What would Hinckley do?
The rage the Mormon church stirred up nationwide when it waded into the political fight to ban gay marriage in California shows no sign of abating and the damage to the Church's image may last years.Jan Shipps, the respected Mormon scholar (who is not a Mormon) says the controversy could hurt the church's growth:
The backlash is going on all over the country. There are people who had a lot of respect for the Mormons who now say, 'Well, they're just like the Christian right.'Melissa Proctor, who teaches at Harvard Divinity School says the controversy is a setback to the church's attempts to gain the respect of mainstream America:
It's disconcerting to Latter-day Saints that Mormonism is still the religious tradition that everybody loves to hate.The LDS First Presidency, which has tried to keep a low profile after calling for member support of Prop 8, was forced to release a statement denouncing the protests, boycotts and vandalism of Mormon churches:
These are not actions that are worthy of the democratic ideals of our nation. The end of a free and fair election should not be the beginning of a hostile response in America.Joel Engardio in a Washington Post op-ed, says the issue is about the separation of church and state in American democracy:
We are not a Mormon nation, as much as we are not a Baptist or Pentecostal nation. So it is painful when any religion forces all of us to live their way by altering the Constitution upon which all our laws are based.The Sundance Film Festival, already reeling from the economic downturn, has been threatened with a boycott simply because it is in Utah. Now Sundance has an additional problem — Gay rights advocates are demanding the festival pull its films from a Park City's Cinemark Theaters. The theater's chief executive Alan Stock, contributed $9,999 to the Yes on Prop. 8 campaign. An exasperated Sundance spokeswoman says:
It is our hope that people will embrace the festival for its commitment to diversity, not avoid it.The BBC's Justin Webb says gay people ultimately will triumph:
The Mormon church itself - let us be blunt - did not do much for monogamous marriage in the early years of its existence; Mormons did not think much of black people until God told them (in 1978!) to change their ways. In the long term, He will be back...I have to wonder if the late LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley, who was a master of public relations, would have approached Prop 8 in the same way.
54 Comments:
Pres. Hinckley was pretty smart, so I assume he would have done the same thing as Pres. Monson has done. The Church has managed, throughout all of 2008 and especially through the Prop 8 victory, to brand itself internationally as the brave friend of traditional marriage. Sure, lots of crybabies and their ilk don't like that -- but who cares? Millions of hard-working, God-loving families around the globe are noticing. They'll be our next generation of converts.
Thanks, crybabies, we couldn't have done it without you!
I think this is silly. As the world becomes more wicked, of course the world will dislike the church more and more. It is to be expected. James 4:4 "Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God."
I want to know why democratic leaders in this state condone the actions of these thugs? Please ask Reps. Biskupski, Johnson, Houck, Seelig, McCoy, why they will openly bash the LDS church, and at the same time condone the actions of their supporters.
Why does the democratic party allow this to happen on their watch.......oh because its their values.
If it is true that the democrats are turning a blind eye to these actions I want nothing to do with them anymore.
I will need to do some research.
As an LDS member from California..I can't believe how twisted this issue has become. I am a private citizen and in the end I can vote according to my beliefs. Prop. 8 has nothing to do with hate! Simply, keep the definition of marriage between a man and a woman. Tolerance means living side by side with people regardless of differing beliefs, not changing your beliefs to avoid grief from others. As my brother said "Welcome to California, where voting is (considered) a hate crime."
I feel that the leaders of the Church have bent over backwards to be diplomatic while also standing firm in their beliefs. They have not spewed hate or promoted negative feelings. I'm sure Pres. Hinckley approves.
People choose to be offended. I certainly mean no offense to vote yes on 8, but ultimately I do not want to offend God.
Wow, all the comments above mine were posted by gibbering idiots.
Sue sparks said something stupid: "Simply, keep the definition of marriage between a man and a woman."
Why not keep the definition of marriage between a white man and a white woman; or a black man and a black woman. Can you not see that this is clearly a violation of the
equal protection clause? If your church is willing to create second-class citizens of homosexuals, then your leaders should be exposed as the frauds that they are. Your church man only condone marriage between a man and a woman (quite rich coming from your church's history of polygamy), but it can not and should not and eventually will not limit the state from sanctioning marriage of both heterosexuals and homosexuals.
Hinkley was smart, and he would never have allowed the church to become so negatively affected by such a public debacle. His life's work was to create a positive image, to 'brand' if you will, the Mormon church.
Much like 1978, eventually the church is going to bow to great social pressure and acknowledge the right of same-sex individuals to marry, stopping short of adding any religious sanction to those unions. But the church will seem magnanimous is doing so, and the membership, including the anonymous commenters here, will throw their support behind the general authorities. And President Hinckley will be able to rest in peace. And church historians will get busy rewriting history.
"Eventually the church is going to bow to great social pressure." Why should the church bow to social pressure? I thought the whole meaning of the gospel is to stand up for truth notwithstanding social pressure. Abinadi, the great Book of Mormon prophet, preferred to be burned alive rather then give in to social pressure.
The gay activists are trying to create a second class of bisexuals. I am bi and I have a fundamental right to marry a man and a woman. Where is the gay activist support for my plight? You anti-bisexual bigots! How dare you assert that marriage should be limited to two people!
Those of you crying 'foul' over the Mormons being the target of gay outrage need a reality check. Of course we gay people are furious - and the LDS led the charge to strip us of our rights. I got married this summer and WHY WOULDN'T I be beside myself in anguish and frustration? My marriage hurt no one - did any of you feel yours crumbling on August 18? I didn't think so. Consider your own statements that "I have a right to vote my beliefs" against "I have a right to wed my partner" and ask yourself who was really wronged. If you can't understand then you're not trying very hard.
I have waited in vain for someone to tell me what specific state civil right, responsibility, or benefit is provided through marriage that is not currently available to any two persons (hetero-, homo-, or otherwise) in CA that is available through marriage. What is it? please someone let me know. Don't cite Federal tax breaks, as that is a Federal, not a state, issue.
We are not talking about civil rights here. We're talking about the definition of a legal contract between a man and a woman. The "interracial" argument is a red herring; the race of the man or woman doesn't have bearing on the fact that the fundamental defining characteristic of the contractual relationship is between a man and a woman. Any man of legal age may enter into this contract with any woman of legal age.
error in last post; sorry.
I'm referring to the lack of difference in civil rights between those who are married (man/woman) and those who have civil unions (any 2 persons). I don't see any. Where is it?
Some time after Monson goes to another planet another "prophet" will have a convenient revelation that God wants gays and lesbians to marry, even in the temple.
Why? Because tithing is tithing and is extremely precious to the church's all-white male leaders and it will be for all eternity.
Meanwhile, I highly recommend boycotts. My family in the Midwest was to have traveled to Utah in the spring for a reunion. All eleven of us had planned on a week-long get-together at my home, with outings to several national parks, trolley square, restaurants, beer samplings - they were to bring strong American beer bought outside Utah, and I'd buy foreign beer, the only beer sold in Utah liquor stores.
But I've asked them to boycott Utah, and they've agreed. We now plan to meet in Colorado, probably Aspen.
Boycotts do work. Remember blacks in the South boycotting public buses in the 60s? It worked. If non-Mormon businesses and people feel the pinch, so be it. They, too, live in a state that practices bigotry, both sexually and racially.
More than most states, Utah depends on tourists. I say, tourists stay away. Learn the wonders of Montana, Wyoming, Nevada, Arizona and Idaho.
Boycott, boycott and then, boycott.
Anonymous at 10:06 The church was under extreme social pressure prior to 1978 when it finally admitted blacks to the priesthood. Until then we were told this would not happen "in my lifetime nor yours." But it did happen in my lifetime. It's been explained to me that God reveals greater truth once people are ready to receive it. So, anonymous truth is eternal, but maybe we just don't know the whole truth yet.
Nothing like a gay shakedown to drive their agenda. They are without principle. They love democracy when it works their favor (4-3 vote to overturn ban), but hate it when it doesn't.
It doesn't seem to be a rights issue - it is about legitimacy of lifestyle. The majority of Americans don't feel comfortable with the gay lifestyle and resent the activist agenda. Even your precious messiah (Obama) doesn't condone same sex message.
We have been through tougher situations and will weather this as well. We are pretty sure that those 48% wouldn't be interested in the church and its values anyway so we didn't lose as much as you think.
Anonymous at 10:34, I do hope you realize that there are often distinctions between civil rights and legal rights. Of course recognizing such a fact would require a degree of subtlety which I am sure would shatter your entire worldview, so don't think too hard about it. The idea of roving bands of nihilistic disenchanted mormons roaming the streets of Provo sends shivers down my spine.
To those who cling to the false distinction of procreation being a requirement for marriage, would you choose to prohibit women who had hysterectomies from marriage? Would you prevent those who were otherwise sterile? I do hope that you are just as up to the challenge of requiring all married couples get physical exams as a requirement for the marriage certificate to prove their ability to conceive. The idea of "traditional marriage" as it is being spewed by the social conservatives is the same myth that has been utilized to stop interracial marriage in the past: "No, you can't have this, this is ours."
Good luck with that. Some day, not too far from now, children will be reading about this in history class and you will have to explain to them why you took the position historically linked to bigots and racists. I would suggest you start working on your defense now, as it will be a challenge.
Isn't every law at its heart discrimination? We discriminate against lifestyles and viewpoints we view as immoral, don't we? I mean, we discriminate against murderers...we put them to death. We discriminate against robbers...we put them in jail. God's law specifically forbids homosexuality. Laws are all about discrimination, are they not?
"It doesn't seem to be a rights issue - it is about legitimacy of lifestyle."
That's funny I thought we lived in a society where different lifestyles were accepted, even protected, by the rule of law. Not prohibited because they made people uncomfortable. The gall that you can talk about being without principle, when you and your kind is constantly spewing nonsense about holding a monopoly on family values, and loving and caring, while you simultaneously work to prohibit others from achieving these same goals of all of us.
When the majority of this country decide to vote that marriage should be defined as between one Christian (sorry, not you guys mormons, much of the country and the religious right regards you as a dangerous cult except for voting day) man and one christian woman, but they allow you to have civil unions, then we'll talk and see if you don't care because you are getting the same legal rights.
Anonymous at 11:16, do you honestly believe that? Have you taken a US History class, or god forbid, a civics class?
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Isn't it interesting that it is the judges and lawyers that are pushing the homosexual agenda. I am reminded of this scripture in Alma 10:27.
27 And now behold, I say unto you, that the foundation of the destruction of this people is beginning to be laid by the unrighteousness of your lawyers and your judges.
What rights have you lost? Other than the word marriage - what can you not do as an American citizen as a result of this democratic vote?
Anonymous at 11:23 - remember, homosexuality was illegal at the time this nation was founded and it remained illegal in most states until the erroneous Lawrence v. Texas decision in 2003.
Judges and lawyers are also the bulwark of civil rights. It was not the legislature which prohibited unequal treatment of blacks and whites, it was the Supreme Court. I guess they were unrighteous, too.
http://www.ecorazzi.com/2008/11/13/elton-john-believes-prop-8-is-a-good-thing/
Even Elton John believes Proposition 8 is a good thing. Marriage is a definition of a heterosexual relationship. Nothing more than that. I agree to the poster that asked for proof as to what "marriage" gives that a civil union / partnership doesn't. I didn't get married for the civil benefits. I was married because in my beliefs, it is necessary prior to beginning the family unit of a mother, father & children. This is the typical, normal union. Homosexuality is not traditional, nor is it normal and condusive to the populating of the world. In this measure, I don't feel it merits the same definition of "union".
The overall fact that those against Prop 8 cannot get over their loss in a democratic process is understandable. I'm sure those for Prop 8 would be the same, however the boycotting, temper tantrums and vandalism need to stop.
Say all you want about hatred, bigotry, intolerance or whatever you wish to call it. It's pure and simple. REGARDLESS OF WHO VOTED, a group came together who believed in the sanctity of the union of a man and a woman and voted to preserve that union.
I see more hatred and bigotry in the anti-Prop 8 than I do in the supporters. You wouldn't see protests, defacement of sacred edifices and all the whining and bitching you see from the anti-Prop 8 crowd. However what is done is done and regardless of what those against this proposition say, those for it will become stronger and you'll see a much great desire by those seeking out religion to be united with organizations and churches who uphold their beliefs as opposed to succumbing to the latest world fads.
Charlie, I've lost nothing, I'm straight. I'm just outraged at this miscarriage of justice.
When we Democrats propose to limit "marriage" to Christians, I'll be sure to tell them you support it because you aren't losing any rights.
It is a little puzzling when the gay community refers to the Founders as advocates of their position. These individuals had a strong agrarian orientation. The homosexual act is unnatural from a agrarian perspective. The thought of the same sex marrying likely would be viewed along the lines of people and animals coupling. I imagine that is why the movement has its base in the city (where social values rule) versus the country (where natural principles govern). There are no boundaries to social values whereas, natural laws and principles have boundaries.
The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.
And because you'll whine, you who have a "fundamental right" to marry according to the US Supreme Court, who can take everything for granted, but can't step off the pulpit to acknowledge that YOU have it BETTER than an entire group of people, I'll give you one which applies in California specifically. I got married in August. My employer recognizes that for purposes of health care benefits - but not if its our 'domestic partnership' (which we have too). So, my presumptuous friend, my spouse's health care benefits hang in the balance - SPECIFIC ENOUGH FOR YOU? Or do you need for her to be stricken with cancer before you will nod in agreement that you're not always right?
Seriously, other than societal legitmacy, what rights have you lost? What can you not do because of this democratic vote?
There must be something. I have read a lot of comments on this issue and have heard mounds of 'emotional flooding', but I haven't heard what has been lost.
Little delay in reading your response vs. my response. I am sure a lawsuit or two can fix the issue you identified. My employer doesn't provide healthcare for anyone - I am responsible for it myself. It seems like that is a corporate choice - maybe I am wrong.
Charlie, read the post above yours. It's specific and it's meaningful. To me and to my spouse.
The following is a well-written blog by an undecided libertarian exploring this issue in light of past decisions - tax, welfare and divorce policy.
A great quote: But as G.K. Chesterton points out, people who don't see the use of a social institution are the last people who should be allowed to reform it
http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html
Again, unless the government becomes the instrument to force each company to provide these benefits to everyone, it is their individual policy choice. I understand that many large companies provide those benefits in states where gay marriage is illegal. Would you prefer the government force your company to be responsible for your healthcare?
Dear anonymous,
I am going to go fishing now. I wish you the best. I have many friend that I disagree with and still have great relationships with. This debate (the larger one) definitely lacks civility.
Your 'presumptuous friend',
Charlie
You have chosen to define those you disagree with as not only separate, but also not equal. Now your church is being defined and examined in quite a harsh light. And rightly so. By the way,the Catholics seriously did a number on you. Not only did they bring this to your doorstep, the LDS paid 40 million dollars for all this grief! You got punked!
Marriage between a man and a woman?
Such blasphemy......change it to read:
Marriage between a couple of fudgepackers......
You have chosen to define those you disagree with as not only separate, but also not equal. Now your church is being defined and examined in quite a harsh light. Because society has determined to provide certain benefits to marriage because of the central role of the family in a healthy society, the separate but unequal arguments apply on multiple levels. I would say that we were punked by the Catholics if the movement was unsuccessful and the money was a waste, however, the majority of Californians (and citizens in other states) did vote to define marriage according to historical precedent.
I seriously need to go fishing. My best to you.
Gary Lawrence? Uh, you mean the same Gary Lawrence that wrote this article for Meridian magazine? The one where he compared those of us who were opposed to Proposition 8 to those pre-existent spirits who followed Lucifer in the War in Heaven and who were cast out? THAT Gary Lawrence?
Why he should be quoted seriously on anything after writing that piece of dreck is beyond me. He went beyond the pale here and needs to be exposed repeatedly for the whackaloon that he is.
The courts will overturn Prop 8, as California law says that a proposition cannot change the state constitution.Which this does.Done.
"Anonymous at 10:34, I do hope you realize that there are often distinctions between civil rights and legal rights."
Let's pretend I don't, anon. 11:10. Fill me in, and please use a valid argument instead of your non sequitir about the "mormons roming the streets" (by the way, I said nothing about religious affiliation in my post, please don't assume anything).
the whole "hysterectomy" argument is also a flawed straw-man position. We don't decide general public policy by focusing on the rare exceptions. though, at any rate, that wasn't my question anyway.
My question, since we couldn't answer it the first time, is this: What specific state civil right, responsibility, or benefit in CA can be obtained by a married couple that cannot be obtained by someone in a civil union?
Anon. 11:40 AM does mention a few, but aside from the fact that the GAO report focuses on Federal benefits (which aren't touched by Prop 8 one way or the other), the health insurance argument could be fixed by changing the CA law regarding civil unions, requiring that employers treat civil unions the same as marriages with respect to health insurance benefits. You do not have to change the definition of marriage to fix that problem.
Exactly what policy problem requires a redefining of marriage to fix, that could not be fixed by crafting a sufficient civil unions statute?
George, you are smokin' funny weed! Get a clue before you start spouting off. What a loser.
The church poked a bear with a stick and now are upset that it has turned and tried to maul them.
Thank you homos for waking us up to the fight. Now its our turn as there are things coming that will bring the battle back to you. Your hate has exposed you and that has strengthened our resolve.
Best of Luck
Bo Nesmoker
The LDS concept of marriage is completely wound with our doctrines of eternal families and marriage. As such, it is a core moral value -- one we consider worthy of protection.
Our critics seem to believe that we Latter Day Saints should compromise our beliefs for public acceptance and favorable opinions.
What we did was stand up for a cherished value as citizens. In a completely open and pluralistic manner, we LDS donated money, we organized, we spoke out in favor of traditional marriage, we voted.
The message of the LDS Church was affirmative rather than negative. We urged people to support traditional marriage...we did not attack those who support or engage in homosexuality. We did not target homosexual organizations or places of worship, we did not publish the names of donors against Prop 8, we did not vandalize property, or engage in vitriolic attacks.
It is a reality that in our pluralistic society, we legislate moral codes. In doing so, it happens that two worthy values collide and require a choice. In this case, the value and right of traditional marriage seems to be at odds with the value and right of homosexuals to have every last personal freedom. For many, these are both worthy rights...and we as a society have to make a difficult choice. In this case, a plurarity of citizens voted in favor of traditional marriage.
The Mormons were only one small part of a much larger expression of the citizens of California prioritize conflicting rights.
John 15: 18-19
18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.
19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
The LDS concept of marriage? Which concept are you speaking of? I guess not the one condoning polygamy. That's the "oops never mind" version.
Hey, Bo Nesmoker, The battle is "back to us". Got another 40 million? We do. The anti-gay marriage amendment in 2000 lost by 61%-38%. Prop 8 lost by 52%-48%. You can see the trend here. Next time my friend. Next time. So start cutting back on your near-beer pennies..........Peace
Wow, talk about a response.
It looks like the Church will be responsible in the end to the re-enegized Gay and Lesbian Rights movement obtaining Marriage Equality. (Stonewall revisited.)
When the bigoted folks who were wrong on Civil Rights and Women Right are vehemently against something, you can be sure the Church is dead wrong again.
God bless LDS members who opposed Proposition 8 and have the ability to think for theirselves and fight intolerance and hate.
The backlash against the Church will speed Same-Sex Marriage across the country like the fire hoses and dogs in Birmingham sped up the Civil Rights movement.
In glancing through some of the posts I detect a lack of historical perspective. In 1977 - 1978 Elder Hinckley was the Church's point man in organizing members to defeat the Equal Rights Amendment (See Pedestals and Podiums by Martha Sonntag Bradley, Signature Books). Many of the operational features at play in California, Florida and Arizona were taken directly from the experiences of the ERA defeat.
I have an African American friend (not LDS) who is pro-Obama and I consider his politics left-of-center who told me that he and many blacks are against same-sex marriage because 1. "It is a sin." Typically many blacks are Baptists and according to them, homosexuality is a sin "because it says so in the Bible"; and 2. Blacks resent the gay rights movement trying to co-opt the term "civil rights." In their minds the "civil rights" battles were fought solely based on skin color, which is discernable. Homosexuality is not discernable like skin color. For these reasons you saw many blacks vote for pro-traditional marriage propositions.
"Let's pretend I don't, anon. 11:10. Fill me in, and please use a valid argument instead of your non sequitir about the "mormons roming the streets" (by the way, I said nothing about religious affiliation in my post, please don't assume anything)."
It is not my job to bring nuance or education to your life. Also, the roving band of existentialist mormons was not a non sequiter, it was an ad hominem attack. Please get my fallacies correct.
The hysterecemy example is not a strawman argument. If the purpose of marriage is to conceive children, those who cannot conceive children are ineligible to get married. They should feel free to get civil unions though, I hear those are all the rage.
"Also, the roving band of existentialist mormons was not a non sequiter, it was an ad hominem attack. Please get my fallacies correct."
Point taken. However, it is a fallacy nonetheless.
However, back to the argument at hand; my understanding of CA law (and I don't live there, so I could be wrong) is that, anything a married couple can get (tax benefits, inheretance, dependency claims, etc.), a civil union couple can get. What is it that requires that the definition of marriage be scrapped for something else?
I've heard the supreme court ruling about a universal "right to marry", that came about during the interracial marriage debate some decades ago. Let us recognize that the "right to marry" referred to would therefore apply to a marriage as defined in federal case law: That is, a legal contract between one man and one woman. Producing progeny, however important that may be, is not necessarily germane to this line of reasoning; if any "right to marry" exists, then it must mean that any man of legal age and competency has the "right" to marry any woman of legal age and competency, because a marriage, by definition, involves the union of a man and a woman. Procreation is a side issue.
Any other union doesn't fit the legal definition of marriage; therefore, it isn't appropriate to suggest that two persons "rights" have been taken away because they wish to form a union that does not fit the legal definition and then call it marriage. Rather, you're suggesting that we should change that legal definition; 52.5% of the CA voters say that they shouldn't, at least in that state. 30-some-odd other states have also said the same thing. Now, if it's a matter of equal protections or benefits, such can be granted to any other type of union simply by 1) defining the union, and 2) granting the benefits. That can be done in whatever state decides to do that. It does not, however, require a re-definition of marriage to accomplish.
So. Here we are again. Why is a redefinition of marriage necessary to accomplish the aims you are suggesting?
"Homosexuality is not discernable like skin color."
I guess you've never heard of this guy named Clay Aiken. He's really quite popular.
Or what about Liberace? Ever heard of him? Paul Lynde? Siegfried & Roy?
Not discernible my eye! Tell all the gay kids that get the crap beat out of them everyday for acting sissy that their gayness is "not discernable."
The fact is for most gays their sexuality is obvious, and they have to deal with discrimination, bullying, and harassment on a daily basis. But some people on your side don't even want to protect them this kind of abuse.
How about a compromise? Gays can have marriage, so can polygamists. Only rule is parties must be at least 18 years old and not related. Big Love all around. Think this would fly?
Guys like Gary Lawrence are the problem, not the solution.
Gary Lawrence: Familiarity breeds contempt (for Mormons)
Post a Comment
<< Home