Tidal Wave Building Against Mormon Church After Prop 8 Passes

[jpeyton]

You reap what you sow. The Mormon church decided to preach hate, and pick a fight in a state where the deck is stacked against their divisive policies.

Prop 8, in all likelihood, will be overturned by any number of courts in CA. The simple fact is that a majority vote cannot take away constitutional rights from a minority through a ballot measure.

But they decided to make it a Mormon church initiative to get the measure passed (doesn't that violate their status as a non-profit?). Now Hollywood is going to hit them where it hurts; a protest of Sundance is one big step. I'd personally like to see Redford move the festival to another state in a symbolic move.

Text

Daniel Ginnes carried a banner declaring: "No More Mr Nice Gay." Brian Lindsey held up a sign billing Joseph Smith, founder of the Church of the Latter Day Saints, as a "prophet, polygamist, paedophile." Hundreds of others simply chanted: "Mormon scum."

More than 2,000 gay rights protesters marched on a Mormon temple in Los Angeles on Thursday, throwing the church and its followers on to the front line of the battle over California's decision to ban same-sex marriage.

Earlier this week, 52.5 per cent of voters in the supposedly liberal state decided to back Proposition 8, a ballot measure that adds 15 words to the constitution, saying that: "Only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognised in California."

The development marked a massive setback for gay rights and left 18,000 couples, who had married in the five months since California legalised same-sex weddings, in legal limbo.

In the large and traditionally laid-back gay community, it also left a sense of injustice. Proposition 8 passed with the assistance of a $70m (£44m) campaign largely funded by out-of-state donations from Mormons. "It's taken something like this to make us realise the need to be more aggressive and angry and active," said Mr Ginnes, a graphic designer from West Hollywood. "People didn't think they were going to lose the vote, so they didn't realise it was worth fighting for.

"Now we have lost a fundamental right. That's a shame, but it's certainly galvanised a community that was apathetic. What you are seeing today is the birth of a movement."

In the coming days, a string of protests are planned across California, as campaigners mount a robust PR war against the Utah-based church. Many will picket services tomorrow.

"We should have got nasty a long time ago," said Mr Lindsey, who is originally from a Mormon family. "I'm not going to be polite any more, I'm not going to step around my belief that this is a nasty church with disgusting views which managed to buy an election. I don't care if it's people's religion. I'm going to stand up and fight it."

Thursday's protest, which gridlocked traffic in Hollywood for the second consecutive day, was mostly disciplined, with police reporting two arrests. Seven people were detained at a demonstration on Wednesday.

For the Mormon Church, it threatens a PR nightmare. The gay rights lobby boasts scores of prominent celebrity supporters who have already pledged vociferous support to the campaign to overturn Proposition 8.

The country music singer Melissa Etheridge, a prominent lesbian, announced yesterday that she will refuse to pay income tax until she's "allowed the same rights" as other taxpayers. Instead, she pledged to donate money to legal challenges arguing that the way Proposition 8 was put to the voters was unconstitutional.

Behind the scenes, the mood is turning increasingly ugly. "If they're going to vote away my rights based on fear and ignorance and prejudice, I'm going to give them something to be fucking scared of," read a message posted on the online bulletin board Queerty.

The Mormon Church is in damage limitation mode. "No one on either side of the question should be vilified, harassed or subject to erroneous information," it said in a statement.

The Mormons A snapshot

*The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was founded by Joseph Smith Jr in New York state in 1830 and developed by Brigham Young who migrated with the new Mormons to Salt Lake Valley, Utah, in 1847.

*There are 12 million membersworldwide who believe their church is a restoration of the Church asconceived by Jesus and that other Christian churches have gone astray.

*It is said to be the fourth largest Christian denomination in the whole of the United States.

*Mormons oppose homosexuality, abortion, sex outside of marriage, alcohol, drugs, pornography, gambling, tobacco, tea and coffee.

*Mormons hold that we all have an eternal life stretching either side of our life on earth. They believe that humans can become like gods in the afterlife, although subordinate to God.

*The Church of the Latter Day Saints tolerated "plural marriage" before the American Civil War. The practice was discontinued more than a century ago, but several thousand renegade Mormons in the western states still practise polygamy and the issue is one of the main obstacles to the religion being accepted as a mainstream branch of Christianity.

Text

SALT LAKE CITY ? Utah's growing tourism industry and the star-studded Sundance Film Festival are being targeted for a boycott by bloggers, gay rights activists and others seeking to punish the Mormon church for its aggressive promotion of California's ban on gay marriage.

It could be a heavy price to pay. Tourism brings in $6 billion a year to Utah, with world-class skiing, the spectacular red rock country and the film festival founded by Robert Redford among the state's popular tourist draws.

"At a fundamental level, the Utah Mormons crossed the line on this one," said gay rights activist John Aravosis, an influential Washington, D.C-based blogger. "They just took marriage away from 20,000 couples and made their children bastards. You don't do that and get away with it."

Salt Lake City is the world headquarters for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which counts about 62 percent of Utah residents as members.

The church encouraged its members to work to pass California's Proposition 8 by volunteering their time and money for the campaign. Thousands of Mormons worked as grassroots volunteers and gave tens of millions of dollars to the campaign.

The ballot measure passed Tuesday. It amends the California Constitution to define marriage as a heterosexual act, overriding a state Supreme Court ruling that briefly gave same-sex couples the right to wed.

The backlash against the church ? and by
Advertisement
extension Utah ? has been immediate. Protests erupted outside Mormon temples, Facebook groups formed telling people to boycott Utah and Web sites such as mormonsstoleourrights.com began popping up, calling for an end to the church's tax-exempt status.

Aravosis is the editor of the popular political blog, americablog.com, which has about 900,000 unique monthly visitors.

He's calling for skiers to choose any state but Utah and for Hollywood actors and directors to pull out of the Sundance Film Festival. Other bloggers and readers have responded to his call.

"There's a movement afoot and large donors are involved who are very interested in organizing a campaign, because I do not believe in frivolous boycotts," said Aravosis, who has helped organize boycotts against Dr. Laura's television show, Microsoft and Ford over gay rights issues. "The main focus is going to be going after the Utah brand. At this point, honestly, we're going to destroy the Utah brand. It is a hate state."

Messages left with a Sundance spokeswoman Thursday and Friday were not immediately returned.

Leigh von der Esch, managing director of the Utah Office of Tourism, said she's aware that there's been discussion of a boycott, but her office hadn't received any calls about it Thursday. State offices are closed Friday.

"We're respectful of both sides of the equation and realize it's an emotional issue, but we are here promoting what we think is the best state in the country," she said.

The irony in the attack on Utah's tourism industry is that it would likely do the most harm in Salt Lake City and Park City ? two of the state's most liberal cities and those with some of the smallest percentages of Mormons in the state.

"Even though Salt Lake City is the location of the headquarters of the LDS church, there are really good people here ... in Utah that are sympathetic to our cause," said Scott McCoy, an openly gay state senator from Salt Lake City. "Rather than a boycott, I would rather have every gay person in the country come to Utah and show the people of Utah what genuine wonderful people and families we have, and to help educate them that we deserve the exact same legal rights and protections they and their families are afforded under the law."

What kind of economic, religious or political impact, if any, a boycott might have is unclear. The Mormon church has members all over the world and no plans to change its stance on gay marriage. A message left with a church spokeswoman Friday was not immediately returned. It issued a statement following Tuesday's vote calling for civility in the wake of the results.

"Such an emotionally charged issue concerning the most personal and cherished aspects of life ? family, identity, intimacy and equality ? stirs fervent and deep feelings," the statement says in part.

"No one on any side of the question should be vilified, intimidated, harassed or subject to erroneous information."

Bob Malone, CEO and president of the Park City Chamber of Commerce and Visitors Bureau, said he worked in Colorado in the early 1990s when it was targeted for a boycott following a law that prohibited cities from enacting protective legislation for gays and lesbians.

"You know, it had some legs at the very beginning. But it's one of those things when you don't know when it starts and when it ends because you really can't measure it," he said.

Malone, who serves on the state tourism board, said it is unfair to try to punish certain industries or parts of the state over an issue it had nothing to do with.

"It's really not a Park City thing, and I don't see it as a state thing. That was more of a religious issue," he said. "To sweep people in who really have nothing to do with that issue and have no influence over religious issues ? it's sad that people kind of think that and say, 'We're going to bury you.' It's sad to hear people talk like that."

 

[ProfJohn]

Why don't they move Hollywood to another state?? That would really show those bigots in California...

 

[engineereeyore]

I will say this and only this.

1) Proposition 8 is hate and those who approve it are bigots!

This is actually two things, so I?ll tackle the first then the second. As far as proposition 8 being about hate, I think it?s important to note one major issue: love does not necessitate approval. My children do many things I don?t approve of, such as climbing on my head at pre-7am times. I still love them. They will continue on in life making choice after choice, many of which I?m sure I won?t approve of. Heaven knows I made plenty decisions that didn?t have my mother or father's approval. This being the case, the fact that I don?t approve of marriage between two men or two women has no bearing on my emotional feelings towards them. So please stop associating anti-gay marriage with hate. I don?t approve of beastiality either, but that doesn?t mean I hate the beast!

As for the bigotry bit, we that?s just asinine. Unless I am doing something hateful against them, there?s no foundation behind that claim, and we?ve already covered the hate part. It?s nothing against them as a person, I simply don?t approve of the homosexuality. Besides, I?ve listened to homosexual people speak out against the people who voted in favor of proposition 8. If you want to know what bigotry is, you should listen to that.

2) Denying gay people the right to marriage is a violation of their rights

Well that?s just flat out wrong, for two reasons: 1) Marriage is not a right and 2) Proposition 8 doesn?t not prevent you from having any of the same rights are married people. I?ll explain this. The first is self evident, though here is a good bit of information on it. The problem is not the constitutionality of marriage, but the fact that so many social benefits are ingrained into marriage. So while I will never agree with gay marriage, I do believe gay people deserve the same access to these rights. However, redefining marriage is only one of several methods that could be used to obtain these rights. The plain and simple fact that people are not willing to sacrifice their beliefs does not make them discriminant.

For example, consider a child who it trying to get through a door by banging his head against it, then get?s mad at the person on the other side every time he hurts his head. Is it really the fault of the person on the other side that he?s failing? Or that he?s banging his head? All the child has to do is reach up and turn the doorknob (consider the child to be big enough to do this). Would you honestly blame the parent for the injury the child is receiving? Sure, the parent could get up and open the door for the child, OR, the parent could re-instruct the child who already knows how to open the door on how to open it. Either way, the parent is not responsible for the child?s pain simply because they closed the door.

If gay people want the same benefits of hospital visitation, tax benefits, insurance, etc., they can either continue to bang their head on the door screaming at the parent to open the door, OR they could try turning the doorknob. In other words, start fighting for the rights, not marriage. You?d have a lot more success and spend much less time slinging around senseless accusations of hatred.

3) Mormons, of all people, should be ashamed of themselves for supporting this stance given their history with polygomy and desire to be accepted.

Well, there?s something to consider there. The ?Mormons? did have a rough go with it, but there?s a major difference there. Primarily they were not attempting to redefine marriage. Marriage was still the union of a man and a woman. Besides, almost all Christians believe that they?ll be together with their spouse in the hereafter. What about those who remarry? The Mormon stance on this is well known. What do other Christians really believe there? Don?t their beliefs in fact support the issue of polygamy as well, even if they individually don?t? And again, polygamy is not a redefinition of the fundamental definition of marriage, regardless of how you twist it.

A second thing to consider is that fact that when the Mormon church was defeated in it?s attempt to obtain ratification of polygamy, it followed the laws of the land and stopped. They accepted the majority rule, regardless of the person pain incurred, and honored the law of the land. I can guarantee you that the actions taken by gay people in California is nothing close to this. While I admire your desire to fight for your beliefs, don?t even try to compare yourselves to a group you are nothing like. It?s not a matter of arrogance or anything else. You are plain and simply not the same.

Anyway, thus ends my rant. To all the homosexual people out there, I truly wish you luck in your attempt to gain access to the ?rights? that are truly yours, and am happy to aid in any way. However, my feelings and opinions on marriage are as sacred to me as yours are to you. If my opposing gay-marriage is so cruel to your feelings, why would you throw out such hateful comments about me and my beliefs? Or let me guess, your feelings are the only ones that actually matter? I know that?s not true, but dang it, it sure feels like that quite often.

One last question though. If you scream and yell at us and call us bigots, why did you cheer so loud when Obama was named the next president? In case this is news to you, he feels exactly the same way we do!

 

[techs]

But they decided to make it a Mormon church initiative to get the measure passed (doesn't that violate their status as a non-profit?)

VERY good point.

 

[ICRS]

There is ONLY 4 ways to modify the constitution of California.

Neither way requires more than a 50% vote by the people. Even a convention only requires a 50% vote.

This is how they are saying it should have been done.

1st: Legislation by a 2/2 vote calls for a Convention.
or
1st: By gathering 8% of the signatures you can all for a vote on a Convention.

2nd: The people hold an election to approve a Convention by 50% vote.
3rd: The people hold an election to elect delegates to a Convention
4th: The delegates rewrite a new a Constitution (in this case include a ban on gay marriage). The new Constitution must be signed by at least 50% of the delegates
5th: The people must then vote and ratify the new Constitution of California by 50% vote.


In fact the way some say it should have been done would require 3 elections by the general public.

The constituion only allows amendments to make small changes. Changes which are broad in scope require a rewritting of the constitution it self. That is the argument they are making.

 

[Moonbeam]

As Ye Sow, So Shall Ye Reap.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
You reap what you sow.

The Mormon church decided to preach hate, and pick a fight in a state where the deck is stacked against their divisive policies.

This is the time to attacke all of these anti-American organiztions and corporations disguised as religous organizations.

Real Americans attack

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

*cut*

There are so many problems with your post I don't know where to start. I'll give you the greatest hits:

1.) It doesn't matter if you approve of it or not. They don't hurt you, or anyone else by being happily married to one another. Working to stop someone from doing something that will make them happy, that does not hurt them, you, or anyone else is either bigotry on your part, or a pathological desire to control your fellow man. Either way, stop it.

2.) This is a frequently used argument and it is a straw man. The crux of the gay marriage argument is not that marriage is a right for all people, it is that equal protection under the law is a right for all people. That is what was argued for before the courts, and that is what the courts determined.

Also, your proposition that gays should just accept 'separate but equal' because it's easier than fighting for true equality is a particularly despicable idea. I guess black people should have been okay with the separate water fountain, because hell... they had a water fountain, right?

3.) I can't believe you are complaining that because people are yelling at you for your bigotry, that they should stop because to hurt your feelings too would be hypocritical. Your beliefs are placing an entire group of people as second class citizens. They are 100% right to shit all over you for it.

 

[ProfJohn]

Someone remind these people that it was voted down by people who live in California and not Utah.

I wonder if these gay protesters will march through parts of LA that voted against the bill? I guess it is much easier to target this church than go after the blacks who voted for the ban in huge numbers.

LA county voted for Obama 70-30 but the vote on Prop 8 was nearly 50-50.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
I will say this and only this.

1) Proposition 8 is hate and those who approve it are bigots!

This is actually two things, so I?ll tackle the first then the second. As far as proposition 8 being about hate, I think it?s important to note one major issue: love does not necessitate approval. My children do many things I don?t approve of, such as climbing on my head at pre-7am times. I still love them. They will continue on in life making choice after choice, many of which I?m sure I won?t approve of. Heaven knows I made plenty decisions that didn?t have my mother or father's approval. This being the case, the fact that I don?t approve of marriage between two men or two women has no bearing on my emotional feelings towards them. So please stop associating anti-gay marriage with hate. I don?t approve of beastiality either, but that doesn?t mean I hate the beast!

As for the bigotry bit, we that?s just asinine. Unless I am doing something hateful against them, there?s no foundation behind that claim, and we?ve already covered the hate part. It?s nothing against them as a person, I simply don?t approve of the homosexuality. Besides, I?ve listened to homosexual people speak out against the people who voted in favor of proposition 8. If you want to know what bigotry is, you should listen to that.

2) Denying gay people the right to marriage is a violation of their rights

Well that?s just flat out wrong, for two reasons: 1) Marriage is not a right and 2) Proposition 8 doesn?t not prevent you from having any of the same rights are married people. I?ll explain this. The first is self evident, though here is a good bit of information on it. The problem is not the constitutionality of marriage, but the fact that so many social benefits are ingrained into marriage. So while I will never agree with gay marriage, I do believe gay people deserve the same access to these rights. However, redefining marriage is only one of several methods that could be used to obtain these rights. The plain and simple fact that people are not willing to sacrifice their beliefs does not make them discriminant.

For example, consider a child who it trying to get through a door by banging his head against it, then get?s mad at the person on the other side every time he hurts his head. Is it really the fault of the person on the other side that he?s failing? Or that he?s banging his head? All the child has to do is reach up and turn the doorknob (consider the child to be big enough to do this). Would you honestly blame the parent for the injury the child is receiving? Sure, the parent could get up and open the door for the child, OR, the parent could re-instruct the child who already knows how to open the door on how to open it. Either way, the parent is not responsible for the child?s pain simply because they closed the door.

If gay people want the same benefits of hospital visitation, tax benefits, insurance, etc., they can either continue to bang their head on the door screaming at the parent to open the door, OR they could try turning the doorknob. In other words, start fighting for the rights, not marriage. You?d have a lot more success and spend much less time slinging around senseless accusations of hatred.

3) Mormons, of all people, should be ashamed of themselves for supporting this stance given their history with polygomy and desire to be accepted.

Well, there?s something to consider there. The ?Mormons? did have a rough go with it, but there?s a major difference there. Primarily they were not attempting to redefine marriage. Marriage was still the union of a man and a woman. Besides, almost all Christians believe that they?ll be together with their spouse in the hereafter. What about those who remarry? The Mormon stance on this is well known. What do other Christians really believe there? Don?t their beliefs in fact support the issue of polygamy as well, even if they individually don?t? And again, polygamy is not a redefinition of the fundamental definition of marriage, regardless of how you twist it.

A second thing to consider is that fact that when the Mormon church was defeated in it?s attempt to obtain ratification of polygamy, it followed the laws of the land and stopped. They accepted the majority rule, regardless of the person pain incurred, and honored the law of the land. I can guarantee you that the actions taken by gay people in California is nothing close to this. While I admire your desire to fight for your beliefs, don?t even try to compare yourselves to a group you are nothing like. It?s not a matter of arrogance or anything else. You are plain and simply not the same.

Anyway, thus ends my rant. To all the homosexual people out there, I truly wish you luck in your attempt to gain access to the ?rights? that are truly yours, and am happy to aid in any way. However, my feelings and opinions on marriage are as sacred to me as yours are to you. If my opposing gay-marriage is so cruel to your feelings, why would you throw out such hateful comments about me and my beliefs? Or let me guess, your feelings are the only ones that actually matter? I know that?s not true, but dang it, it sure feels like that quite often.

One last question though. If you scream and yell at us and call us bigots, why did you cheer so loud when Obama was named the next president? In case this is news to you, he feels exactly the same way we do!

You didn't address the right of why you feel the need to enforce your views on people you have no problem with? You got to be jury on peoples happiness, so tell us why you decided the way you did.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Someone remind these people that it was voted down by people who live in California and not Utah.

I wonder if these gay protesters will march through parts of LA that voted against the bill? I guess it is much easier to target this church than go after the blacks who voted for the ban in huge numbers.

LA county voted for Obama 70-30 but the vote on Prop 8 was nearly 50-50.

Right, we shouldn't go after Hitler, we should go after the German people.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: techs
But they decided to make it a Mormon church initiative to get the measure passed (doesn't that violate their status as a non-profit?)

VERY good point.

Not really. Churches can support and be against issues, they can't support/endorse a party or canidate.

 

[TallBill]

"It's taken something like this to make us realise the need to be more aggressive and angry and active," said Mr Ginnes, a graphic designer from West Hollywood. "People didn't think they were going to lose the vote, so they didn't realise it was worth fighting for.

I don't get why they are freaking out after the fact. I don't see how you can blame the mormon church on this one, they didn't do anything legally wrong. That all being said, I hate the Mormon church, heteros or homos can both be married, and I don't think that marriage is a right. But hell, you should have put up more of a fight. They're just going to have to wait for the next state election to re-amend the constitution. Those are horrible standards by the way, 50% is a joke.

 

[shrumpage]

Ironically the Mormon church was the most affected by our last major change in marriage law: polygamy.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
love does not necessitate approval. My children do many things I don?t approve of, such as climbing on my head at pre-7am times. I still love them... I don?t approve of beastiality either, but that doesn?t mean I hate the beast!

Yes, you can love black people, but not approve of their being black.

Your hate for gay people - despite your constructed view that you don't - is reflected in how you compare them to misbehaving children, and their love lives to bestiality.

You don't say they're the same, but the choice of analogies shows your colors.

Imagine attacking the black right to marry by saying how they should 'accept the majority wishes' and making analogies to bestiality.

As for the bigotry bit, we that?s just asinine. Unless I am doing something hateful against them, there?s no foundation behind that claim, and we?ve already covered the hate part. It?s nothing against them as a person, I simply don?t approve of the homosexuality. Besides, I?ve listened to homosexual people speak out against the people who voted in favor of proposition 8. If you want to know what bigotry is, you should listen to that.

You favor discriminating against equal rights for gays for no reason but bigotry. In your own words, you "don't approve". That's not a justification for denying people equal rights, and it simply illustrates your ignorance about homosexuality, causing you to have prejudice and bigotry. You attack gays for criticizing the bigots who deny them equal rights? That's rich.

Denying gay people the right to marriage is a violation of their rights

Well that?s just flat out wrong, for two reasons: 1) Marriage is not a right

Try this on for size, spanky: let's ban blacks from the right to marry - and explain that it's not violating their rights, because marriage is a privilege. You defend that, I'll wait.

Proposition 8 doesn?t not prevent you from having any of the same rights are married people...The plain and simple fact that people are not willing to sacrifice their beliefs does not make them discriminant.

Equal access to the word "marriage" is the right they're being denied even if all the other rights were granted, which they're not.

Again, try this on for size: from now on blacks people are not allowed to use the word "marriage" for their unions. They will need to use another phrase.

But hey, it's not violating their rights!

And again, polygamy is not a redefinition of the fundamental definition of marriage, regardless of how you twist it.

You need to stop burying your head in the sand to pretend that homosexuality is like some weird haircut people are wearing that you find in bad taste.

Homosexuality is a natural condition that is a 'fundamental redefinition' of the homosexual's sexuality, and marriage needs not to discrimnate against those people.

Marriage is about the partnership of two people in a relationship, where it is not restricted to those who can have children, or even to those who get along. According to the Christian teaching you repeatedly cite, even if the couple comes to hate each other and literally beat one another violently, they have no recourse but to remain married forever. And yet you say that two gay people who love each other and are in a relationship are somehow inconsistent with marriage? How, other than your bigotry to say you "don't approve"?

Again, replace gay with black, and you could make the same asinine argument - just as many did a century ago when there was a movement not to let blacks "marry".

However, my feelings and opinions on marriage are as sacred to me as yours are to you. If my opposing gay-marriage is so cruel to your feelings, why would you throw out such hateful comments about me and my beliefs? Or let me guess, your feelings are the only ones that actually matter? I know that?s not true, but dang it, it sure feels like that quite often.

You know, no matter how much you try to talk like Mr. Rogers in sweet tones to the people you are discrimnating against, the bottom line is you are denying others equal rights.

The issue isn't how sincerely and passionately you hold those views, it's how unjust your views are to them. If you had those same levels of sincerity and passion against inter-racial marriage, would that be any better as you tried oh so friendly explain to the mixed race couples how much you care about them as people but golly gee whiz couldn't they just not say mean things to you?

You have the gall to imply that if they want you to change your views, they have to kiss your ass and not say anything negative about your views that deny their rights.

If there's ever been a clear expression of the arrogance and evil that 'power tends to corrupt' and the 'tyranny of the majority', this is right up there as a great exhibit of that.

One last question though. If you scream and yell at us and call us bigots, why did you cheer so loud when Obama was named the next president? In case this is news to you, he feels exactly the same way we do!

Obama opposed prop 8, unlike you. For what it's worth, I and many others condemn Obama's position on gay marriage, but the advocates for equal rights understand that he's still far better than the alternative, and many harbor a suspicion that his position is based in no small part on political expediency. JFK privately approved of legal abortion, but could not say so publically for political reasons, for a similar situation.

 

[Lemon law]

I hope this anti gay bullshit will someday end with the Supreme Court coming up with a Roe v Wade type decision that validates same sex marriages.

As a biological male married to a biological female, it may be pleasant to be in a powerful majority, but there is much to be said about the powerful legal rights bestowed by marriage, there is much to be said about the social stability marriage promotes, so bottom line, marriage is to be advocated for all willing to make the commitment.

Quite frankly I am baffled by anyone saying gay marriage would threaten my marriage in any way, and can only conclude those who oppose gay marriage are creepy puritans going way out of their way to make other people's lives as miserable as possible. I have no use for such misguided sadists, I do not believe they fit any religion I would want to believe in, and if they cannot represent any religious ideals, they can go to the devil as far as I am concerned.

My right are never advanced by denying others the same rights I have.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: shrumpage
Ironically the Mormon church was the most affected by our last major change in marriage law: polygamy.

I guess they're still pissed we took away their right to diddle little girls.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Someone remind these people that it was voted down by people who live in California and not Utah.

I wonder if these gay protesters will march through parts of LA that voted against the bill? I guess it is much easier to target this church than go after the blacks who voted for the ban in huge numbers.

LA county voted for Obama 70-30 but the vote on Prop 8 was nearly 50-50.

Are you really asking why gay rights protesters don't go to downtown LA to protest against a nebulous group of people that they cannot identify, as opposed to a large organization with a clearly defined headquarters who publicly contributed millions and millions of dollars towards discrimination against them?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Someone remind these people that it was voted down by people who live in California and not Utah.

I wonder if these gay protesters will march through parts of LA that voted against the bill? I guess it is much easier to target this church than go after the blacks who voted for the ban in huge numbers.

LA county voted for Obama 70-30 but the vote on Prop 8 was nearly 50-50.

Are you really asking why gay rights protesters don't go to downtown LA to protest against a nebulous group of people that they cannot identify, as opposed to a large organization with a clearly defined headquarters who publicly contributed millions and millions of dollars towards discrimination against them?

I don't think so. I think he was telling us something of what he thinks about Blacks.

 

[OCGuy]

It still would have passed.

Being gay is a big taboo in the miniority communities around here. Throw in your religious whites, and there you go.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: shrumpage
Ironically the Mormon church was the most affected by our last major change in marriage law: polygamy.

I guess they're still pissed we took away their right to diddle little girls.

just like CA removed the right to bang little boys?

 

[ICRS]

Let us not forget how the City of Gay Rights, decided it was to lazy to vote. San Francisco had one of its lowest voter turnouts in a presidental election.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
It still would have passed.

Being gay is a big taboo in the miniority communities around here. Throw in your religious whites, and there you go.

The point, My Dear Sir, is that without the Mormon asshole sponsor and Mormon money, it would not have been a ballot measure. Now it's time for revenge.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
It still would have passed.

Being gay is a big taboo in the miniority communities around here. Throw in your religious whites, and there you go.

The point, My Dear Sir, is that without the Mormon asshole sponsor and Mormon money, it would not have been a ballot measure. Now it's time for revenge.

Yes but it should have automatically gone on the ballot once a judge overturned the first one we passed.

If you have any knowledge of the CA court system, it is just going to get overturned anyway by a lefty judge.

This issue I happen to agree with the lefty judge. But normally, I am not for a judge striking down a vote of the people.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
It still would have passed.

Being gay is a big taboo in the miniority communities around here. Throw in your religious whites, and there you go.

The point, My Dear Sir, is that without the Mormon asshole sponsor and Mormon money, it would not have been a ballot measure.

Now it's time for revenge.

BINGO

Suck it up Utah, you will have a country against you now.