Boo-Hoo: Gays’ Lachrymose Last Resort in the War Against Mormons
by Charles WinecoffThere are more histrionics on display in the two-minute trailer (see below)for the pro-gay-marriage ”documentary,” 8: The Mormon Proposition, than in all the episodes of Oprah I can remember seeing.
A blonde woman, tears running down her face, looks into the camera and pleads, “Why did the Mormons do this to us?”
In a crowd of what I presume are gay activists (and not film goers), a young man sobs so hard that he has to be comforted by a female friend.
–
A bulldyke (I’m guessing) stares out at the viewer, her despondent face sopping wet.
And one of the stars of the film, a pretty gay boy (and ex-Mormon) named Tyler Barrick – who seems have been inspired by Barbra Streisand in A Star Is Born – clings to his husband and bawls, “I can’t believe that people could hate us this much!” Really? I can.
Judging from these nuggets, 8MP signals a new tactic (and new low) in the gay crusade to redefine the traditional meaning of the word “marriage”: frantic blubbering. The filmmakers, all of whom are gay and most of whom boast street creds from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, seem to think they’ll win hearts and minds with a showy flood of tears. They won’t. The LGBT M.O .may have switched from rage to rue, but it’s still missing the mark.
Also irksome about this two-minute pity party are the vexing, tiresome questions it raises for independent gay people who don’t go in for Fire Island, Atlantis Cruises, zero-percent body fat, or mass approval: What’s wrong with this picture – and Why don’t I buy it?
The vast majority of Americans – many of them minorities, and many of them gay - simply believe a child’s best shot at a good life starts with a mother and a father, two consenting people of opposite sexes who can actually reproduce in the first place. This belief has nothing to do with denying same-sex love, or equality, or rights. It simply has to do with the basic, biological reality of conceiving and raising children.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m continually thrilled and inspired by my fellow gays’ ability to build amazing lives, communities, and families for themselves, especially in the face of monumental adversities like AIDS. And there is something truly heartwarming about the sight of two committed men (or women) reaching beyond themselves to care for a child (or two, or three). Many gay people make exemplary parents. We are, after all, human too (for those of you who think otherwise).
But the traditional definition of family remains sacrosanct to most Americans, and has since long before the Stonewall Riots brought gay rights out of the closet. There’s nothing wrong with trusting in the conventional notion of the nuclear family, just as there is nothing wrong with being openly gay. These two belief systems need to learn to COEXIST, as the bumper stickers say. And that requires a two-way street.
“But Spain allows gay marriage – and that’s a Catholic country!” So what. Spain doesn’t have three hundred million people living in it.
8MP promises to reveal details of a secret, “orchestrated campaign” by the Mormon Church to nefariously ban same-sex marriage across the entire USA. Okay. So remind me again what isn’t an orchestrated campaign? When I see a montage of young, good looking, able-bodied homosexuals wracked with sobs because a church doesn’t approve of their lifestyle – Duh! - that strikes me as a campaign of emotional blackmail on a pretty grand scale.
To lend their conspiracy theory a malevolence it otherwise wouldn’t have, the filmmakers flash images of: George W. Bush (a.k.a. Evil Incarnate) shaking hands with a Mormon honcho; a young gay man bloodied in a riot (”I’m surprised I’m not dead!”), and a lesbian (I think) being led off in handcuffs (just in case you forgot you’re living in a police state). And no piece of regressive – excuse me, progressive - propaganda would be complete without opportunistic prophecies of “the demise of our democracy!”
It’s true that Mormons, who comprise a measly two per cent of California’s population, managed to raise nearly half of the $22.8 million collected in support of Proposition 8 without drawing a lot of attention to themselves. That’s modesty for you. But contrary to popular mythology (and wishful thinking), that doesn’t mean the Church of LDS is the new Nazi Party. As with the gay community, there is more diversity (of thought) among the pasty-faced followers of John Joseph Smith than meets the eye.
Just as all Muslims are not terrorists, all Mormons are not homophobes. At the height of Prop 8 hysteria back in October 2008, The New Statesman reported that thousands of LDS believers demanded that their names be removed from Church records so they would not be associated with an organization perceived as being anti-gay.
“It’s been a very divisive issue,” said LA-based Mormon bishop Robert Bennion, who has an openly gay brother (with whom he is very close). “It raises a lot of questions to which there aren’t a lot of crystal clear answers, and almost everybody feels like you have to be on one side or the other…. In my mind, it’s possible to be in favor of Proposition 8 without being anti-homosexual.” Again, this is a war over a word.
For contrast, note the choice of words in this thoughtful comment left on an anti-Prop 8 website by a pro-gay marriage activist: “I was going through the list of [Mormon] contributors and… I noticed that two people have died since making their donations, so I suppose that puts us up by two. Every little bit helps!” How many hearts and minds do you suppose he won that day?
8MP appears to be more of an anti-Valentine to Mormonism than a rational case for gay marriage (i.e. payback time for the filmmakers, including Oscar-winning Milk scribe Dustin Lance Black, who narrates). After all, Mormons are, like the stereotype of Christians, devout white devils, the scapegoats of the age, the new boogeyman of post-9/11 America.
But as Jonah Goldberg posed to his fire-and-brimstone liberal readers:
“If opposition to gay marriage is morally indistinguishable from Jim Crow racism, anti-Semitism and the like (as so many of you say), why on earth aren’t you screaming bloody murder at Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid and the other Democratic politicians who run the US government? Surely, they matter more than a few Mormon donors. Why aren’t they bigots even though they hold the same fundamental position as Mormons?”
Thank you.
Meanwhile, where is the liberal rage at the world’s most extreme cadre of homophobes, the Islamic supremacists, whose “orchestrated campaign” against LGBT people goes far beyond preventing them from exchanging vows? In 8MP, gay protesters display signs decrying “Christo-Fascists” - their oh-so-narrow comfort zone. Mohammed-Fascists? Off-limits. Why? Well, for one thing, those totalitarian bigots might actually respond. And we wouldn’t want anyone to lose his or her head – literally – would we?
Unable to imagine a world in which Sarah Jessica Parker might not receive any more GLAAD awards, these short-sighted American whiners suffer glamorously for the camera, tears running carefully down their clean shaven (mostly Caucasian) cheeks. Because in the Oprah-cized USA, victim-hood is power, and feelings are weapons.
The LGBT community will never be satisfied with civil unions now that the “marriage” seed has been planted – which is too bad since a recent Pew Research Center poll showed that a huge majority of Americans approve of allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into legal agreements that would bestow many of the same rights as married couples. As a matter of fact, in the past year alone, support for civil unions has grown significantly among folks who oppose same-sex marriage. Right here in the knuckle-dragging USA.
That sounds like progress to me. But true to form, gays aren’t likely to give up the drama.
Should lesbians and gays who want to make a home and raise kids be discriminated against from the federal level down? Of course not. Should committed gay partners enjoy the same benefits as married heterosexual couples? Absolutely – and as far as I can tell, in a growing number of states, they do (and if they don’t, trust me, they will).
So why am I defending the Mormons? To crib from Flip Wilson, the 8MP trailer made me do it (which may indicate how effective the movie will be when it finally opens). In the meantime, this is America, not Iran – create your own rules, and move on. And if you really want to get married, nobody’s stopping you from going to Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, or Vermont – or to Colorado, Hawaii, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, or Wisconsin for the same thing minus the “m” word.
When the day comes that Barack Obama puts down his golf clubs to repeal DOMA – and gay marriage passes by vote in all 57 states - great! Until then, can’t we all just get along?
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
160 Comments
I suspect that admitting that you are gay gave you pause at first, but it must have taken exceptional courage to admit you watch Oprah.
"As with the gay community, there is more diversity (of thought) among the pasty-faced followers of John Smith than meets the eye. "
Joseph Smith founder the LDS church, not John Smith. But you are right about the diversity of thought within the Church. Glenn Beck and Mitt Romney are Mormons, but so is Harry Reid. (P.S. I am not a Mormon, but a defender of religious freedom. You can believe in anything you want as long as you don't hurt anybody, i.e. radical Islam.)
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Big Hollywood, Fernando Colon. Fernando Colon said: Boo-Hoo: Gays’ Lachrymose Last Resort in the War Against Mormons http://bit.ly/2WoNfx [...]
I have to thank the gay rights movement for at least one thing, and it is that it got me pondering the question of why government is involved in marriage in the first place. Since marriage is a religious sacrament, it would seem like something leftists would object to as, "a government endorsement of religion" were they philosophically consistent (Which they're obviously not).
If we got government out of the marriage business entirely and left it to Churches, Synagogues, and Mosques, with the government only offering legally recognized civil unions to those who are not believers – and simply logging the marriages for legal recognition purposes – the problem would be solved. There will always be enough liberal religious establishments for gays to go to for that service.
The entire idea that gays would actually want traditional marriages endorsed by the state seems slightly schizophrenic to me.
If gays don't want Federal involvement in marriages, they why do the campaign?
The gays are not acting like a political action commitee, but a church. Nobody is keeping gays from being together, there are sect churches who will marry them. Oh my god it would not be legal, if you love sombody why is that an issue? With medicaid a person's mate can recieve care, even for a pre-existing condition. All this hysteria and nastiness has me saying , marriage is defigned between one man and one woman.
The silliest thing about it all is that the self-proclaimed gay leaders decided to create all of this mess over a word. Civil Unions are acceptable to most Americans and just as good, if not better than the "M" word…but no, a few silly queens want marriage and only marriage. Consenting adults should be able to enter into any arrangement they want, and if they want to draw up some legal papers to support it, win/win for everybody, no loose ends to tie up if someone dies. Turning gay rights into this one trick pony of marriage is insulting, especially to middle-aged gays like myself, who remember when it was difficult, very, very difficult to live openly. It's also insulting to homosexuals in Iran and all over the (mostly) Muslim world who exist every day knowing that day could be their last on Earth. Why, instead of spending our money and time on this silly marriage idea (face it half of us would be divorced by now anyway), aren't we helping other gay people? I bet gays in Iran would love to know there's some support for them and that there is a better world in America, okay maybe not 100% equal, but 1000% better. Some gay agenda. We've become the new "n" word complete with our self-appointed gurus (more dramatic versions of Jackson and Sharpton).
Homosexuals are very, very fortunate to live in the USA. No it's not the equality of some European countries, but it's pretty damn good considering the diversity this country must maintain.
I'm not crazy about Mormons either, but that's another rant.
Thank you for a great article this morning.
The day gay marriage becomes reality in all states is the day that marriage becomes meaningless.
I eagerly await the sequels: 8: The Black Churches Proposition, 8: The Islamic Proposition, and 8: The Latino Roman Catholic Proposition.
I'm also eagerly awaiting a million dollars and a unicorn.
Well gays want gay marriage. Since the churches won't give them what they want, their only avenue is petiotining the government to ORDER the church or courts to give them what they want.
(not all but many) gays couldn't care less about culture. They want what they want when they want it.
I delight when people find love however I draw the line when I am forced to accept an irrational premise; 'same-sex union between opposite sex' is irrational.
In addition, it is a fallacy to say homosexual is banned from marriage; see Gov McGreevy who married twice then ran off with his homosexual lover.
'Marriage' existed long before any Church became involved-Pagan's married long before Jesus was born.
Further; imagine I demanded the government redefine the meaning of 'homosexual' to be 'sex between people'. If I were to do so then homosexual would be meaningless.
Religion aside; words must have meaning otherwise everything is meaningless.
To force me to accept meaningless nonsense is tyrannical by every meaning of the word.
I will not be emotionally blackmailed into supporting the Tyrants.
Are the gays going to boycott black owned business. Most Blacks voted for Obama. Most blacks voted against gaY Marriage. Actually waving the banner of civil rights done by gays offends the blacks.
Why don't the gays go after Obama's church 3 gay members were killed in a months time in 2007
The Maine vote will show that the "enlightenment's" assault on normalcy has passed the peak and lost the moment and has entered in a, hopefully, final implosion phase. This video, like so many other mushy visual presentations of gays' lives impresses no one – the lasting impressions of the gay liberation movement are not gays crying, or caressing children, or tending sensitive flowers, but of fascistic crowds storming Saint Patrick's, yelling and rocking cars on Santa Monica or Sunset, besieging the Mormon Cathedral, or causing people to be fired by coward institutions.
But, considering the history of the radical left, the gay movement is slowly drifting to self-destruction. Yankees are not known for talking much – yet the vote in Maine will show where the moral compass of this nation points to.
clings to his husband and bawls,
I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (Mormon) My views on gays have changed somewhat over the years. I used to be against same sex civil unions, now I accept them. I have gay f friends. I like them. I don't tell them why they're "wrong" and they don't tell me why I'm "tyrannical and homophobic." I don't understand the drive to get married. If civil unions give you all the legal benefits as a marriage, why do you want it? Why not invent another word for a male/male or female female union and create your own traditions?
Oh, (and like I have written repeatedly) the LDS Church did NOT donate any money; LDS members did. And there was no extortion. My good friend (and "Sister" in the gospel) wrote an anti prop 8 letter to the editor that was printed here in my area. She DID not lose her Church membership. She was not censured. She was not even "talked to by the Bishop." She kept her Church calling (she is a counselor in the children's area–"Primary.")
No action was taken against her at all. It was her RIGHT to choose whether or not she wanted to donate, walk precincts, ignore, or even campaign against prop 8.
Another Oprah watcher comes out of the closet.
Once again awesome Charles. America is better when we cut throught the BS, and Charles certainly gets it done.
A marriage is only meaningless when those involved make it so.
Here are some perpetrators of trivializing the covenant for you:
The producers and participants of shows like: "The Bachelor"
"The Bachelorette"
"Who Wants to Marry A Millionaire?"
Anyone guilty of "serial marriage" or repeated infidelity (think Hollywoord types, and lots of other regular people)
Any couple who hits rough patches and bails, rather than works through them or gets help.
Silly freddie, don't you know that only WHITE Christians are the boogeyman?
[...] the original post here: Boo-Hoo: Gays’ Lachrymose Last Resort in the War Against Mormons This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
I say let the government make a separate institution called a civil union, and any couple who wants that status needs to apply for it. Let religious institutions keep marriage and those who seek it need to apply to them. Yes, that means most traditional couples will need both a marriage and a civil union, but it lets the non-religious (or non-traditional) have the legal bennies without violating anyone's freedom of religion by redefining a word that stands for something sacred to many, self included.
You can be GAY and be a member of the Church in good standing…..
You must be celibate though !
The lessons I have learned over the years is that, although personally reprehensible, the GAY lifestyle is a choice that a person makes and frankly none of my business.
I judge each person based on their personal interaction with myself and have found that frankly, sexual orientation really never comes into the equation. Earlier in my life I might have had a few prejudices but over time I have learned that it does not matter.
Jesus Christ always taught to "Hate the Sin" not the Sinner !!!!
Persecution against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is nothing new.
It will continue and most likely get worse as we continue to stand for, speak for, live for, and believe what we think is right. It seems to me that there is way too much contention around this subject.
Sexual activity between same sex partners is wrong. (Inside or out of marriage) That is what I believe. Now having said that will you also hear me when I say that sexual activity with opposite sex partners outside of Marriage is wrong as well with the same emphasis.
I didn't make the rules ….I just follow them…. and last I heard they have not been repealed.
I just wish there was not so much anger and finger pointing and contention about 2 very personal matters, Sexual Activity and Religious beliefs.
We all need to be more like the Savior Jesus Christ!!!!
By the way..thank you Charles for using the correct name form of our church…Much appreciated !!!
You have the sensible view most Americans take. We have freedom of religion and those religions tend to preach that all sorts of things are wrong, including things that we'll all likely wind up doing at least once in our own lives. And yet, most of the religious still manage to have vibrant lives with a myriad of folks. Recognizing right and wrong is nothing hateful; it's simply the cornerstone of religious life. You recognize it and you seek to avoid doing it in your own life.
Another brilliant piece, Mr Winecoff! I am a gay man who is sick and tired of hearing these jerks rage on the churches and give a free pass to Obama and other pols who share the same opinion.
This is a frustrating issue for me. I want gays to be happy, really I do, but I think there is a fine line between making realistic accommodations to allow for equality under the law simply giving a loud minority whatever they want. Allowing gays to be treated equally under the law with civil unions is a realistic accommodation IMO, but arbitrarily hijacking the definition of a word connected to something that, for many like myself, religion is deeply entwined in goes too far. I see this, and I am reminded of the child in the supermarket screaming, wailing, and gnashing his teeth as he clings to his mother's leg because she denied him candy.
One of the main reasons government is involved in marriage is taxes. When two become one there is a difference between two taxed people and one family. This is a variation of the question of large states and small states during the Constitutional Convention. Where before two individuals were counted as individuals, after a marriage they are one to their benefit just as little states wanted a Senate type legislature while the big states wanted a House type legislature, both to their benefit.
There are other reasons but this is about income taxes that would change to the better for two people if they were "married". One way of getting rid of this issue is to get rid of the Income Tax but that is another subject.
This is not about marriage. Its about forcing others to accept a behavior that they do not agree with. There is absolutely no reason why gays have to FORCE anyone to do anything. If you want to be a homosexual go ahead. This is America and you have that right. That is your decision and as long as you do not force your beliefs on me or my family then I am fine with it. Trying to force others to accept you will only create animosity towards you. I've met some very nice people who happen to be gay and I've met some gay people who wear anger and distrust of others on their sleeve. The latter have tended to have an attitude with others for no apparent reason and come across that they are being judged for their sexual orientation right out of the gate when nothing could be further from the truth. As I said, I no longer believe this is about gay rights. This issue is being used to try and force others into their way of thinking and this is going to blow up in the gay communities face as others who would normally say live and let live will change their tune and adopt an anti-gay attitude.
All that time and money and they screwed up the tag… "A film about how how countless lives were destroyed by…"
Someone should be fired.
Good points, Charles Winecoff.
Marriage licenses are issued by states not the Feds and that's what drives me nuts about this whole politicized gay marriage issue, it's their attempt to federalize marriage. It's one more state's right hijacked into the federal realm. That's what bothers most constitutional minded conservatives I've talked with rather then bigotry towards gays which the MSM would like you to believe.
Gays need to avail themselves of the licenses extended to them by some states, shut up and move along. Cultural changes take longer to take hold than political changes in a society. Shoving them down people's throats isn't helping their cause.
If blacks hadn't voted overwhelmingly against gay marriage it would have passed. If any of this had the slightest bit to do with what they claim it is– gay marriage– they'd start with trying to reach blacks with their message. But the entire movement is nothing but another shill for the progressive movement, so they attack targets accordingly.
I will support Gay Marriage more the day they support Polygamy (and just about any other relationship) with just as much force, since the arguments for both to be recognized is the same. Of course they won't because they realize the slippery slope they represent to sexual legal anarchy, and history isn't on their side with that.
Speaking of polygamy, gay-marriage advocates are always pointing at Mormons and accusing of hypocrisy because of the past. what they fail to acknowledge is that Mormon Polygamists didn't argue for the state to recognize them as legal entities, but to just be left alone. Near the end there was a few arguments leaning that way, but only when it became obvious that legal recognition was the only way to be left alone since it would be on the books.
It is stupid to argue who paid for the promotion of a bill. All organizations do this all the time. Why pick on the Mormons? Why not pick on the people that actually VOTED for the bill? I think they have a mind of their own. Oh that's right, it's about gays. What a bunch of sissy's.
For years I have tried to get my question answered: "Upon what principle does one stand when they say that the homosexual lifestyle should be accepted by heterosexuals?" I know, the activists claim the fraud that being gay is the same as being black. Only the ignorant and gullible can believe that.
Let's look at pedophiles. (no, I don't believe that gay people are pedophiles). The culture condemns pedophilia as a non acceptable sex practice. But why? A couple of decades ago homosexuals were looked upon the same way. Our laws do not permit a person to legally marry a parent. Why?
So, why is it different today for homosexuals? Because the culture CHOOSES to look upon it differently. There are no more "rights" to be gay than there are rights to be a pedophile. Both are "unnatural" sexual perversions. Ask yourself, if it were discovered tomorrow that there was a gene that people were born with to make them pedophiles, would that give them a RIGHT to be a pedophile? Of course not. Gays have the status they have today because the culture chooses to give it to them. And gays have the same rights to be protected against assault and other things as any other citizen. They enjoy those same rights. If there are those who do not accept homosexuality, tough luck. But there is no RIGHT to be homosexual. Do not let anyone tell you there is. Let communities decide. I think it is great there is a San Francisco. If gays do not like a community they can vote with their feet. If one does not like San Francisco, they can leave. America should allow us all to find a community where we can be happy. The liberals will take it all to the Supreme Court and force it on all of us. Conservatives are happy just being able to live and let live and finding a community where they can live their lives in comfort and peace. And let others do the same. If you cannot find one…..start your own. But "butt out" of mine.
When put to the true test (the constitution, the courts), there is no reasonable legal purpose to deny two adults, no matter what thier gender is, to inclusion into a government marrige. A 'peoples' vote is insufficient. Not only insufficient, it is humiliating, and ultimately, un American. A majority vote cannot be held to be a valid barometer of what is right (or wrong) at any given time. If that were the case, and if the courts did not exist, we would never have had any form of civil rights for minorities.
When all is said and done, Im looking forward to watching this. Why? Because its about a group of people whos civil rights were put to a vote. It wasnt your rights put to a vote was it? Imagine if it was? Ask yourself this: What if the voters of California decided to pass an ammendment declaring " the definition of marriage is one white man, one white woman, under a Christian god". Dont think its doable under state law? Think again. It is! The California Constitution is easily ammendable to allow for it.
Is it ultimately legal? No. Just like Prop 8 will be found unconstitutional. Now how would jews, Buddhists, Muslims, non religious, blacks, asians react? Im guessing not very well.
I am tired of people (religions, politicians, shady groups like 'focus on the family) targetting gays. Its unfair, Its cruel, its unamerican, and its against everything I learned in my religion growing up.
Leave them alone. They didnt come after you or your rights. What a sad country we live in where we take comfort in belitteling those who just want the same thing the rest of us enjoy: The chance for love, recognition, and yes a piece of paper by the state.
Joseph Smith was the founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Thanks.
The notion that "as long as gays don't want marriage, conservatives will be fine with civil unions" is nonsense. Take a look at WA state. Civil unions were passed by the legislature with *no* reference to marriage.
So conservatives promptly got the signatures for a referendum to repeal civil unions. And all of the ads for the repeal talk about gay marriage (even though the law is about domestic partnerships).
So let's be honest. Modern conservatives (and therefore the Republican Party) will do what they can to make life worse for gays. It's a religious fixation with conservatives these days, and a pretty disgusting one. Or as Luke Esser (head of the WA state GOP) said at a recent appearance "Social conservatives have made the Republican Party what it is today". Indeed.
For me, its all about the word. I want to keep 'marriage.' I also want a few words back, like 'rainbow,' 'gay,' the equal sign, 'dike,' etc. I'm so tired of words I grew up with having alternative meanings and associations. Song lyrics have changed (seen West Side Story at a High School lately?), girls are no longer called Gay, or if they are they go by their middle name. I say, come up with a new word (shmarriage? too silly, maybe) and go for it. But for me, marriage will always mean a husband and a wife. Wasn't it Elton John who said he didn't want to be someone's 'wife?'
"A 'peoples' vote is insufficient. Not only insufficient, it is humiliating, and ultimately, un Americant."
Wow, there goes the whole American belief that government is "by the people and for the people." Lets get rid of voting rights and just be ruled by people in long black dresses issuing decrees and handing out rights like candy in a store. Those silly little people should be silenced and kept as far away from a real voice as possible.
You mean like the "equality" gays now enjoy in the Netherlands? Uh huh. Coming to a town near you, or rather, near Michigan or New York City. Gays are next after all the wayward Westernized daughters are run down with cars.
Great article Charles. I think the films claim that so many lives were "destroyed" by Prop 8 is a bit over stated. Wait until gays get a load of the new world order, brought to them by tolerance for Sharia law…
Joseph Smith Jr. is the founder of the LDS Church
John Smith had something to do with Pocahontas.
Where were all the gay "marriage" proponents back when the Mormons were getting raked over the coals for their eclectic polygamist marriage practices? You would think the gay community would be able to relate to the Mormons more than any other group, since the Mormons didn't get their way either.
I remember in the 1980's when the Gay Rights brigade testified before the Rhode Island General Assembly in support of the Gay Rights bill. Gays had been trying for something like 19 years to get a bill passed. One supporter was asked if by passing the bill they would then come back and demand the right to marry. "Oh, absolutely not!" they said. Gays, they said, are too independent to ever want something as conventional and mainstream as marriage. They just wanted to be able to live without being discriminated against. That's all.
Ah huh.
This is all about religion. Christianity in particular. The Gay Rights fanatics will not be happy until they get gay marriage forced on Christian churches. Some people seem to think that Gays would be happy if the government got out of marriage altogether, that if nobody was married by the "state", and if "marriage" was only defined as a religious sacrament, that Gays would be satisfied. They would be wrong. This is not about Gays having "equal" rights. They already enjoy more rights than any other group of people whose status is based solely on their behavior. This is entirely about the Gay Rights movement winning against the people they consider Evil. And that is Christians.
You can't fight hate with hate. Targeting Mormons is the wrong tactic here in my opinion. Show the world we are above the hate, and minds will change.
I'm a conservative and I am more sypathetic to gay marriage than Barack Obama. The only qualm is that if religions do not want to perform same-sex marriages, they should not be forced to. This is why the bill in New Hampshire wasn't passed at first because that was the caveat over which they couldn't agree.
http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/BPnews.asp?ID=3058...
Here's the thing: I'm very libertarian when it comes to these issues partly because of my Catholic school education and my upbringing, and I'm convinced there's no real correlation between sexual activity and being a good person. You disagree with me? Cool, I won't hold my views over you if you differ with them.
College has actually been pretty refreshing because the one ultra-liberal professor I have is extremely kind and willing to hear all views, even if they're not hers, especially on gay marriage. I find a respectful dialogue on these issues is far more inviting and enlightening than the usual bomb-throwing we see.
I appreciated many of your comments, but as the husband of a black Mormon, I found your description of Mormons as "pasty-faced followers of Joseph Smith" to be offensive and, frankly, a bit racist. Not bigotry-based racism, mind you, but more the ignorance-based kind. FYI, worldwide there are about a million Mormons with African heritage.
Gays want all the perks that come with marriage, health care, tax write offs , adoption, social security, among other things. I am not a Mormon but i say go Mormons!
Yes, this issue has NOTHING to do with marriage. It is about living in a anomic atheistic society where limitations on moral or sexual behavior are not upheld but in fact are discouraged and suppressed. Your not being asked..your being demanded to not only accept but approve of any immoral or unnatural sexual behavior that they deem as now acceptable. So, if you have any religious, scientific, or logical objections then you are a problem. Thus, the campaign in the last thirty years to destroy christainity and remove it from expression anywhere in the public area. The point is that the majority society now has no right to determination of its own moral and cultural direction nor the right to preserve its historical traditions and beliefs. It is now subject to complete reshaping by a loud minority and the agendas of the intellectual elites that currently rule. Sound familar? Looks like the rest of us will need to pick up and move to a new shining city on a hill in a distant land….
I've been saying the same thing whenever this issue comes up. Get government out of the marriage business. It would make the government's job much simpler and help get it out of our lives. What's the difference between offering government benefits to "encourage" and "support" traditional marriage and family, and any other type of government-sponsored social engineering? If government is not supposed to establish religion, why does government automatically grant special benefits to people just because they've participated in a religious bonding ritual while denying the same benefits to people who live in a "marriage-like" situation but haven't had any mumbo-jumbo said over them?
If you want to get married in a church, fine – just don't claim any special government privileges because you did. If you want to get married in a church but the church won't let you because you're gay, DON'T go whining to the government. It's none of the government's business. And if what you really want is to collect government benefits because you live in a "marriage-like" domestic situation with your gay lover – then please be honest and say so rather than dressing in a tuxedo and blubbering about how much the Mormons hate you. Save the drama for your mama – just work to get government out of the marriage business.
I couldn't read any farther than your bulldyke comment. You've managed to make a sexist oedipal remark against women, and a homophobic remark against lesbians within your first one hundred words.
If you're a mormon, we're going to destroy proposition 8 in court, but we must force you hand over campaign memos first. We're working on that.
Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial begins on 1-11-2009 @ 8:30 AM! Say goodbye to your precious proposition 8 you crazy religious wacko!
These posts are terrific. Blacks and Hispanics are Teflon in exploring WHY Prop 8 passed in California. I find this tedious.
Here was John's ful quote:
"I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership," said [Elton] John. "The word marriage, I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."
http://www.protectmarriage.com/article/elton-john...
It's simply, Hucbald. Society has an extremely strong interest in encouraging stable families – stable families are a hugely significant factor in encouraging a stable society. Period. Marriage is as much a social contract as it is a religious sacrament.
That's selfishness for you.
Good-bye and forever BH, Breitbart, et al.
I'm beyond being sick and tired of having homosexual writers, their lifestyles and perspectives, "mainstreamed" in an ever so subtle fashion through this channel.
You get what you deserve in this life.
There doing that crap right now in my home of Washington, DC.
Naturally, opposition to homosexual "marriage" among Black Democrats has morphed into a "pro-democracy" argument. Considering how voting rights is fairly new to Black Americans, you can understand why we take any threat to them seriously.
The irony is that pro-gay Democrats ALWAYS said that DC residents that supporting the GOP would lead to the end of the Black vote.
Talk about lying through your teeth.
I wish someone would research the question "How much does the gay community REALLY want gay marriage?" By that I mean that the movement for gay marriage seems less concerned with actually achieving the right to wed than it is "sticking it" to the straights and giving activist gays the chance to indulge in the truculent, self-pitying and media-approved hysterics (I apologize for the term) that we have come to know and love The Mormons are a perfect group to target in this effort. They are almost all white, generally middle class, have a heirarchical religious structure and a creed that explicity excludes gay marriage. They are the perfect group to "blame." As several posters above have noted, Proposition 8 would have passed with flying colors if the black vote that turned out in droves for Obama had supported it. Howver a documentary attacking hte black community as "homophobic" or one that pointedly describes Obama's opposition to gay marriage would present, er, "uncomfortable" problems. Better to target the Mormons who command zero sympathy in the mainstream media.
People in long black dresses issuing decrees? You mean just like in Iran? Wouldn't that be fun. And some people would like us to live that way.
I understand where Andrew's coming from – we do need the judiciary to help protect the minority against the majority. That's one of its functions. The question is, is marriage a "right" to which all American citizens (or all humanity) are entitled? And if so, is it the job of the courts or the legislatures to ensure that homosexuals enjoy that right as well as any other group of citizens?
The joke is the too often Republicans who are liberal on gay rights soon start lurching more and more left on other issues. A great exactly is Gov. Ahnuld of California whose liberalism on social and religious issues quickly morphed into socialist economic policies. So, the once Golden State is not the laughingstock of the US.
So, it doesn't surprise me that the GOP candidate Dede Scozzafava in the NY23 race has suffered a backlash from conservative voters. When I heard Dede was pro-homosexual "marriage," I guessed correctly that she supported socialist economic policies and the resulting sky high taxes.
In short, it makes sense for the GOP to support traditional marriage candidates (e.g., NY's Doug Hoffman) because they tend to be FISCALLY conservative as well. Lower taxes and economic freedom is a good thing for all no matter race, gender, religion, or sexual preference.
On that note, Andrew, could you PLEASE tell White homosexuals to stop violating the rights of Black people (gay, straight, whatever) to peacefully protest:
http://holycoast.blogspot.com/2008/11/n.html
If this keeps up, White homosexual will become synonymous with Klansman.
Read this:
"Finally, Straight Talk from the Homosexual Agenda":
http://townhall.com/Columnists/AustinNimocks/2008...
By the way, some homosexuals voted FOR Prop. 8. So, I think you need to deal with your community's issue's first:
http://www.worldmag.com/webextra/14623
The more I hear about people whining about how gay marriage is a civil rights issue, the less sympathetic I feel. I see a significant difference between laws prohibiting gay marriage and laws prohibiting what they called "miscegenation" (interracial marriages). It has been established in the US for generations (and all over the world for much longer, regardless of a culture's acceptance of homosexuality) that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. To deny an adult interracial couple a marriage license is a violation of their civil rights; they meet the requirements for marriage: one is male, one is female, both are old enough. What laws against miscegenation did was to ADD a requirement: that both parties must be the same race, which is ridiculous and racist. Similarly, the pro-gay-marriage lobby seeks to make a change to the requirements: they want to change the definition of marriage to allow men to marry men and women to marry women. This is not what marriage currently is. That is why it is not a civil rights issue, nor is it wrong or unfair to allow the citizens of each state fo vote on the issue. To make a change in what our society calls marriage, the people should vote. OR, we could just give everyone 2 member adult couple the option to get a civil union and leave the term marriage to religious/cultural institutions.
Excellent bit of writing, Mr. Winecoff. Same sex marriage is opposed by a majority of people of Christian faith, IMHO, because it runs counter to their values and principles and because they acknowledge traditional marriage as the catalyst of a strong, vibrant and productive society.
Civil unions, yes! Same sex marriage, no!
Well, got to say you are pretty good at name calling yourself. Love your tolerant attitude and deep understanding of religious people as well. Let me try your style…well…you crazy religophobic, christainity hater! You better watch out.. we are coming after you..when we are finished..you will not be able to work or be the largest per capita income group in the US! How did I do?
BTW, this was a parody..just in case you did not get it. How did it sound? This is how you sound to the rest of us.
Thank you again Charles, for your courage and your clarity.
I just love how you're so preachy about how Mormons are individuals with varying beliefs, not to be interpreted as a monolith, while simultaneously doing LGBT Americans the *exact* same injustice by painting us all with the same brush. What hypocrisy this is.
It's not all about drama. That's a "stereotype". We are not all white (as, again, you imply), we are not all wishy-washy queens, and we are not all crying on camera in some vain attempt to woo people to our side. There is no "national gay leadership". Much like the Mormons you defend, we are all different – "like snowflakes". There's a whole lot more people who aren't on TV, that you clearly have no knowledge of, at all.
And to the guy who says, "why don't we just stay in San Francisco"? Because we aren't all there to begin with. We are all over the country, in all 50 states, already. Straight people – even conservative, religious straight people – give birth to us every day, and straight people are everywhere.
Thank you so much for standing up for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We really appreciate it. As you know, it's not so much fun to be demonized. Thanks again for your article.
The reason those benefits were extended is because any successful society needs to be formed of stable, functional family units. By extending the legal bennies, the government sought to help encourage the sort of stable social units needed to make our greater society stronger. Of course, when they got into it, they never envisioned a time when same-sex couples would be agitating for public tolerance. It simply wasn't an issue then.
OK I am late to the discussion but I had no idea that there were so many Mormons in California. Wow. If what the hysterics were saying in the video is true there are more Mormons in California than Hispanic Catholics and African American evangelicals put together. This kind of isolating a very small minority of people is dangerous and the people in the video ought to know that. Good post Charles and you are correct the blow back from this latest manuver will not be helpful to the discourse over this issue.
I'm gay, I'm married, and we have a 2.5 year old son. By the time he is an adult there will be an entire generation of kids that have grown up with kids they know who are gay or families they know who are from gay households. The fear and animosity that is directed at our families will still be there but to a lesser degree. I truly believe the issue at hand is one of ignorance and intolerance. That may be hard for some of you to read but it's the truth. From my perspective you are the ones bullying and forcing your religious views on us. After all, my being married does not affect you in any way. (Please, if you believe I'm wrong on this list for me the way your life is affected because I can list numerous tangible and material ways not having the protection of marriage rights both from a state and federal perspective effect gay families)
I don't think any religion is going to be forced to marry gays any more than they're currently forced to marry people outside of their faith–ie a rabbi can't be forced to marry non-jews and a Catholic priest can't be forced to marry two Hindus. I've never felt that the 'gay lifestyle' has been forced on my awareness, but then I've always lived in places where they weren't uncommon. I'm sympathetic to gay's desire for full marriage, but gays have to admit they got straight out outplayed and checkmated with Prop 8. The Mormons who championed Prop 8 approached their task in the classic American way: they marketed their cause better. Sloppy and histrionic responses won't help the anti-8 side any.
As you say, it comes down to the attempt to redefine a word. I know no one opposed to gay "marriage" who wouldn't accept civil unions. Since those entering into these contracts would say they are married anyway, this makes it a distinction without a difference. However, it' s not enough to benignly tolerate something anymore, we must celebrate it.
celibacy is unatural, as seen by the action of frustrated pedophile priests. The Saints have changed the rules when some elitist scum wanted more ladies, and discredited the true successor to get their noogies. The Old Testament rule against gays was put forth to separate the people of Abraham from those around them, along with body mutilation which was common in Canaan and the old world. That aside marriage is between one man and one woman to join together to become whole to serve God's will. Gay activists push a political agenda and a east target is the the Church ofJCandLDS, which also have an agenda as seen with it's influence in the Boy Scouts, not all bad, but again anti-gay there and not defenceable, but the activists do not care about right or wrong, just to bash people of faith, and the Scouts get them nothing but the enjoyment of children.
The way I see it, it's about definitions and meanings. The homosexual world IS different from the heterosexual world. Many are friendly to one another, and hopefully everyone will one day be. However, practices, beliefs, "acceptable norms," attitudes, etc. are simply different in these two worlds. I'm guessing that lesbians have more in common with heterosexual's in their ideas of fidelity, behavior, family, etc. I know that many gay men have different ideas and practices of fidelity than most heterosexuals realize. To say the word "marriage" in the U.S. we understand it to mean male and female union and we all have certain expectations about that arrangement. To say "partner" we also have some understandings of what that means. However, I believe that gays don't want to use the word "partner," NOT because they thinks it's discriminatory per se, but that they want others to initially think they're heterosexual, until THEY choose to reveal it, (coming out), so the terminology doesn't reveal it for them. I strongly believe this because gays are notorious for forgiving ultra-liberals like Obama or Clinton for publicly mouthing words that appeal to most Americans (i.e. they DON'T support gay marriage), but that the gays know Obama and et. al. are lying through their teeth (or at least they hope they are!). However, have someone say that and mean it, be sincere, and the gays HATE YOU.
I believe it's fundamentally unfair to change the meaning (in all ways, legal, cultural, social, etc) of such an important word as "marriage" so as to appease such a small minority. Certainly, other words can provide the benefits gays want, such as partnerships?
And how do gays want to reconcile the Constitutional problem that will inevitably arise when, if marriage is the norm for gays, the lawsuits filed against churches and religious organizations for either not recognizing them, marrying them, accepting them, or sanctioning them?
Lastly, to me, it's incredible that gays are throwing such a complete HISSY FIT about the Mormons raising money for a cause that Mormons believe in. Who put a gun to their head and told them "thou shalt not fund thine own cause?" Maybe if they had stopped the brown-nosing of all the worthless celebrities and ultra liberals, got over themselves, and paid attention to what people's actual views are (without the standard liberal sneering, but with respect), they could have EASILY been armed to launch a campaign to woo voters on the issues that they care about. They simply took the matter for granted, because they live in their own little gay bubble, and they truly have no one else to blame but themselves. Why didn't the gays court the black vote? Why didn't the gays court the hispanic vote? Why do they think that attacking Mormons will gain them anything but a childish satisfaction of throwing a stone? Trust me, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will not change it's views- it's part of the Church's theology. Gays need to crunch some numbers and statistics (if there are any mathematicians in this artsy crowd) and come up with a new strategy.
"As a matter of fact, in the past year alone, support for civil unions has grown significantly among folks who oppose same-sex marriage. Right here in the knuckle-dragging USA … That sounds like progress to me."
Winecoff, Mor[m]ons and others' "support" for civil unions isn't "progress," it's called "CONTROLLED RETREAT." The Mor[m]ons and their cronies didn't start "advocating" civil unions until they realized we were going for the whole enchilada whether they liked it or not. Before THAT, they were as dead-set against civil unions as they are now against marriage equality. Don't you remember anything farther into the past than last night? As a journalist you ought to know better. Stick to writing about what you know, instead of writing about current events that you can't even analyze correctly.
What? I'm agreeing with you again? What the heck…..?
"Becomes meaningless"? It has been meaningless for years- divorce rates, abuse, cheating all prove that it is about as meaningful or as sacred as community underwear. Never mind the fact that many couples split up, that many cheat or that some husband (or wives) abuse their spouse and their children.. NONE of this makes it meaningless? Its only the aspect of gay marriage that ruins it? Now I have numerous problems with gay militants attacking the church or pulling some inane stunt (such as rushing into a church dressed in drag during service) for attention but I have just as many with the delusional right who want to live in the world of Leave it to Beaver, rather than living in the real world.
Sorry folks, marriage is meaningless.. unless theres love behind it and regardless of whether Tim loves Anne or Greg thats more meaningful than a ritual and a ring.
I disagree, I think they've got a fetish for the word.
Because that splits the liberal "agreement."
The left is not a coherent party, but rather a coalition of movements. The only way they can stay united under the democratic banner is not attack each other, just simply pretend in a fake reality. That's how anti-capital punishment Catholics can sit at the same table as pro-abortion NOW. And its why job killing eco-wackos can sit down with unions.
Blacks = Civil Rights movement, so modern liberals simply pretend they were not part of the coalition that defeated Prop 8. Which is the only reason they're focusing on the LDS. That's what's left over.
Oh, and they are scared to death of radical Muslims. That's why they're quiet on that matter.
Your Church sounds a lot like mine – Roman Catholic.
At election times, they make absolutely crystal clear what they consider the main issues to be, they make the Bishops stance on the crystal clear, and they try to make crystal clear the positions of those running for office – they send out questionnaires and publish the responses they get (and who did not respond).
But I have never, ever been told by anyone at my Church how to vote and who to vote for. That's up to us and individuals. If they tried to I'd walk out, and I'm fairly sure I wouldn't be the only one.
Originally there was no marriage. But there came a time when men wanted to leave their sons what they had accumulated, however they could not be certain who their sons were. A social agreement was made–'marriage.' The woman must be a virgin, (Rumor has it that Princess Diana was examined to ascertain her virginity! Marriage beds were checked for blood.) The govt & the church became involved to officially seal the deal. To show the bride was chaste, pure, untouched, virginal, she marched down the aisle in a white dress for all to see. The groom agreed to care for her and HIS children—altho, sometimes a son might look like a neighbor. That social agreement NO LONGER HAS ANY MEANING!!! Where's the virgin in a gay marriage? It never had anything to do with love until recent modern times–and in many societies it still has nothing to do with love. Matchmakers, anyone? Doweries, anyone? I'm an old married broad. Weddings are nice, but they are really just a charming relic of a bygone era.
This is a good article, but I still don't see a single argument why I should deny a legal relationship to someone that doesn't harm anyone else (nobody has demonstrated that) and makes a few people happy. Better yet, let's take the government out of the marriage business like it used to be in the 19th century. Us right-of-center justifiably complain when socialists won't leave us alone. Maybe we should just leave gays alone and let them get married?
Enter text right here!I've blogged on my site about Prop 8 extensively ("Prop 8 Hate").
The bottom line is that the Prop 8 supporters were outspent by about 4-1 and still won, on the basis of Hispanic voters.
Hispanic voters felt that Gay Marriage was bad for two reasons (and the advertising was quite effective):
1. Gay Marriage would lead inevitably as it has in all other places to teaching kids about Gays and Gay Marriage, and sexualization of kids too young to handle the information.
[The ad with the 8 year old girl telling her Mother, who was vaguely Anglicized-Hispanic looking, that "today I learned a Prince can marry a Prince, and a Princess marry a Princess!" was VERY effective.]
2. Gay Marriage was an assault by an elite on traditional values.
As I pointed out, and many others have as well, Prop 8 Opponents had "Ugly Betty" star America Ferrara, a non-Spanish speaking Puerto Rican, cut ads against Prop 8. While Prop 8 Supporters had ads IN SPANISH from real Telenovela stars from Telemundo and Univision.
California is a Hispanic majority state. Mexican attitudes towards Gays are going to dominate the political culture. Mexico does not allow Gay marriage, has little tolerance for Gays, and it is immature and silly to expect Mexicans to magically embrace the values of Malibu and Brentwood just because they crossed the border. Incidentally, Mormons find Mexican nationals and Mexican-origin folks one of their fastest growing demographics.
The Mormons are merely scapegoats for Gays who endorsed mass immigration and don't like the social attitudes of Mexicans who now form the political majority. More examples of "magical thinking" by a deluded elite.
He watches Oprah?
Well then.
to separate the people of Abraham from those around them, along with body mutilation which was common in Canaan and the old world.
Circumcision isn't body mutilation?
And I get so tired of hearing those tired old canard that celibacy had anything to do with the Church pedophile scandal. It was basically about 80 or so priests who were protected by a hand full of Bishops – all of who should be in jail, in my opinion – and they've ruined the reputations of tens of thousands of clergy across the country.
People who pray on children, no matter what uniform they wear are sick individuals to their core, not having sex doesn't turn some one into it, being a sicko does.
The reason the Church has rules about celibacy is because in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries Bishops had developed a nasty habit of bequeathing Church property to their children.
Totally agree and well said.
Then I strongly recommend that you and other regular, decent people – who happen to be gay – better join Mr. Winecoff and start speaking out.
The people who making this types of projects are setting the national image of homosexuals in America, and it is a very detrimental image. It's precisely this type of message that is causing people to turn out for votes like Prop 8. It's scaring the hell out of them.
The pop culture image of a bunch of gays parading down the street in speedos screaming "We're queer, we're here, get used to it" is not going to accomplish anything positive. It may have been necessary at one time, I don't know, but that's the image that many voters remember.
I agree with your balking at the "becomes meaningless" part, but why is it delusional to want a Leave it to Beaver life? For lots of folks it IS a real lifestyle. They took their vows seriously and strive to make the best possible life for their kids in a stable, loving, peaceful place with standards, right and wrong…
Marriage is meaningless to those who choose to treat it cheaply, not to those who are faithful to their vows.
Maybe it is the course, cheap, throw away society that is more meritorious of your ire.
That actually pretty much describes my opposition to gay marriage. I'm horrified at the thought of politicians and judges redefining a thousands of years old word.
I've heard Lincoln once said a dog has four legs and a tail, and if you decide to call it's tail a leg, does the dog now have five legs?
Pretty much everything homosexuals want with respect to civil rights is within reach in our life time. Hanging everything on the definition of one single word is what's holding it all back.
Its almost like this crowd (I am not lumping all gays into this category, just the militant ones) isn't happy with simply considering themselves married, they want to use the courts and the government to force me to say it.
And I don't like being told what to do.
Because of all the various factions they believe worked to vote for Prop 8, the LDS are the only ones who are most likely republicans.
A good little modern liberal never picks a fight with another modern liberal. No, that hate and vitriol must be reserved for non modern liberals.
I must have blinked. I didn't catch the precise instant that leftists went from telling us marriage was an outdated, horrible, slavish institution to demanding that the definition change and gays should be allowed to marry, thereby (I guess) being as outdated, horrible, and slavish as the married folk. When did marriage go from being detestable to being desirable?
I'm Mormon, single, and turning 29 years old next week. I'm a virgin. Is it hard sometimes? You bet it is. It's probably the hardest challege I've ever gone through. Do I want companionship? Of course. I can't wait to get married and share my life with someone. I've had many chances to act on my desires, but I choose not to because I believe that Heavenly Father wants me to follow His commandments, because ultimately, that will bring me the greatest happiness. It IS possible to be celibate and to wait for what I feel is right.
Priests VOLUNTEER to be celibate for life. If they can't live by those demands, then they should quit the priesthood and find a new vocation that allows them to marry, rather than taking out their frustrations on defenseless children. Celibacy does not cause pedophilia. There is a fairly large amount of evidence that many of these men joined the priesthood because they were already feeling those urges, and hoped their career choice would cure them. While I sympathize with having strong desires to go against God's commands, I also know that I don't have to be ruled by those urges. I can control myself.
"Oh, (and like I have written repeatedly) the LDS Church did NOT donate any money; LDS members did."
Thank you, I've said the same thing myself, yet no one seems to understand that.
Members of the LDS church are not "almost all white." The majority of membership of the church worldwide falls under the categories we'd call minorities here in the US. We have extremely large (and steadily growing) numbers of Hispanic, African, Maori, Native American and Polynesian/Islander members. Even in the United States, in some places it's hard to find a white member of the church. In this country, the population (for now) is mostly caucasion, which means that the LDS population in this country is mostly caucasion, but it's hardly by the vast majority you're claiming it is, and it doesn't hold true for the membership of the church worldwide.
I find it a little odd that Prop 8 is constantly labled as an LDS cause, when the LDS church was invited to join a coalition of over 100 different religions and organizations, by a Catholic church group who was in charge of recruitment. Yes, the members of the church raised a lot of money and donated a lot of time to something they believed in, but so did a lot of other people – all people who would happily do it again.
The anti-8 side raised more money, and more from people outside of California, than the pro-8 side did. There were no big-name celebrity stars on the pro-8 side.
The only reason the Mormons are being targeted is because they're a smaller minority in California than the gay population is, and because they're seen as stranger than the gay population, too. That makes them really easy to scapegoat. If they force it to become gay vs Mormons, they know a lot of people would rather sympathize with the homosexuals than with the Mormons.
Bullying and forcing your religious views on us. That takes the cake. Truth? Please do not use that word. Where have you been bullied and forced? Its not enough that you have contributed to the destruction of the free exercise of religion in this society, taken control of our schools and universities, control all media and entertainment but also feel it neccessary to spin the lie that you are the one bullied. Yeah, there will be an entire generation of kids forbidden to mention God at a football game but very comfortable with the idea of two people of the same sex screwing each other. YOU are the intolerant. You will be the force that destroys our constitution and the basis for those rights. You did no invent sexual perversion nor are the first to practice it. Nor have there been searches or raids into your bedrooms…or religious persecution.
Its not fear or animosity..just more clever use of words to isolate and demonize anyone who thinks differently on these issues. I will let you on a little secret..most of us including christians really do not care to know what you are doing in your home nor feel the need to establish a theocracy to suppress your choices. Yes, your distortion of marriage does affect us a great deal. There are a great deal of scientific and logical arguments against your sexual practices not just religious ones. But I am sure you do not want to go there.
It is not about marriage. The government is involved because it is about money, benefits and taxpayers willing to foot the bill for the benefits. And there are millions of Americans that are not overly anxious to pay John a lot more taxpayer money when Bob his gay lover kicks the bucket. Most marriage related benefits were passed with certain understandings in mind, such as a male female relationship with the likelihood of having children. Fine with me if we got rid of all the moronic entitlements for everybody and just let people keep their own tax money except for legitimate needs and not social engineering where the states have to fight the overly large federal government to get some of their money back. Follow the money and you find the reason that gays want to be married. They want more of their neighbors money. And if they go to their neighbors on their own, without benefit of big government backing them up, and demand thousands of dollars because their gay boyfriend just died, well, we all know how successful that would be. So they need the big government to give them all that free money that they are obviously "entitled" to.
And since gays openly support Nambla as does gay Kevin Jennings, it will not be long before the married gays want to make sure that having sex with underaged boys is also legal. You know, since it will soon turn from a gross perversion to yet another godly entitlement.
There is something inherently "big government" and liberal about having the government extend benefits to people in order to encourage a certain kind of behavior. If conservatives can't understand that, then they're not really conservative at all.
Marriage became meaningless the minute it was sanctioned by the government instead of being left up to individual religious institutions.
The comparisons to pedophilia always leave out the notion of consent because, without it, you have no argument at all. There's a difference between molesting a child and two people choosing to marry one another, and you know it.
People should have the right to do whatever they want so long as they don't harm another person. That's the definition of liberty. If you don't like it, you don't like freedom as much as you might think you do.
Precisely. Far too many right-of-center folks want government intervention when it suits their tastes. This makes them no different from liberals.
I was gay once. I really was. Really, I was gay!!!
But then the homosexual community forced me to no longer be gay. They took my word and carefully crafted it to mean something else. So, because of them, I am no longer gay. I'm still just as happy as I used to be, but I'm no lionger gay.
I'm tired of a bunch of few very loud crybabys always getting their way. Someone needs to spank them and send them to bed without dinner. This is getting really, really old.
Heterosexuals are no more entitled to their neighbors' money than homosexuals are. Either get rid of ALL the benefits or allow homosexuals equal access.
The government should not be in the business of subsidizing particular lifestyles any more than it should be in the business of subsidizing things like ACORN.
Because we all know there are no such things as consent laws.
These arguments make absolutely no sense. Are you allowed to seize a woman off the street and make her your wife? No. Why not?
You need her consent.
I keep waiting for a sincere, convincing argument as to why state recognition of same-sex marriages is a good idea but it never seems to happen.
If I were documentarianess who wanted to sell the idea, how about profiling some the 18,000 grandfathered same-sex marriages in CA or some of the ones in MA so you can at least make the argument to the folks at home that there's nothing to worry about? But hey, don't listen to me.
Fifty percent of all marriages end in divorce. Perhaps the government is encouraging people to get married who shouldn't get married.
The government has no business subsidizing certain kinds of behavior. That is unequivocally a liberal idea. Where are the people who believe in limited government? They're apparently not in the Republican party anymore.
Let's also not forget the Fulsom Street and Up Your Alley fairs, or any of the "Pride" parades that go on in San Francisco. None of those utterly despicable and degenerate events do the gay rights movement any favors. Seeing gay males fellate, masturbate and urinate on each other out in the open on a public street in plain view of police officers to the thumping beat of disco house does _not_ incline those of us in straight America to accept homosexuality as "normal" and "just another lifestyle". Especially when one considers that if a just as abominable heterosexual event occurred like the aforementioned ones, in full view of the public, the event would be broken up and arrests would happen.
The United States today is one of the most accepting places in the world; most of us straight people nowadays don't give a rat's ass what two adults are doing in the privacy of their own home; we just expect similar consideration from the other side. We don't care if you revel in your lifestyle, just don't force your sexuality down our throats with a plumber's friend.
I just watched the trailer….sappy, insipid drivel. Here's the deal: The Mormons fear that once gay marriage becomes fully legalized, that government will force churches to recognize these marriages and perform gay services. Anyone who thinks that is preposterous look at our history with inter-racial marriage and even the Mormon's own polygamy practice over 100 years ago. Government gets involved. And depending on where you stand, they could be your friend or your enemy and they can change their position. (Again see inter-racial) Religion is designed to be a little more stable and more inflexible than political polls.
If Mormons are ever forced through government fiat to perform homosexual marriage within their temples…look out. There will be real blood in the streets as the 1st amendment takes its final bow and says, "So long….looks like America no longer needs me."
Good for you Sarah……
By the way… I have a 23 year old RM going to BYU next year.
He is still free….let me know
I keep waiting for a sincere, convincing argument as to why state recognition of any kind of marriage is a good idea but it never seems to happen.
If marriage truly is a "religious institution," I have no idea why conservatives want the government involved. Why not leave it as it used to be: churches/synagogues/mosques perform whatever religious ceremony they want, and married couples sign a contract which stipulates how legal issues should be addressed in the event of divorce or death.
The state's only role is to enforce the contract, not subsidize one lifestyle over others.
The LDS church will close its temples before performing a homosexual marriage inside one, I can guarantee you that much. If they have to close every temple inside the United States in order to stand up for their beliefs, they will. The members will travel out of the country to be sealed and to do temple ordinances rather than let that happen.
I'm officially in the Winecoff Fan Club (because there is one, or there should be). He does a fantastic job of dissecting and commenting on a number of issues, the whole Prop 8 mess being just one of 'em. So let's get the t-shirts going.
I'm also a member of the LDS Church, and this matter seems like a no-brainer to me. I'm very willing to fight for anybody's rights, as long as we're actually talking about rights. I'll go out and lobby for the GL community in order to give civil unions the same legal rights as those enjoyed by married folk. Where those rights are in place but not followed, I'll speak out against that, too, until the matter's resolved. But I won't help a particular group legislate acceptance. I'll shout down bigots all day, I'll defend my gay friends verbally and physically, if need be. But I won't force others to do the same. Gay marriage isn't about rights, it's about using the law to lend "credibility" to one facet of a person's whole (unless that person wants that facet to be their only defining characteristic. The gay friends I have generally don't want to be known as "Tim the Gay Guy," though. They'd prefer to be judged on, yep, the content of their character.)
One last thing: if this kind of nonsense continues, and succeeds, I'm going to have to do likewise. If I'm ever beaten up by someone, I'm going to cry and shout until it gets prosecuted as a Hate Crime. I'm not gay, but I'll demand that I should have the same rights as gay people, because I want my beat down to be brought up to the same level of legitimacy. In the name of "rights", I'll call my whipping what I want to. Fair's fair, right?
State governments were the ones who outlawed inter-racial marriage. Churches would perform the ceremonies and state governments would refuse to accept them as legitimate. Do you see the difference?
Conservatives have this whole thing backwards. The state is the most likely vehicle for oppression of particular groups, whether it's blacks, gays, or Christians. It is not wise AT ALL to let the government become mixed up with religion. It is far better to completely keep government out of marriage altogether. If you don't want the government telling you who your church has to marry, don't allow the government to dictate who can't be married.
Once the government has power in one area, it almost never gives it back up, and there are plenty of bureaucrats who would like nothing more than to meddle in religion.
I recall watching a video of a gay marriage ceremony in which all members of the audience were asked to raise their hands, point at the couple and say aloud "I support this marriage". It wasn't enough that people love them and attend the ceremony despite whatever privately held religious beliefs may weigh against adopting this as their own lifestyle. The audience must be forced to say aloud that they support gay marriage. Around that time, I realized that for many gay activists – acceptance is not the goal. I believe promotion of the gay agenda is the only acceptable position for a 'decent' person to have, according to these activists, and so demotion and demonization of spiritual or private beliefs is well underway. It's as if the activists said "We are replacing Christianity with a set of beliefs we embrace" and they finally said it a dramatic way with the agression toward the Prop-8 crowd.
Really? Generalizing? Ouch. Are all gay people out to ruin the lives of everyone that voted for Prop 8? Nope. Same with conservatives, brother. We gots variety, and there are many, many of us that will back actual rights for anyone. Look into the protests in WA that are pro-civil unions, and you might find a few conservatives happily fighting for a good cause.
Why are you focused on the "gay" aspect? The man can write!
body mutilation refered to was tattoos, ritualistic body scars. aware of the greed of the RC church as the reason for celebacy rule. Perhaps your unaware of the shuffleing of pedophiles for maximum exposure instead of stakeing them to an ant hill, all for the bottom line, again greed. A sad joke among gays is that sick priests are responsible for more gays than genetics. OH, come to think about it circumcision IS body mutilation, it decreases sexual pleasure.
That made me laugh, thank you. I appreciate the sentiment. My parents met at BYU.
If your son's looking for friends, tell me him to drop me a line. We'd be happy to adopt him. =)
This was not an attack on self control, humans have urge control, that's what separates us from the lesser beasts. Humans were comanded to go forth and multiply. Celebacy til marriage then monogamy when paired with your other half to be the headsof your family, where the couple act as head of the family church then much more upon leaveing this corporal world. Priests volunteer to have a job, in days old, one son was educated and the others went off to the church as a monk or priest.
Have to split into two comments:
Fifty percent of all marriages end in divorce because of the essentially libertarian idea of no-fault divorce when applied to a post-60s morality. The liberal idea that government has no business subsidizing certain kinds of behavior can maintain a democratic society ONLY where the people are moral and religious.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams; "Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." George Washington
I like your ideas, gb8898, but I believe you're living in a theoretical fantasy land. In a post-60s generation, without most of what the Founders would consider the "private morality" necessary to sustain a democracy, libertarianism is anarchy, narcissism, nihilism. Regrettably, government WILL subsidize/legalize/prohibit in this day an age, no matter what – that cat is out of the bag, never to return – unless, of course, you can suggest gb8898 how to re-plant the "virtue" as described by the Founders in our present society.
The lines have moved – It's now an issue of exactly WHAT will the government subsidize. We have a battle royale, red in tooth and claw, between which sets of values will govern.
I'd much rather live in your world gb8898. It simply doesn't exist.
Charles, I love you!
My line about Leave it to Beaver was meant to describe what I see as out of touch personalities, not to say that the tradtional family unit no longer exist or is somehow dismissable on any level. Its the strongest force one can find and I wish any true, loving marriage the best.
But my disdain for these claims of "if gays are allowed[nsert claim here] will happen" steams from the fact that while gays are different than me I do not see that difference as a danger. Most are good people, some are complete asshats.. just like the rest of us. To say that their rights or their happiness would somehow damage the meaning of someone else's marriage is insane to me.
Though I must admit I did go over board a in my previous post, sorry.
I was wondering how long it would take for some sanctimonious whiner to, well, whine about the word 'dyke' appearing in this article.
Who gives a crap? I certainly don't. Get over it already. Oh, and nice name-calling there, you lousy, hypocritical dyke.
Umm…I'm gay and live in Mexico City, where we have the right to domestic partnership. Our pride march draws tens of thousands and almost invisible protests. Mexico City and the surrounding area with roughly 1/5 of the population of the country at around 22 million tends to be pretty liberal. The other day I saw a gay couple kiss on a crowded metro train and people barely batted an eye. That isn't to say that there aren't prejudiced and negative attitudes towards gays, but I think saying Mexico "has little tolerance for Gays" is really unfair to a very large segment of the population that's really fine with it. Did you know that Tamaulipas state on the border with Bush's home state of Texas (Its cities include Reynosa, Matamoros, Nuevo Laredo and Tampico) allows full gay marriage – it was passed by their state legislature. Mexico is as diverse with opinions as anywhere else. Furthermore, you're not talking about Mexicans. You are talking about Mexican-Americans. (Not to mention probably lumping in Guatemalan-Americans, Puerto Rican-Americans, Argentine-Americans, anyone who's skin is brown and speaks Spanish, right?) You can't vote unless you're a citizen. So don't go blaming 110 million people south of the border. It's funny your argument tries to defend Mormons against scapegoating by scapegoating another group of people. Sad, actually.
I don't get the \”If gays are allowed…\” thing either. That is where some in the far right lose me too. That and a few other things. Maybe I should say religious right. I am a christian, but I just do not get those people. What I do get is the religious \”community\” – I am not sure what to call them – and their desire to maintain their traditions and right to do as they please. If Catholics do not want to marry two women, I do not think they should have to. They should be afforded that freedom. They should also accept the consequences (like fewer congegants). I am not a church goer – so I have not really thought it out. It is more just what makes sense to me.
I think the happy place is splitting the religious and the secular aspects making marriage a personal thing and civil unions for the government's purpose. Now, the question is whether gay people will be satisfied with that or if they will insist that religious people surrender their beliefs. Someone in the comments said they thought the marriage desire was a bit of schizophrenia. Very astute.
OK godda go get some rest before the gator Georgia game tomorrow. Lots of screaming and chomping to prep for! Go Gators!
- thank you for the clarifying reply.
— On Fri, 10/30/09, IntenseDebate Notifications <notifications@intensedebatemail.com> wrote:
"I'd much rather live in your world gb8898. It simply doesn't exist."
"We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams."
Amen to your comment! LDS people believe that sex outside of marriage is the same kind of wrong no matter if its with someone of the same sex or opposite.
I feel like I have to bring that up whenever I talk with someone about Prop 8, because they really don't understand that. They really believe that we're "wink wink nudge nudge" against premarital sex, but gay people are like lepers. When they realize we believe its all the same kind of sin, I think it gives them more to think about, instead of a automatic hate filled response.
Somehow the Mormons are responsible for that ridiculous typo. Likely, it was because the video editor's life was destroyed by having an eight month old "right" taken away.
Man I needed to read this article. I am now a fan of Charles Winecoff. You can count me among the members of the LDS church who have been very conflicted over the Prop 8 backlash. I've struggled with being connected to some of the rhetoric flying about. That's not me. I don't hate anyone because of their sexual orientation. And I want all people to have the same chances to be happy.
But I also know what I believe in, and for my own sacred reasons, I simply cannot turn my back on it.
Put simply, the 8MP trailer hurt will harm the pro-gay cause with people who are trying to understand and be compassionate MUCH MORE than it will help. It's propaganda. It's a hatchet job. And as Charles so aptly states, it's more of a carefully manipulated middle finger to the LDS church than it is a piece in support of gay marriage rights.
Filmakers, you had a really good chance to convince me, but you weren't trying to do that, were you?
Apparently, you were not concentrating as you read the article. Charles is not a Mormon. Charles is gay.
Why not view it as a contract between parties. That should be the governments only interest in it anyway. The nebulous idea of vows before god and til death do us part should not be the governments concern.
The thing is this Prop 8 thing has hardened the hearts of liberals toward the Mormons, but it has softened hearts toward the Mormons from other parts of U.S. society. The more they do things like this, the more people who aren't dead set on the gay-marriage bandwagon will question exactly who is the persecutor?
As far as I can tell, the argument in this post against gay marriage rights boils down to two main points:
1) The people in the movie are screechy jerks.
2) The US, unlike Spain, is really big, and many of the people in it don't want gays to have marriage rights.
1) may be true, but I don't see why it means gays shoouldnt have marriage rights. I agree there is s a lot of unfair anti-Mormonism going around, but even anti-Christian bigots are entitled to their civil rights.
as for 2), if this it your position, it seems like you'd at least support a repeal of DOMA so that individiual states could determine the issue for themselves in accordance with the will of the citizens, etc.
Mormons don't advocate civil unions at all. The only thing the LDS church leadership has said about that was that they don't oppose granting certain rights, like hospital visitation and the like, from homosexual relationships. They haven't come out in support of unions at all. There's a huge difference between not actively opposing something and endorsing it. It's called picking your battles. We don't approve of civil unions, though we're not going to fight them. We will, however, fight against homosexual marriage.
Individual states CAN determine the issue for themselves, which is why five states allow it, and more than 30 states specifically outlawed it in their state constitutions. What DOMA does is say that states that don't allow it don't have to honor it when it was performed in another state, and that the federal government won't officially recognize it.
All i cansay is boo f_ _ _ing hoo!
And thus – maybe it's time to make a change in this respect. ?
This "why can't we just get along and live our differences" is persuasive as long as you don't actually look very closely at what the Mormon Church wants for gay people and what they've done to impede our progress for over three decades.
t,
Sure, in California, it's just a word, because DPs in California are almost identical to marriage. But if you look at referenda in others states, you find we often get zip, nada, zilch. The LDS support that. And, better yet, look at what the Utah legislature managed to accomplish after all the warm and cuddly things the LDS higher-ups said when they were claiming that all they objected to was "marriage". We got nothing in that state, absolutely nothing. And with all those supportive, let's-just-get-along Mormons running the place. Weird….
"The only thing the LDS church leadership has said about that was that they don't oppose granting certain rights, like hospital visitation…"
You would actually approve of committed homosexual partners being in the room when their loved one is in critical condition or near death? Please, stop. Don't go so fast.
No one wants to force a radical redefinition of "family hospital visitation" privileges that historically were never meant to include homosexual partners. That redefinition contemplated by the LDS could have negative effects on the heterosexual families who visit their own loved ones in adjoining rooms. Please beg your Church to reconsider granting gays this privilege, or at least put this radical redefinition of “family hospital visitation” on hold for a reasonable period of reconsideration, say 20 or 40 years. At that point, society may more comfortable with sick and dying gays visiting each other in the hospital.
But for stretching the normal bounds of your Church's compassion, sick and dying gays everywhere should:
Thank You Thank You Thank You Thank You.
My reason for opposing gay marriage is that I see it as more than just being allowed to be joined at a civil ceremony. It's not so much marriage they want as validation by society. Ever since the '70s I've been hearing people say "We don't need a piece of paper to say that we love each other!" Now all of a sudden, gays do need one? Andrew Sullivan's argument about wanting to stand before the Priest with his parents giving him away was as goofy and maudlin as you say this documentary is. Somehow, I just couldn't picture him throwing the bouquet to a group of his buddies.
The thing that worries me is that, once they have this "right" (marriage is not a right or it wouldn't require a license), they will find that it doesn't allay their sense of being "queer" or having something wrong with them. And when that happens, they'll demand that not just government offices but all churches be required to perform gay marriages. Mormons have already seen government interference with our religious views on marriage to the point of having our rights as citizens revoked and the church being threatened with dissolution and forfeiture of its property, all of which was upheld by the Supreme Court. How ironic would it be now to have the government demanding that the church perform temple marriages for gay couples?
It might sound silly to say that, but 30 years ago, would anybody have taken a demand for gay marriage seriously? Nobody has ever had the right to marry a partner of the same sex, whereas, the joining ot the two sexes has always been the essence of the concept of marriage. Gays have the same privilege of marrying a member of the opposite sex that straights do. What they are asking for is a new, unprecedented privilege, not some inherent natural right. It's a false analogy to race to call gay marriage a civil right.
The place that marriage holds in LDS theology is far different from most other religions. It is performed not just "until death doth you part," but "for time and all eternity." Such marriage is essential for men and women to achieve the highest degree of heaven, called exaltation. We believe that it was ordained by God, and what are we supposed to do when the state says that this holiest of all ordinances must be granted to homosexual partners? I think I'd tell the government that it doesn't have the jurisdiction to put God on trial.
Fritz –
Can you handle the fact that we live in a Republic and that "Fritz" doesn't get to rule the world? Homosexual marriage will be accepted when the people accept it – tough lesson. No society in human history has sanctioned gay marriage or a form of "civil union" (there's greater historical sanction for marriage to children). You cannot fundamentally transform a key institution of human society merely because you believe it is "right" and choose to demonize opponents – i.e., because "Fritz" and his friends say so. You'll have to work harder than that – and name-calling just won't cut it.
If the people of Washington want to repeal civil unions, so be it. Price of living in this country. Oh, and by the way, "disgusting" President Obama is against gay marriage and so are a majority of non-Republicans. So much for your "social conservative" straw man. If the people wanted gay marriage, they'd have it.
Thank you, Charles Winecoff. Finally, an article that cuts through all the propaganda and ballyhoo about prop 8. It seems that most of the anger and contention against the Mormon Church starts with homosexuals who are ex-Mormons. Do they really think they can change the Mormon Church? Like the article says, make your own rules – start your own church, something like;"Ex-Mormon church of homosexuals".
I have no idea if this movie is a load of crap or not — I haven't seen it. However, I see no problem with filmmakers criticizing the leaders and bureaucracy of the LDS Church, or any other church for that matter. Religious institutions and beliefs should be as subject to scrutiny as any other institution or belief. I don't see any evidence in this article that the filmmakers are saying "All Mormons believe and do X, Y and Z," although perhaps they do — and if they do, that's wrong.
If they stick to criticizing the Church as an institution, then good for them. The Church has been remarkably inconsistent on a variety of issues, including civil rights for blacks, the definition of marriage, and whether monogamous heterosexual marriage is morally acceptable. Why not talk about this in public? Leaders say the inconsistency is a result of continuing revelation from God. After considering their claims, I've concluded that it's because their "revelations" are from humans who respond to different times in different ways — just as occurs in most religion. The prophets used to talk trash about monogamic heterosexual marriage; now they worship it and talk trash about monogamic homosexual relationships.
"Since the founding of the Roman empire monogamy has prevailed more extensively than in times previous to that. The founders of that ancient empire were robbers and women stealers, and made laws favoring monogamy in consequence of the scarcity of women among them, and hence this monogamic system which now prevails throughout Christendom, and which had been so fruitful a source of prostitution and whoredom throughout all the Christian monogamic cities of the Old and New World, until rottenness and decay are at the root of their institutions both national and religious."
- Prophet Brigham Young Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, p. 128
"Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of heaven among men. Such a system was commenced by the founders of the Roman empire….Rome became the mistress of the world, and introduced this order of monogamy wherever her sway was acknowledged. Thus this monogamic order of marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a holy sacrament and divine institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers."
- Prophet Brigham Young, The Deseret News, August 6, 1862
Remarkably similar to:
"This heinous homosexual sin is of the ages. Many cities and civilizations have gone out of existence because of it. It was present in Israel’s wandering days, tolerated by the Greeks, and found in the baths of corrupt Rome."
- Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, "President Kimball Speaks Out on Morality," LDS New Era, Nov. 1980, Page 39
"Alternatives to the legal and loving marriage between a man and a woman are helping to unravel the fabric of human society. I am sure this is pleasing to the devil. The fabric I refer to is the family. These so-called alternative life-styles must not be accepted as right, because they frustrate God’s commandment for a life-giving union of male and female within a legal marriage as stated in Genesis. If practiced by all adults, these life-styles would mean the end of the human family."
- Apostle James E. Faust, "Serving the Lord and Resisting the Devil," Liahona, Nov. 1995, Page 3.
Thanks to exmormon.org for keeping this stuff in the light.
P.S. I'm no fan of Islam, either — I find its claims as problematic as Mormonism's and fundamentalist Islam to be incompatible with democratic values — but it didn't play a big role in Prop. 8, so it makes perfect sense to me that the film doesn't talk about Islam.
This article offer doesn't talk to a single person who claims to be homosexual and to have voted for Prop. 8. It's all conjecture.
Actually, nobody is entitled to the money, however, laws are passed with specific definitions. Yes, I would be all for all social oriented money being kept by the taxpayer then they could donate to their own cause as they see fit. This would be real freedom. But since leftists have decided that they know best and that large governments are where it is at then the money and where it goes has to be fought over every day of our lives. And for now, paying two gay guys to do each other is not high on the priority list. So these sort of bills and ideas will get voted down by most people, until they are too sick or perverse to care anymore. The idea that gays are entitled to everything that heteros have is just lunacy and stupid. Most laws say one male and one female before the benefits are handed out. These are made with certain ideas in mind, such as the likelyhood of children, etc. But NOBODY is entitled to the money.
BobN failed to make his case. All he did was lamely make some claims but failed to back any of the up with specifics. In other words, more mindless gay whining that failed to make people want to hand out extra rights to the whiny self-centered brats.
Consent laws are simply that, laws, and gays, wanting to change state laws forbidding gay marriage obviously would take the same route to change consent laws and or age laws. How many kids have "willing" sex with older people that end up being charged with statutory rape anyway? Obviously it is simplistic to think the only issue is consent.
thank you malachi for the responce because it is so true what your saying what do people have against love don't you think love has no limitations and love comes at any cost because love is in inner deap feeling that right now i can't explain because i would totally give you an exagerated issue i really think though that love means anything and anything to me means everything also love is something big nand not only to a certain type of people don't you
The question is not really about religion or the encouragement of marraige or not. It is about children. Who has the rights to raise a child. What rights do parents have over their children. What responsibilities? Marraige has always been about children. It is the understanding that the best and ideal way for a child to be raised is for their biological parents, with whom the child shares genetic makeup and thus would be best suited to help the child with the problems of growing up, to share the burden of taking care of the child together. When that circumstance cannot be acheved then one must recognise what shall be allowed for the child. With what parent do they go, at what point are parents denied the right to raise their child through their own bad acts. It even comes into play when no marraige occured. Common Law marraiges when two people live together for decades. Paternity claims for men who sire children and are held accountable. These are the quetions that are the most important to society and their are issues even when the government stays out of it (Such as who gets the house,etc.).
So here is an intersting question about how a "gay" marraige would work. If one of the partners in a male gay marraige sires a child out of wedlock with a women exactly where do the responsibilities of each partner in this triangle come about. Suppose the "father" passes away. Does the liability to the child stay with the married partner who was liable for his actions by the partnership of marraige?
You don't hear GLAAD giving definitive answers to these kind of questions in their debating do you?
MORMONS DO HURT PEOPLE – GAY PEOPLE.
[...] by Charles Winecoff Dear Andrew Sullivan, Thank you for your Halloween Daily Dish in response to my Big Hollywood blog about the latest LGBT assault on Mormons. We actually met once, briefly, at DC Pride, [...]
You've confused the choice of religion with human sexuality. We're going to destroy Mormonism with gay marriage equality!
[...] Big Hollywood (blog) [...]
[...] Boo-Hoo: Gays’ Lachrymose Last Resort in the War Against Mormons [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.