayed out of government and CONSTITUTIONAL matters. They don't want others to judge them, so what gives them the right to judge others? You yourself stand there in judgment of a group of people whose beliefs differ from yours. What gives you that right?
The hypocrisy I see is in your last paragraph.
I am a person who practices tolerance to all. I also am disappointed that other cultural groups did not choose to allow people to live their lives as they wish. However, African Americans and Latinos are also strong religious followers in which their religion also denounces homosexuality.
I was baptised Catholic, the most hypocritical of all organized religions in my opinion, which is why I do not practice organized religion. I believe in tolerance to ALL. God and I are good. I don't need to go to a building and put money in a coffer to have a relationship with him. The Catholic church is full of closeted gays, pedophiles, and sexual offenders.
What is it that people fear so much with the gay community or them being married? How does it really affect their life? It doesn't and that is what is so sad.
You want to know something funny? I voted against Prop. 8, and I agree with you. The state should recognize all couples who have the desire to be married. My one and only issue is with the hate filled attacks on the Mormon church; especially when they are being singled out like this. They didn't advocate this amendment because they hate gay people, they consider eternal marriage/family as one of the tenants of their religion. They also have every right to encourage members to vote for measures such as this. Just as a church or other non-profit group that was ardently opposed to Prop.8 had every right to voice their opinion.
If someone will protest at the LA temple, their next stop should be their local latino dominated Catholic church, then on to the Baptist church, etc. It's that simple. If you believe that strongly, get some balls and go stand up to ALL the groups that got this passed.
I am more in favor of removing their tax exempt status than boycotting them. And I don't just feel that way about the Mormon church, I believe that any church who gets involved in trouncing the rights of Americans should have their tax exempt status revoked.
I think those millions of dollars putting their noses into someone else's life could have been spent taking care of children, homeless, etc. Doing what is generally known as the work of the church.
I am sick and tired of religious entities telling others who they can marry, what they should believe in, who they should "hate", what they can do with their body, etc.
The exercise was a campaign to impose religious tyranny over a minority by removing their constitutional rights and their right to worship according to their conscience. Given the LDS's record of disrespect for the religious beliefs of others, this is certainly not the same kind of issue as a lobbying group.
And let's get this straight. It is not, nor has it ever been, a constitutional right for gay people to be married. Show me where in ANY constitution it says that it's a right for ANYONE to be married.
I hope this factual information helps you work through this issue. I'd highly advise you to get your information from somewhere besides your church. You can see already that if they told you there is no fundamental right to marriage, they were lying to you.
The CA Supreme Court used the same reasoning (albeit in reference to the CA Equal Protection Clause--the corrolary to the 14th Amendment) to reach the same decision replacing "race" with "gay and lesbian."
As soon as GLAAD or any other promotes anything other than tolerance YES their status should also be revoked.
How dare you make this about MY point of view? I have only spoke about being tolerant of those who may be different from "the majority" or whatever it should be called. You know - prejudice and discrimination. I believe in tolerance, even for you.
A non-profit should not make public opinion or donate MILLIONS of dollars towards public policy that would discriminate or show prejudice against another group.
Stop attacking someone who is trying to say that we should all be a bit more understanding and tolerant of others by not forcing opinions into policies.
When are people (not necessarily meaning you) going to stop and realize that America is a melting pot of all types. It is not entirely construed of white, heterosexually married, christian folk? Instead of embracing diversity there are those who would rather shoot them down or poke them in the eye.
As a great man has said "We can disagree without being disagreeable".
And talk about trampling civil rights...what happened to the right to practice our religion the way we choose? What are you going to do... destroy the Church? Imprison it's members? What about the tolerance that you so espouse? Talk about bigotry and discrimination.
Let's get this clear. The Mormon Church does not discriminate against any group, race, or creed. Period. It disagrees with them, and RARELY does it EVER take a stand on political matters (I can think of two, maybe three in the last 40 years). But when it does, it's decried for being hateful, and vast repercussions are declared against it.
And, whether or not the passing of Proposition 8 is reprehensible or admirable really depends on which side you're on, doesn't it?
Tell me - how many lies can a religious person intentionally tell and still be considered a "Christian?"
Now that's a "moral" question.
What happened to MY right not to be forced to obey the strictures of a religion in which neither I, nor even a majority of this country's citizens, believe in?
There was nothing in the California Supreme Court's ruling that forced any religion to alter its beliefs. The ruling simply stated that marriage was a right that could not be denied based on both persons being of the same gender. There was nothing that said any church had to solemnize any weddings between same-sex couples.
If some are trying to take away the "right" to get married then yes, their "rights" have been trounced.
There shouldn't be HATE in the first place!
I was speaking of the Catholic church and why I no longer follow the "organized" part of the religion. They do tell you what you can and can't do with your body or in your home. Here's an instance for you - if you worked for a Catholic organization then your health insurance benefits will not include birth control. No matter the reason. Thousands of women need to take birth control for menstruation regulation. However, if your insurance is through a Catholic organization no can do.
There are religious groups would like nothing more than to reverse Roe v. Wade. And many don't believe in a provision regarding rape and incest.
I have no idea what the Catholic Church does or does not believe. So I can't really argue those points.
Although I may not always agree or understand how other religions or people live their life, it is not up to me to judge them. I don't have to agree with them and I don't have to live it. At the end of the day it doesn't affect me personally and does not threaten myself or my family.
Actually, you are legally wrong. The Supreme Courts of both the United States and California disagree with you. Marriage is a "fundamental right" as defined in Loving v. Virginia. California's Constitution guarantees that right to same-sex couples. Proposition 8 attempts to remove that right. The first time in American history rights will have been removed from a group of people.
I know this is an emotional issue for many people, but please, especially if you are going to come onto a blog and be the counter-voice, at least know the facts of the situation at hand.
My question is, how did that right for same-sex couples to be married find it's way into the California constitution? Through the state supreme court? Or through popular vote?
The right for same-sex couples to marry was written into the CA Constitution in its Equal Protection Clause. The Court struck down the existing law limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples as a violation of equal protection this past Spring. So, there was no actual "finding its way in." It was there right from the beginning in the Equal Protection Clause. I'd note here too, that the CA Govenor has stated that this is an issue for the Court to decide.
As an aside, same-sex marriage was also passed twice by the CA legislature (the representatives of the will of the people), but vetoed by the Governor.
Essentially in California, you have two branches of government stating that there is a fundamental right to same-sex marriage (one stating prior laws excluding same-sex couples violated the CA Constitution, the other affirmatively passing laws including same-sex couples in marriage), while the third branch defers to the Court, but recognizes the right to exist.
Popular vote has never been an avenue to decide upon civil rights, let alone the applicability of "fundamental rights" which are a separte class of inalienable rights. The concept that a slim majority of voters can decide to remove Constitutionally protected rights from a protected class (gays and lesbians are legally a protected class in California) is unfounded in ALL of American history, and is, quite frankly, antithetical to our entire system of government and understanding of freedom.
Dude - NO ONE believes that. Saying so just amplifies your trollish smell.
More likely you are posting from Utah from where many freshly minted new blog ID's are sprouting up by the minute. But it's OK because it's not the actual physical "church" posting. It's individual members, so it has nothing at all to do with the church. really. honestly. of course. and they ALL voted against Prop. 8. really. honestly. of course they did.
And there is nothing wrong with ANY church standing up for what it believes is a moral issue. It's no different than any other large organization, say...the AARP, NAACP, or NRA, lobbying in state and national forums. Remember, the seperation of Church and State is simply to keep the government from persecuting or prohibiting religious beliefs and practices. It is NOT defined as keeping and religious group from organizing and expressing their views on legal matters.
And, of course, boycotting Utah is going to be SO effective at getting anything changed. Since most of the people that would be hurt by such a boycott had nothing to do with Prop. 8. Talk about misdirected anger. Like the guy above pointed out...WHO voted for the proposition? over 3 million Californians? Think that most of them are Mormon? No. What about the Catholics? Any of you going to boycott them? And the Blacks OVERWHELMINGLY voted for Prop. 8, because most of them are good Christian folk. Also, if you break down the vote by demographics, those over 30 years old OVERWHELMINGLY voted for Prop. 8, where those under the age of 30 mostly voted against it. Going to go and target old people, too?
This is the beauty of a free country with elections. The majority disagree with gay marriage. And so the Proposition passed. And now the minority is upset. I'm sorry, but this is the way that a Democracy works. Not everyone is going to be happy.
And what is really getting lost here is this. Societal recognition of same-sex marriage cannot be justified simply on the grounds that it provides self-fulfillment to its partners, for it is not the purpose of government to provide legal protection to every possible way in which individuals may pursue fulfillment. By definition, all same-sex unions are infertile, and two individuals of the same gender, whatever their affections, can never form a marriage devoted to raising their own mutual offspring.
Not of this would even be an issue if people just let people live their own lives in the way they see fit. Religion should not control our government. There should be no legal definition of marriage.
Also, a couple of any orientation should have the right to not get married. Why does property, health care proxy, children, and everything else have to be tied to marriage?
And religion hardly controls our government, but when it comes to marriage that is fundamentally a religious thing. Marriage's origins began with religion. Whether or not you actually BELIEVE in any particular religion is irrelevant. Marriage indeed should be about family. In today's society, where two people can live together without repercussion, why WOULD you get married if not to have children? I mean, if it's just about commitment, then why don't you just say to your partner, "I won't cheat on you, let's live together until we die" and then do it? What is the benefit of getting married? Just to say you did?
It's amazing that I'm expected to pay taxes to "support society" by affirming the rights of a serial rapist to engage in legal matrimony, simply because his penis gets excited over a pair of boobies. And even more ridiculous is the concept that I'm supposed to foot the bill for that same rapist to engage in "moral" teaching of his children. Would that be before or after they are molested by their local Catholic Church? Hmm..while I'm at it - why isn't that Catholic Church listed in the directory of child sexual predators, anyway? Special rights for them, eh?
Now how dare YOU engage in questioning MY motives for marriage, when your own people have such a dismal, hypocritical record of responsibility in your own. Why, a good number of you jump ship from any church as soon as the minister suggests you won't be married there - moreover, you suddenly discover a special right to create your own morality when that same church who married you won't recognize your choice to divorce. Suddenly you run to the state for assistance and waltz right out of the church without a word.
It amazes me that straight people, particularly conservatives, only seem to discover "morality" when they are attacking the rights of others.
Unfortunately the benefit is the right to make medical decisions for your partner, to even visit them in the hospital without releases (which can't always happen if the patient is unable to give it), to make decisions about a child's health or education, property rights, etc. The list is unfortunately long.
I agree! Marriage is about family. The reality of the world (even if it's not something you've seen or witnessed) is that there are gay-headed families. There's a lot of them! All Proposition 8 purports to have done was remove marriage rights/protections from existing (or budding) family units. How do you address the childen of same-sex couples? Are they not legally entitled to family?
And just one additional point: you say that marriage is fundamentally a religious thing. Look, have religions carried the marriage banner? Yes. Did religions used to actually govern people? Yes. (Holy Roman Empire et al.) Today, though--today in 2008-- we are not governed by religious institutions. We are goverened by a secular government that has an interest in regulating family units, and do so by arranging them into "marriages." It's a completely different animal than the marriage you are talking about. No one is arguing that religious institutions must change their definition of marriage. We are only working with the secular, legal definition, which is governed by the Constiution and not church elders.
We already know that for decades, society has allowed infertile heterosexuals to engage in all the privileges of marriage.
We also already know that, despite criminal records of known serial rapists and child sexual predators, conservatives warmly endorse marital rights for people with a continuing history of creating children for the purpose of engaging in abuse. Why, a straight person can murder his wife and, given there is another woman looney enough to want him, can marry again. . .so much for social morality.
Why, can't people who torture and kill their own children continue to engage in marriage, despite a proven inability to raise offspring?
Nay - marriage for heterosexuals is completely based on self-fulfillment. . .and for most of the conservative "churches" which market in deliberate deception, that fulfillment is centered on the supremacy of the heterosexual male's penis.
Infertile heterosexuals can still have children of their own through other scientific methods, or they can adopt and raise a healthy socially well-adjusted child. This doesn't change the fact that, as I stated below, parents of opposite sexes compliment each others' strengths and weaknesses in ways that same sex parents cannot. Whether the children are theirs biologically or not.
And your point of people having children for evil purposes, well, obviously there is no church or political group that wants that to happen. Yes, even criminals have the right to get married, but if they're doing something criminal in the process, then they will go to prison. But we have to catch them first.
And i don't know a single guy that really believes he needs to get married for the "fulfillment of his penis".
======================
Wow...so you are saying that Catholic priests have been legally forced to marry Mormons and Jews for years. Astounding. Why, I didn't know that every church has been forced to abrogate their beliefs about holy matrimony among their membership to accommodate the wishes of outsiders.
We'll also pretend that no one ever left the Church because it refused to marry them. . .oh..wait...that happens all the time.
How many lies can a "religious" person, who claims to have such direct access to all morality, manufacture and still be allowed to call themselves "Christian."
"We'll also pretend that no one ever left the Church because it refused to marry them. . .oh..wait...that happens all the time."
What's the point of that statement? Are you saying that Churches should be forced to marry people? Can't business refuse the right to serve someone if they don't wear shoes or shirts? Should we force businesses to serve those people? Churches have rights, too. And if someone chooses to leave a church because they don't agree with it, what's the problem? That's their RIGHT. To CHOOSE.
Again, what lies are you accusing me of?
And, the point I think Kevingoode is making is that no religion can be forced to perform gay weddings. And his examples are strong. Religions can restrict whomever they wish from marrying within their rites. Catholics do it already all of the time. It's a first amendment protection. One of the strongest guarantees found in our federal Constitution.
There are religions that will not marry anyone in their church who is not a consecrated member. They cannot be sued any more than ANY church could have been sued if Prop 8 failed for not marrying a same sex couple if that violated their religious beliefs.
The law ONLY speaks to civil marriage rights. Government CANNOT give or take away religious rights without a change in the US constitution.
I am currently in a non fertile marriage. By your clever made up "rules" my marriage should be legally dissolved as should EVERY marriage that takes place after the woman has gone through menopause.
... and just when did the AARP, NAACP, or NRA lobby to TAKE AWAY any one group of citizens' rights?
oh yeah - NEVER
Until then, just remember that Republicans are a minority, and any hate group worth the salt you claim we have, should have put their rights up to a popular vote as well. Oh my. . .what an idea.
I do believe conservatives would suddenly discover a love for "activist" judges.
As you know, this isn't an isolated incident.
As for "gutless pansies," It has been my experience that those who are most gutless are those whose lives are dedicated to searching for imaginary ways to take away the rights of others - in order for themselves to feel more important.
As for your concern about us tackling the positions of other groups in this matter, all I can do is advise: All in good time.
And never underestimate the ability of someone whose marriage and family has been threatened by others to defend themselves.
And that good time is now.
Already, hispanic gays have organized protests in heavily hispanic areas. I understand that black gays will be protesting a black church that was involved. The downtown huge catholic church had protesters this past Sundays.
So the whining of the Mormons about "why aren't you protesting black people" is now passe. By the way, why do the Mormons immediately mention black people first? I guess the racism in their church never fully left after 1978.
Smells very, very trollish
B. He isn't inaccurate. Ever hear of advocacy journalism? Surely, as a conservative, you should understand that concept. Every "mainstream" outlet operated by the Right engages in the practice with impunity. Why, some of the Right's most celebrated "journalists" - like "born-again" Matt Sanchez, are even able to psychically project direct quotes of the THOUGHTS of others.
C. Since you are so committed to "accuracy," I wonder why this is the first time I've seen any claim that African-Americans voted 75% in favor of the proposition.
D. A person committed to "truth" or "accuracy" would also freely admit that the LDS church leaders willfully and intentionally engaged in financing a campaign based on manufactured lies, including lies to the public about the current interpretation of law.
E. If "marriage" is a "moral" issue, then what kind of "morality" do conservatives display when they would amend the constitution to prevent gays from marriage yet freely allow rapists, child sexual predators, spousal abusers, and serial killers access to the institution without restriction?
F. Obviously, anyone can manufacture an imaginary friend in the sky and use it as a means to smear other people, right? Isn't that essentially the modus operandi of the Right anyway? One should remind you that, unlike sexual orientation, no one disputes that "religious" beliefs are a lifestyle CHOICE - meaning an adult can make the decision to join a hate organization with full knowledge and desire to oppress others. As such, you (and your church) have set precedent to have your own special rights and protections voted away by the majority at their pleasure - magic underwear and all. After all, it only takes a simple constitutional amendment, right?
Oh - and by the way - gays no longer have the same civil rights as anyone. They have to pretend to be straight in order to placate your church enough to engage in marriage.
Since when is choosing which church to get married in a civil right?
It's not the Califirnia Mormons that are under fire; it's the Mormons from out of state that poured millions into deceitful ad campaigns. And for some strange reason, many of those Mormons live in Utah! Go figure!
That is just about the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. Since gays by nature can't have children, the only bastards created are those from a gay who won't marry the partner responsible for conceiving the child. That is the thing churches want to see - men marrying women so children have a father and a mother.
By definition a child raised by a gay couple are either going to be fatherless or motherless - not the best interest of a child.
Talk about religious tyranny. Forcing shotgun divorces on 20,000 couples and their children.
Reproductive organs are automatically and immediately removed when one is gay?
Who knew?
My lesbian aunt who carried "someone's" child to term over a decade ago will be very, very surprised!
It amazes me enough that so many "churches" engage in lying and then demand to be called "Christian."
I've noticed that the LDS are trying to change the subject.
The Mormon Church was complicit in this duplicitous effort. It lied in the ads it funded and produced and was instrumental in helping to make a class of people second-class citizens. It was legal for gays to marry in California, the Mormon Church moved in with money and lies (saying that churches would be forced to marry gays and that gay marriage would be taught in the schools) and cruelly stripped families of the legal rights that were afforded them as married couples.
As I say, you can believe whatever fiction you care to believe--but you cannot write your beliefs into law--not in this country (perhaps you would be happier in Iran or with the the Taliban in Afghanistan where that behavior is common?).
In addition, the definition of marriage has changed over the century--for instance, women are no longer viewed as "property" and bargaining tools for wealth. Additionally, words do change their meaning over time: "fell" used to mean cruel, and "nice" used to mean "wanton" or "foolish" for just a couple of examples.
In other words, get your damned beliefs out of my life, my bedroom, and the laws of this secular nation--or you will pay the price. Religious bigotry and religious intervention in the life of others is over in this country.
Look, you chose a "religious" cult which practices persecution of others, up to and including the removal of their constitutional rights. If you choose to live under the rules of tyranny, that's your business. When you campaign to impose that tyranny over my freedom, your church becomes MY business. . .and particularly if it engaged in willful deception of the public.
You have the right to believe whatever you want. You do not have the right to force your beliefs into law in a secular country. You do not have the right to take away people's rights.
And when Eden is restored, you'll get your land back in Missouri. *Snicker*
I'm sorry Mormons if your leaders have decieved you with a bad set of talking points.
But he was wrong, I wasn't wasting my time, beacue that was 25 minutes he might have spent talking to people who didn't know that the lies the mormon church put into his talking points were lies.
It was also not a waste because I was able to educate him a little about his own religion. Like you, Misunderstood, he knew next to nothing about the history of his own church. It's not your fault or his, because you were indoctrinated into believing that myths were history. Unlike you, I actually know the history of the Mormon church. I know, for example that mormon bigorty in regard to marriage dates back tot he very beginning of the mormon church. I know how Brigham Young declared that if a balck and a white person were to marry they should be killed on the spot.
I know how Joseph Smith's 'traditional" marriage included having sex with the wives of his follwers. (He called it celestial marriage.)
I know how Joseph Smith's "traditional" marriage include his having sex with the 14 year old daughters of his followers. Having sex with his foster daughters. Having sex with his teenage servant girls. And calling them "marriage."
I know all about mormon "tradidtional" marriage.
I also know all about Kirtland. WHere Joseph Smith had to flee the city because he was about to be convicted for bank fraud. How he had earlier been tarred and fellowed, not by anti-mormons as you weer told, but by Mormons who he conned out of their hard earned money.
I know all about Missouri too. How Smith started two civil wars there. Well tried to start two. The first one fizzled out beacue his army got cholera because they didnt boil their drinking water. But the second civil war he started, after declaring that the Mrmons would exterminate anyone who stood in their way really happened. The Mormons attacked non-momron towns, burning, looting and raping the women. The Mormons attacked then attacked the state militia and after losing the battle, Smith and the other mormon leaders weer convicted of treason and sentenced to death. He escaped jail, however, by bribing his guards and fleeing to Illinois.
The mormons have a long history of attacking freedom and liberty.
It's time for some change.
I hope someday you'll join us. But until then, a least stop with all the lies.
The issue is that 80 percent--that's 4/5--of the money that came in to push Prop 8 through came from the Mormon church. Second, two of the main arguments put forth in the Yes on 8 commercials were lies: (1) that churches would be required to marry same-sex couples or lose their tax-exempt status, and (2) that schools would be required to teach same sex marriage. It's easy enough to say, as did one poster whose post has apparently been removed, that these claims are supported. Of course, that poster gave no backup of this statement. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it because it is not there.
Now that there is a groundswell of support for a boycott of the Mormon church, the Mormons are going on the defensive: why are you mean hateful gays picking on us? I agree that there are certainly other groups to be targeted; it's just that none of those other groups donated 4/5--that's 80 percent--of the money that went toward pushing this proposition through.
(As an aside: I myself have canceled participation in two events over the coming year because it would have meant my staying at a Marriott, one chain of hotels whose doorway I will never darken again. Also in 2011 I'll be chairing a convention for the third time. The last two times we held our convention at a Marriott. Guess where it will not take place this time?)
I don't want to hear about African-Americans, Latinos and the rest of them. The only thing relevant about those arguments is that these groups, like the Mormons, have been historically discriminated against. Yet they--you--will not hesitate to do the discriminating when the opportunity arises.
From what I'm reading, the No on 8 campaign was not run nearly as well as it could have been. And it's too bad that Arnold chose to veto this measure the two times that the California legislature passed it. One, his signing it would have spoken volumes as to his support of it, much more than the meager lip service he gave to it before the vote and slightly less meager lip service he is giving to it now could have ever done. Two, if he had signed it on an earlier occasion, the thing would not have come before the voters in this highly-charged election year. But I digress. Arnold's support or lack thereof for the measure is not directly related to the Mormon church efforts to influence this legislation.
This is a big deal because of the potential nationwide repercussions. It's one thing, shameful though it still may be, to fail to grant a right in the first place. It's quite another to take a right that has been granted by a court and to strip it away, which is what has happened in California. Gays in this country are by and large tired of being shat upon. Iin this respect, the Mormon church has done them a great favor. In gay history, the Mormon church wlll be mentioned in the same breath as the Greenwich Village cops on that night back in 1969 as galvanizing a reaction from the gay community. In fact, the Greenwich Village cops will likely take a back seat to the Mormon church insofar as the Stonewall reaction was strictly local at the time and took a while to spread to the rest of the country. Now, thanks to the publicity that Prop 8 got and the nationwide interest in the measure, the reaction has been swift, immediate and widespread (viz tomorrow's protest at the Mormon Temple in New York City--damn, I wish my next trip to the Big Apple were now instead of next month) and will continue.
It's easy enough for the Mormon church, the good folks at www.protectmarriage.com, and others who supported the measure to now sit back and say, "Well, that's over. Now it's time to make nice with each other and let those wounds heal." Too bad for you: those wounds are not going to heal as long as gays are considered to be second-class citizens.
So, as a gay icon once said, "Fasten your seat belts; it's gonna be a bumpy night."
It appears that trolling has recently become a full time activity being sponsored by the Mormon Church.
They would only be sending their minions out in this manner if they feel threatened! YES - the boycotts and protests are working. The presence of these dedicated trolls is the proof!
Thank you so much for giving us this cause for encouragement azcavalier, captvegas and all of the others. Your blatantly obvious attempts are really making us realize that we are right and we are making headway!
For every one of the Mormon troll comments that remain on the threads, approximately 10 more have been removed. This appears to be a coordinated attack and it is a huge task for the monitors. Thank Disqus for our unlimited ability to ban.
The Mormon church leaders must actually have believed they could fool bloggers with this stunt.
It is reassuring to know how worried they are!
There is a protest planned in NYC tomorrow!
Nearly 2,500 people on Facebook have already confirmed they will attend!
Event: Prop 8 Protest in New York at Mormon Temple AGAINST HATE
"LGBT New Yorkers and Straight Allies Please Join Us..."
What: Protest
Host: Michaelangelo Signorile, Ann Northrop, Corey Johnson
Start Time: Wednesday, November 12 at 6:30pm
End Time: Wednesday, November 12 at 8:00pm
Where: New York Manhattan Mormon Temple
To see more details and RSVP, follow the link below:http://www.facebook.com/n/?event.php&eid=57450719688
My spouse and I were married legally in the eyes of the state of California on 10/19/08. Today, the legality of our marriage is in limbo because 52% of California voters don’t think we deserve the same fundamental rights that straight people in this state have. Many of those 52% say they based their decision on religious/moral beliefs. Years ago good religious-minded folks in this country used the same rationale to deny whites and blacks to marry each other. After all, back then, many people believed that God placed the races on different continents and therefore did not want them to mix. It was the natural order. Their case was wrong then and their case against gay marriage is wrong today. It’s not about religion. It’s about basic human rights. 52% of California voters have voted to strip us of our basic fundamental rights. It’s wrong and shameful! Now, I have to fight the government and the voters who supported Prop 8 to keep my marriage legal. Can you imagine having to fight the same battles for your marriage rights? The sad truth is that, most people who voted for Prop 8 can’t even fathom what it would mean for them to suffer the same loss that the gay citizens of this state suffered due to the passage of Prop 8. They believe they belong to a different class of people than gays, and simply can’t imagine how the tables would, or could ever be reversed on them.
Andrew Sullivan writes on his site today that Evangelical Conservative Tony Perkins over at the "Family Research Council", had indicated he would have "no problem" with Civil Unions in California that provided Gay and Lesbian couples with the same rights as marriage,but just a different name for it.
Interesting...
I will confess that for the longest time I held a very similar view. I would get frustrated with marriage equality activists who seemed to be so hung up on the terminology. If calling it "Marriage" is the problem why not call it Civil Unions or Domestic Partnership or call it "Fred" for that matter. As long as all rights are the same why did it matter it was called?
The counter argument has always been that this would be agreeing to something that was "separate but equal" and history has clearly shown that separate structures for civil rights are never equal, just separate. Racial segregation in the decades before the civil rights movement proved this. Whites and Blacks had separate things like drinking fountains, restrooms and schools that were anything but equal.
Yet the argument could be made that this was hardly the same thing. If both a gay and straight couple had the exact same hospital visitation rights, as long as both couples had access to the same hospital and quality of care, how is calling the basis for those visitation rights by different names unequal?
I found myself thinking that by insisting on the word marriage the LGBT community was just being stubborn and more interested in the symbolism of labels than actual equality.
I was thinking about while I was voting last Tuesday. I was reading in the newspaper and on the web of various spots around the country that were experiencing voting problems. Things like long lines at polling places, out of date registration lists, etc. The media was rightly focusing on these problems with the emphasis that the right to vote was such a fundamental part of our democracy that states owed citizens every form of assistance if they encountered difficulty in exercising their rights to vote.
It suddenly occured to me to wonder how Tony Perkins would feel if California passed a law saying that evangelical conservatives would longer have the right to "vote" but instead anyone who was of the same religion as Perkins would have the right of "electoral choice". They would go to the same polling place as everyone else, use the same ballots, and have the same choices. Their choices would count just as much as everyone else', but for them, and only them it just wouldn't be called "voting".
The right would be exactly the same but it just would be called something different. Since there would no difference in the actual ability to make their choice at the ballot box, the name shouldn't matter right? As long as an "electoral choice" counted the same as a "vote", why should the name make a difference?
Well you can bet Tony Perkins, James Dobson, Pat Roberson and every conservative from Sacramento to San Diego would be rioting in the streets claiming discrimination.
I can practically hear Newt Gingrich railing how "electoral choice" was NOT the same as voting. Because symbolism DID matter, calling voting by a different name is sending a message that Evangelicals were not as important as other Americans. The change in terminology would even result in evangelicals feeling like they shouldnt participate in our democratic process. The fact that rights were the same was irrelevant. To call voting by a different name for just one group of Americans was unacceptable.
So what is in a name? Isn't a civil right by another name just as equal? If you think so, ask yourself this question; If your family, and only your family's right to make your choice at the ballot box was called "electoral choice" and everybody else had the right to "vote", how would you feel?
Separate but equal suddenly doesn't feel so equal does it?
READY FOR THIS? REALLY, YOU ARE NOT VERY DIFFERENT THAN THE MORMONS. Lets postulate, in 10-20 years, assuming the term of marriage is changed legally to allow same-genders--then what is next? Surely this is not the end of the evolution? Do you TODAY support human/non-human marriage? Marriage of 40 year-old men to 4-year old girls? Legalization of bigamy? Or polygamy? Well—it appears that you draw a line too, just in a different place? Would such allowances cheapen the covenant of marriage in your mind? Oh, and if you thought--'THAT will never happen', your naivete is showing. That is exactly what your grandparents said, yet—here we are. How can this be JUST LIKE THE CIVIL RIGHTS, when you admit your own bigotry—just at a different place? Civil rights by definition have no boundaries. Should marriage be granted to ALL, not just hetero and homo-sexuals…no boundaries?
Sure. I have a brain and choose to use. I wish more would too. There must be a better argument than that weak-minded one. But I am starting to doubt so.
The fundamental right is to establish a legal relationship with another. We already have polygamy because heterosexuals use divorce lie a rotating fuck card. Theoretically, there is NO Christian divorce so that remarriage is just simply polygamy. And the legal relationship exists in another form as Ex's and for kids Steps. In a gay family, parents can have a relationship to their children, even cross parent but there is NO legal relationship between a gay couple. As for inter species relationships, MANY jurisdictions have TONS of regulations on the legal relationship between owner and pet, between owner and livestock. Animals have more legally defined rights than gays do. The age of consent laws are based on a citizen's ability to enter into a sexual relationship not based on sexual orientation. These laws are already in effect, except for some locations in Utah and Kentucky where heterosexuals already tread on common decency. In fact I would stress that we are fighting a battle over legal rights, just like slaves did to be recognized as fully human, rather than civil rights, like where blacks were given protections in employment. The right to marry is a legal right that comes with legal obligations. Obligations are what separate them.
And may I conclude by saying what an asshole you are again?
(rhet.)
Your rights end where another person's begin unless their breaking another law or infringing on another person's rights. Get it? Civil rights have no boundaries? Are you kidding me??? Can you please deport yourself somewhere where they have no civil rights or constitution then? Because it desn't seem like you have any respect for them anyway. So, I guess you wouldn't miss having rights, maybe you could move to Lebanon? I hear it's nice this time of year.
Also, this is one of the stupidest and most easily refuted arguments on this site.
The stupidest of the anti-same-sex marriage arguments. Marriage is a civil contract. Children and non-humans have no capacity to contract. No capacity, no consent, no marriage. Simply idiotic. You're not using your brain nearly as well as you claim.
As for the nearly-as-bogus polygamy argument, see my comment from a few hours ago. Same-sex marriage opponent azcavalier graciously acknowedged it as the first good counterargument he had come across to the polygamy analogy.
But it is part of our system that ensures that the disenfranchised minority group will get to take this to Supreme Court (again!) to see if it is ruled as unconstitutional which we hope that it will be because there are many legal benefits to being married which (in our system) should not be granted to one group of citizens and not others.
Please take a hard stance against Container Supply Co., Inc. & Robert Hurtt.
Together, they donated over 500K to pass Proposition 8.
They manufacture containers for BREMNER WAFERS, ALMOND ROCA, MOTHER'S CARNUBA WAX, BARDAHL OIL TREATMENT & MORE.
Check out the Container Supply Co., Inc. website: http://www.containersupplycompany.com/secondary...
It has been a week since the election & there is no boycott of these products. Americablog.com can send a significant message by calling for boycotts.
Additional info: http://onerealization.blogspot.com/