Protests against Proposition 8 get ugly

Apart from the momentous selection of Barack Obama as the next President of the United States, another significant, yet less noticed news event took place on Nov. 4.

The voters in the state of California passed a ban on gay marriage. The ban known as Proposition 8 overturns a recent decision by the California Supreme court that stated same-sex marriages were afforded the same rights and recognition as heterosexual marriages.

Later in the year, a proposition was submitted to finally define legal marriage as a union between a man and a woman.  The ban passed with a majority of 52 percent of the vote during the presidential election. The result was quite surprising considering the progressive climate in California and the large population of homosexuals in the state. In the response to the outcome, protest marches were seen in places from Sacramento to San Diego this week.

Most of the protests were civil and peaceful; however, there are some who have threatened violence against churches and those who they see as having supported the measure.  Some protesters defaced Mormon temples, while others lobbed the unsavory insult of bigot to those inside such temples.

Now, we all may have differing opinions on the subject, but the most we can ask for in a democratic society is to be given the chance to exercise our opinion through a vote. Instead of judges or politicians determining the outcomes of relevant initiatives, it is a majority of people that decide.

While those protesting are not happy about the outcome, the will of the people have spoken in this case, not some far-off politician in Washington. The actions of some of the disgruntled protesters in California are not only hypocritical, but also of a sore loser’s mentality.

For a community of people-and the culture of California-that preaches understanding and tolerance, those who threaten of church burnings and other retributions against those with a different opinion of the proposition are nothing but hypocrites.

I know that not all those opposed to the measure are resorting to such low standards of conduct, but can’t we have a vote on such a matter without resorting to something like this?

  • Kevin

    You take away rights that people already obtained and relegate them and their families to second-class citizenship all in the name of “God” and then you expect them to be civil?

    The problem is that 52 percent of the electorate fell for the lies about same-sex marriage, lies that were funded by the Mormon Church, and to some extent the Catholic Church and the Evangelical Right.

    The problem is that ignorant heterosexuals view lesbian and gay relationships as unimportant, since being gay in their mind is a “choice” and ultimately “sinful”.

    What was imposed on lesbian and gay families with the passage of Prop 8 was the will of a certain religious viewpoint over all of California’s citizens using the government as it’s pulpit. They’d be laughed at if the sought to take away rights from heterosexuals to divorce, but lesbians and gays are fair game since (dare I say the word?) bigotry and a sense of superiority is rife within the typical heterosexual mind.

    Prop 8 was about hate. It is about bigotry. Stop makiing apologies for what amounts to treason of the American ideal and the spirit of the US Constitution.

  • Dan Dormann

    I agree that only respectful and peaceful protest is acceptable. However, eliminating constitutional rights including the right to equality under the law is shocking and shameful. Noone is asked to change their religious views but it is dangerous if a bare majority can strip a minority of constitutional rights. Who is next? The disabled, people of color? This a dangerous precedent and we can only hope that the California Supreme Court restores equality before the law and once again makes California a state of liberty, hope and equality. God bless the California Supreme Court!

  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/kediwah/sets/72157608874350670/ Christopher Layne

    I covered the San Francisco side of the November 7th Proposition 8 protest, shot on film:

    Proposition 8 Protest, San Francisco, November 7th, 2008

  • FairChance

    I was also a geography major. Greetings. I don’t know what your geography professors are teaching these days, but my professors would surely have said that fundamental civil rights — such as the right to marry and choose a family — are completely inappropriate subjects for a popularity contest.

    Thank goodness the vast majority of people your age voted overwhelmingly against Prop 8. I very much hope to see the day when we no longer have to ward off bigotry and divisiveness and instead can focus our energies on far more compelling and socially productive subjects that affect us all — indeed, some of the same areas about which we learn in geography — such as global warming, overpopulation, environmental quality, and sustainable development. In the meantime, however, the bigots will just keep distracting us with their insistance on deciding how the rest of use will live our lives. Oh well…..

  • Heriberto

    Your article is absurd. First of all where in history the civil rights of a minority group are put in the hands of an election outcome. If this was the case we still probably have slavery, no women vote or race integration. an dyes if the Mormon church is so political to put millions of dollar in a campaing out of Utah, people had the right to protest their temples that have been converted to political headquarters. This is matter of time discrimination can not survive in the constitution of California.

  • http://www.michichael.com Michichael

    While I agree with you that the no on 8 people are resorting to rather degrading and low tactics, such as vandalism, I will point out that that is a vocal minority, and no better has been done by the yes on 8 crowd. Every group has their own vocal, disgraceful minority.

    Now then onto the problem with your argument – human civil rights should never be up for majority vote. Further, the will of the people would have kept blacks from marrying whites, and blacks as slaves. Civil rights have never been decided by democratic process, simply because to do so would be a self contradicting, self destructive method. Civil rights always have, historically, been aspired for by the mintority. In a democratic society, the majority could easily deny or grant said rights as THEY see fit. Our founding fathers recognized this, and built in checks and balances, namely the judiciary branch, who’s duty it is to interpret the laws and, historically, protect the rights of the minority.

    This is especially true when, in an proposition with over 11 million votes, a bare majority of 500 thousand votes decided it. 52 to 48%.

    But once again, this should never have gone to ballot and should be rightfully invalidated – there is no way that this ballot measure qualifies as an amendment instead of a revision. And if this hits the legislature it will be voted down.

    I mean really, I’ve got a better idea for the whole argument. Eliminate marriage entirely and make everyone get gender neutral civil union licenses. Then let the churches marry who they want. Sure it’s not my idea, but it’s a good one – separate but equal is not equal.

  • chris

    “The actions of some of the disgruntled protesters in California are not only hypocritical, but also of a sore loser’s mentality.”

    Whoever wrote this is an idiot, Peoples Rights were taken away!
    May 08, same sex marriage legal
    Nov 08, haha never mind same sex marriage is illegal .
    the sore losers are those who enforced prop. 8, but hey the supreme court will make the right decision since 52% of Californians are not very educated..
    as far as church burning goes thats more bullshit that religious people are throwing out there to make homosexuals look bad..
    just like with all that Bullshit they said about gay marriage being taught in school, & church taxes being taken away… open your eyes world.. get facts, read the constitution amendment 1 & 14, and read other sources before insulting people who are pist off because their neighbor took away their rights and void the marriage
    discrimination is a thing of the past..

  • Kewitt

    What I don’t understand. Is why this is even an issue. Why don’t a hand full of gay people get together with nothing to do and make a religion. The Laws as to what is a religion are very clear and include same sex marriage. This would make it legal across all of the USA over night. US Constitution beats state and the 1st amendment covers this.

  • New Hampshire

    Well, as interesting as this dialogue has become, it seems that most of the posts have attacked the author. I am mostly in favor of what Mr. Kehler has reported.

    In my view, marriage should be defined as being between one man and one woman. I know that it is impossible to hold to this view without some sort of debate, but laying aside my personal views on that front for a moment, I take issue with the protests and rallies themselves.

    I think that public opinion is important, along with the judiciary, and the legislature. If there is something to be done, it should be carried out in the proper channels. The public opinion has been heard in the election. Let the debate ensue in the state legislature and in the courtroom. I may not personally agree with the outcome of the decision, but at least, I can say that I support the integrity of the political system at large, however the ruling turns out. I hope that the senate and the justices know how important an issue this is, for my part. It is a sticky affair, to say the very least. I hope that they support Prop 8, and that the constitution is changed, but if not, I defer to their judgment, albeit disapprovingly.

    What I would like to discuss briefly is hatred. The whole “Gay Hatred” label (or similar) is thrown around without any real consideration or forethought. Now, I acknowledge that voting against gay marriage can be viewed as a vote against homosexuals. I don’t hate people of any persuasion, even though I may disagree with their views or lifestyle. I can accept change and diversity, but I would like to be able to voice my opinion without being called a bigot, which is a luxury that I afford to others. I am not labeling homosexuals in any malicious form, as has been historically their due. However, there is a lot of hateful words spewing out of the mouths of others in my general direction. To put this in a different perspective, a vote for Barrack Obama does not mean that I “hate” John McCain. It only means that I don’t choose him to be the most powerful man in the country/world (that may be debatable, but that is beside the point). Why then is a vote for Prop 8 considered to be a vote for “hatred?” Why does this stance open me up to hateful labels? Just food for thought. A myriad of responses are possible, many of which I have considered, some of which I am sure to hear in the coming days and weeks.

    I am not trying to light a tinderbox here, I am only adding to the discussion. I hope that in spite of emotions, people can get back to rationality. Let the churches and places of business do their thing. Civility is always a good idea, when cooler heads prevail.

  • http://rptrcub.blogspot.com rptrcub

    Violence is not acceptable, but we have every right to boycott and be angry. New Hampshire, your people kicked us in the gut. And you expect us to be civil?

    If this country’s laws were based only on the “will of the people,” women would still have no right to vote. Segregation would continue to exist. Religious freedom in some states would be curtailed.

  • John S.

    Prop 8 did no take away rights from Gays. They still have the right to a Civil Union. Civil Unions in California have all the same rights as marriages.

    Prop 8 was about reserving the term “Marriage” for a husband and wife. It was not about persecuting Gays or their families.

    Please people, lets be civil. Society has a right to define terms. And that is all this proposition does.

    Stop the fighting. If you don’t like the term Civil Union, please use your creative energies and come up with a new term so we can all be happy.

  • http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2008-11-12-elton-john_N.htm TC

    If gay couples seek civil rights and equal protection under the law, then they already have that with civil unions. What they are fighting for is the redefinition of marriage, which Proposition 8 aims to protect. Even Elton John said that much (link provided). Proposition 8 supporters did not vote against gay couples or their protections under the law. If that were the case, they would have voted against the civil union law. But no, they simply voted to protect the definition of marriage.

    Let’s take a look at a more out-of-the-box example that both sides can view from the same perspective. If there were a wildly popular movement in, say, Alabama of parents wanting to marry their children, how would we feel about it? Does the people in that state have the right to put up a Proposition to vote for or against it? And if they voted against it, does it mean that they have taken a Constitution-given right away from those parents?

  • Cameron Kehler

    Well, let me first start off by saying that I am glad that my article invoked some reasonable debates on this subject. Let me however clarify some of the posts left on here:
    1. I never generalized all those protesting as hypocrites-only those who have resorted to such low standards as I highlighted.
    2. People are using discrimination to decribe the proposition. How are these people being discriminated? Do they still have all their other freedoms? Are they being attacked on streets or being told they cannot enter places of business because of their lifestyle? Their lifestyle has generally been accepted by society and this cannot compare to the discrimination faced by other minorities
    3. Lastly, The CA Supreme Court has also already ruled that civil unions enjoy all the same legal protections and entitlements that marriages get. Those who against the proposition really have no leg to stand on

  • Cameron Kehler

    To Chris:

    Please leave your foul language off of this discussion board. Not only does it remove any credibility in your arguement, but it does not help you in stating your point.

    Fairchance: My professors have never given their opinions on this matter or any other. The views are specifically my own. I feel sorry if yours have tried to espouse their views on you. I believe that gays rights are not being taken away, since the institution of marriage from the very beginning of the country’s formation has been defined between a man and a women. Civil unions give them basically the same rights as marriage w/o the official title-it’s a matter of semantics at this point

  • Jason D

    To designate everyone who voted or supported this Amendment a bigot or hateful towards homosexuals is imbecilic. To state that it is the church who is falsely promoting the fact that people have threatened to burn churches also shows some amount of retardation. If you believe both those statements to be harsh and hate filled, compare them with the posts from the opposite view point. Have church burnings not been a popular form or retaliation for a religions support of many controversial subjects, say homosexuality, racial acceptance? Of course they have! This is an example of an organization pushing its agenda forward. Do the ACLU, Peta, NAACP not do this? And don’t claim that the leaders of these organizations are filled with love and care for all. That’s a lie. More hate has been spewed by these organiztions than any church. I don’t ever recall our church calling for widespread burnings of businesses that support the homosexual movement. Do not bother to bring up some of the rhetoric from past church leaders, especially from the late 1830′s. Remeber there was a state Extermination Order against them. Rhetoric on both sides was very heated. Our church has said nothing hateful. My church, and I specifically, applaud peoples’ love for their fellow man. I personally believe that homosexuality is a combination of choice, environment, and dna. Many people who have tendencies to be gay, may not ever be in an environment that raises the question of an alternate lifestyle. Thus they will continue with the status quo.

    I guess that ultimately what I am trying to say is, Hate is wrong. Support of Prop 8 is not hate, but support of ones own personal beliefs. If you believe in an idea, support it as much as strongly as you possibly can. If you lose, do not be upset, learn, and develop a winning strategy for next time. If you win, be prepared, the fight may not be over.

  • Chris

    A few things here.

    First, this article relies mainly on straw man arguments in terms of poor acts committed by pro-civil right people. Boycotting, civil disobedience and peaceful demonstrations are very American and are intelligent responses. There may have been 1 or 2 acts of violence by people who behaved poorly, but those are the exception to the rule and are not condoned by 99% of us favoring civil rights.

    Now in terms of threatening retribution – if you mean protesting in front of the building of a group that paid a lot of money to oppose us or boycotting businesses – how is that wrong? We all agree that violence and destruction of property are wrong. However, when did choosing where to spend my money and voicing my opinion peacefully make me a hypocrite? Really, isn’t spending money with an organization/company that paid to take away my rights essentially subsidizing their campaign? This issue is likely to appear on the ballot again. Why would I want to spend the next 4 years lining the coffers of those who will spend that money to limit my rights?

    Finally, you might want to study some history. This will of the people argument doesn’t hold water when it comes to civil rights. Slavery, women’s suffrage (in most cases), rights of foreigners, minority civil rights, ending separate but equal, interracial marriage – they all came through the President, Congress or the Supreme Court. Protecting all people’s rights from popular votes in a fundamental of the American Constitution.

  • Chris

    Cameron,

    First off, I am a different Chris than the one you are responding too.

    However, the institution of marriage has changed greatly as women are no longer the property of men and people of different religions and ethnicities can get marries.

    However, Civil Unions and Marriage is not the same. Even if we fixed civil unions to somehow include all the rights of marriage (which they do not currently) – they still imply less value and are demeaning. Separate but equal was outlawed in this country for that very reason (separate is NEVER actually equal). No one grows up dreaming of getting civil unioned.

    If there was really no difference, than every couple gay or straight should spin a wheel to determine whether they are married or civil unioned at the county court. It could be a fun game. Something tells me though that heterosexual couples everywhere would have a big problem with this system, because they inherently recognize that civil unions are inferior.

  • soitgoes

    Exactly Chris,

    If Marriage and Civil Unions are the same thing then why do we have to have one for heterosexuals and one for homosexuals? What are you people so afraid of? Marriage is a civil institution thus a civil right, you cannot treat people differently under the law. What if a Prop was put on the ballot to redefine Free Speech as only applying to men and it got 51% of the vote, would that be alright? Please read the 14th Amendment and really process what it means.

    This is not a marriage issue, it is a civil rights issue. My heterosexual marriage will not be threaten by letting gay couples have the same right but I believe that the passage of prop 8 has made MY marriage worth less. Prop 8 has, to me, redefined marriage from being a union based on love and has defined it as a union between people of privilege, taking one big step back toward the days when interracial marriages were “unconstitutional”.

  • New Hampshire

    Well if you boycott states and companies, I will boycott every state and company whose employees contributed to the “NO ON 8″ movement. (I have heard that contributions came in from virtually every state [if not every state] in the Union)

    Come on, this is getting a little bit out of hand.

    Furthermore, I should boycott Hollywood for disagreeing with me. No more movies or TV, and no more NBA on TNT because Magic Johnson attacked my family for voting and endorsing “NO ON 8.”

    I also know that monies given to the “NO ON 8″ cause exceeded the contributions on the other side. What happened there? Misuse of funds? In a very simplistic view, there was an inverse relationship between voting outcome and contributions collected. In short, those who spent more, received fewer votes.

    I am not advocating that the “voice of the people” should determine our civil rights and liberties, I am saying that there is a process. Believe me, I live in New Hampshire, and the town hall meetings can get way out of hand, and people start voting about the weirdest things. I thought my post was relatively clear in that regard. I apologize for that. I am saying that things should move through the courts and the state senate.

    The protests and boycotts themselves might not get you anything but negative public opinion. It is the hatred, threats, and potential for violence that concerns me. Oftentimes people who are otherwise sane and cordial act irresponsibly in mobs and crowds.

    Protests and rallies are, in and of themselves, not wrong, its the escalation that inevitably comes thereafter that causes problems.

  • David in Atlanta

    It ironic if not comical that members of the morman church should be dictating marriage law. Write to your representatives, as an investigation should be launched into the political agenda of this ‘church’. This clearly violate the separation of church and state, and their tax-free status as such should be revoked immediately.

  • Myles

    This in not a civil rights issue. It is a definition of marriage issue.

    Why do you think that marriage is an inherent right? The Constitution says nothing about the inalienable right of marriage. Marriage is established and defined by societies to promote those behaviors that will ensure the survival (and growth) of the society.

    And as far as equal treatment under the law (Amendment 14), this is absolutely equal. Any person in this country can marry any other person of the opposite gender that they choose. Well, actually there are laws against intra-family marriage, and some other age related laws – I guess those trample on people’s rights too, don’t they?

  • Chris

    NH, you are taking the boycotting to a real extreme. It would not make logical sense to boycott a state because some money came from there. And for the most part no one has suggested this. I know there was one minor movement to boycott skiing and the film festival in Utah because it is very heavily Mormon, but I am guessing very little will come from that. However, boycotting businesses who’s owners contributed to eliminating your rights makes perfect sense.

    If you care that much about “Yes on 8″‘s viewpoint, you can absolutley boycott Hollywood. They will probably contribute to our side of the issue again in the future. It would not be an immature or hostile response on your part. I guess it depends on how passionate you are about keeping same sex couples from getting married.

    For me, I am deeply hurt and affected by Proposition 8. It is a personal attack on me. And it is “gay hate.” Now I do believe there are people who supported Proposition 8 with the best intentions in mind. The same way there were people who supported the segregation of races with the best intentions in mind. However, that does not prevent it from being discrimination and having really negative effects on real people. Because of that, I cannot possibly give my money, respect or recognition to those who supported it.

    When you consider that there is a good chance this will appear on another ballot it becomes downright irresonsible of me to give money to people who will turn right back around and donate it to hurt me again. It would actually be illogical and unintellegent of me to not boycott them.

    Also, soitgoes, agree.

  • Cameron Kehler

    Chris,

    Please do not equate a vote for a ban on gay marriage as “gay hate.” I would guarantee you that most people who voted for the ban have no problems with gays in general. Why is it so hard to believe that those who support the ban see marriage as an institution defined between a man and a woman and nothing more. As I pointed out in my article, those of you who see it as hate are the ones displaying intolerance, because you fail to see our side of the arguement.

  • Chris

    Cameron,

    I don’t doubt that there are SOME people who genuinley were not trying to hurt gay people, but still supported Prop 8. However, no matter how nicely it is phrased it is disrimination and has a hateful effect. The only reason that you would need to ban one subset of people from using a particular legal phrasing is that you view thier legal (non-religious) union as inferior.

    Let’s not kid ouselves though, I guarentee a number of people for Prop 8 were very hateful or at least held very discriminatory viewpoints. They were smart enough to avoid using hateful words with adults. However, even the official campaign web site for youth (iprotectmarriage.com, refred to homosexuality as naturally unhealthy and equated gay marriage to a man marrying his daughter).

    However, there is no intolerance on my part as I believe you are fully entitled to your opinions. The supposedly beautiful part of America is that we can all disagree deeply on many issues and can be entitiled to our opinions, but also be entitled to equal treatment under the law. That has now been eliminated. This is why this will eventually be overturned in a court if nothing else, because it violated a fundamental American value of equal legal treatment.

    Give all people equal legal treatment and then if an individual or church wants to deny their definition of marriage to gay people, black people, people of another faith, etc., they are perfectly entitled to do so.

  • Betsi

    The Mormons have had a formal complaint filed against them because of all the non-monetary donations the Mormon church made to Prop H8. http://www.kansascity.com/440/story/889481.html

    But let’s look at what prior Mormon leaders have said about marriage, shall we?

    “It is a fact worthy of note that the shortest lived nations of which we have record have been monogamic. Rome…was a monogamic nation and the numerous evils attending that system early laid the foundation for that ruin which eventually overtook her.”
    George Q. Cannon in Journal of Discourses, v.13, page 202

    “This law of monogamy, or the monogamic system, laid the foundation for prostitution and the evils and diseases of the most revolting nature and character under which modern Christendom groans,…”
    Orson Pratt in Journal of Discourses, v.13, page 195

    “Monogamy is the source of prostitution and whoredom”
    Brigham Young in Journal of Discourses v.11 page 128

    “…the one-wife system not only degenerates the human family, both physically and intellectually, but it is entirely incompatible with philosophical notions of immortality; it is a lure to temptation, and has always proved a curse to a people.”
    John Taylor in Millennial Star, v.15, page 227

    Oh, wait, suddenly they’re all pro-monogamy even if monogamy “degenerates the human family”???

    The Mormons say whatever is politically expedient… and they’ve committed any alleged crimes against themselves to try and deflect the well-deserved criticism against their arrogant bigotry? The Mormons have a proven history of saying and doing *whatever* they want, including things like murdering over 150 men, women and children at Mountain Meadows.

    Buying an election is real small potatoes for them. Don’t believe their lies – Mormonism is lying for their god. The god of this world who brags at being able to buy anything in this world… for money…

  • Allison

    Is anyone that wrote on here apart of Millersville University? I wanted to publish responses in our next issue due tomorrow.
    -Allison

  • Jack Weber

    The Mormon Church’s position in connection with the State of California’s Proposition 8 is in direct conflict, direct opposition, and direct violation to the eleventh and the twelfth articles of faith, and verses in the Doctrine & Covenants, section 134. The right of civil marriage existed in the State of California for homosexual people, as clearly stated by the State of California’s Supreme Court. Regarding the twelfth article of faith, the Mormon Church’s efforts were clearly not to obey, honor, and sustain the law as it existed, but to overturn that law. Many other religions had the spiritual and religious right to solemnized marriages for homosexual people, and the Mormon Church did seek to deny them these spiritual and religious rights. The eleventh article of faith and Doctrine & Covenants, section 134, both clearly state that the Mormon Church should not interfere with the spiritual or religious rights of others. The Doctrine & Covenants, section 134, verse 9, specifically state that it is inappropriate to mingle religious influence with civil government where it fosters one religious viewpoint, but proscribes spiritual privileges and individual civil rights of others. The Doctrine & Covenants, section 134, verse 4, clearly limits the exercise of the Mormon Church’s religion where it “infringe upon the rights and liberties of others.” Marriage is a “right” in the United States (as clearly stated in Loving v. Virginia in 1967) and this right is recognized by the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which the United States is a signatory. The Mormon Church attempted and forced its own moral standard upon others, and thereby, depriving others of spiritual and religious privileges and civil rights.

    The Doctrine & Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, the Book of Mormon, and the Holy Bible, and their contents are binding upon the membership and the leadership of the Mormon Church as the official doctrine of the Mormon Church.

    The membership and the leadership of the Mormon Church has apostatized from the eleventh and the twelfth articles of faith and the verses in Doctrine and Covenants, section 134 as previously mentioned.

  • http://httpwwwlumikancomhowtobuystock.blogspot.com/ A mad inactive member

    Interesting that you made the connection “shoved down their throats” with gay sexual activity so readily. You speaking from personal experience? (Not that there’s anything wrong with that.)

    Your church is a beacon of allowing others freedom of speech. You know, if you discover church history that doesn’t coincide with the Mormon dogma-de jour, you’re encouraged to share it with your family and friends and neighbors, even bring it up in Gospel Doctrine. Better yet, verify your understanding with so-called apostates. You won’t have a single problem renewing your temple recommend.

    This is one of my favorite parts from the statement on the linked page:

    “No one on any side of the question should be vilified, intimidated, harassed or subject to erroneous information…”

    To which part of that *doesn’t* the Mormon church’s tactics regarding Prop 8 (as well as their every day behavior) apply.

    Vilifying homosexuals in every regard. Vilifying Mayor Gavin Newsom in the “Yes on Prop 8″ ads. Vilifying the lesbian grade school teacher whose class attended her wedding. The list goes on.

    Intimidating church members to donate time and money. Intimidating donors to “No on Prop 8″ by threatening to expose them if they didn’t donate an equal amount to the “Yes on Prop 8″ side. The list goes on.

    Harassing California residents with out-of-state phone calls from groups organized and managed by the Mormons. Harassing the children who they used in the “Yes on Prop 8″ by using clips of them without their parents consent or permission. This falls under the “erroneous information” category as well because the parents of some of those children were against Prop 8. Even after the parents asked to have clips including their children removed, they continued to use them. So much for protecting children.

    Subjecting to erroneous information is my favorite. On what topic doesn’t the Mormon church lie? No on Prop 8 ads were full of lies and fear mongering. They lied about being forced to perform temple marriages for homosexual couples if Prop 8 passed. Oh, hell. There are so many ways the Mormon church lies or “subjects to erroneous information” on a daily basis, that I’m sure even your brainwashed mind can think of some.

    C’mon, turn off that “the prophet has spoken so the thinking is done” switch in your brain for just five minutes and try that thinking for yourself thing. It might hurt at first, but you can do it.

    Of course if you’re here in the role of an apologist, it won’t be long before you’re joining us as an apostate. Come on in, the water’s fine.

    Once again, the Mormon church and its leaders are the epitome of hypocrisy. I know more than a few die-hard members who are truly decent people who are mortified and ashamed of their church leaders’ behavior with regards to Prop 8.

  • Dan Dormann

    Cameron:

    I don’t think the issue is redefining marriage for religion. The issue is simply whether counties in California can turn away same sex couples who would like a legal document to certify their marriage. There is no reason why this document should not be issued. This does not change the religious meaning of marriage. While many religions (Catholic and Mormons) may only recognize marriage between a man and a woman, other religions have taken a different path. The California Constitution protects marriage as a fundamental right. It also protects equality before the law as a fundamental right. The court argued very convincingly that discrimination based on sexual orientation is unconstitutional. 70 years ago California still banned interracial marriages. This was wrong and the court was right to overturn the ban. In 70 years nobody will understand that anybody could have denied the fundamental right to marriage to interracial couples or gay couples.