Cliff LyonCA Prop 8: Jaw-Droppingly UnAmerican, UnConstitutional, and UnCivil
Lets be honest. The LDS church should lose their tax-exempt status by the most conservative reading of the law.
Lets also be clear the preponderance of modern, good Mormons, though silent, are not proud of the LDS church’s intrusion into the lives people, families, and the rights of all Americans.
Ed Firmage has spoken out on this issue.
The good news is almost no one born since 1980, Mormon kids included, has any problem with homosexuality and nothing the LDS church will do will change that. If they don’t reform soon, they will begin to lose members ever earlier.
Is it time for the GA to grow some cojones and join the human race.
November 1st, 2008 at 9:26 pm
now is the time for all good Latter-day Saints to speak out and be courageous! when I was raised in the Church I was taught never to tell a lie. Sadly, the Church I grew up in is financially funding a campaign that is indulging in gross lies, falsehoods and deceptions. It’s time for conservatives and Mormons to stop scapegoating the gay community for all the evils they see in society. If patriarchal marriage is collapsing, then you better blame the patriarchs!
And if you are a Mormon who supports Prop 8 and hides your homophobic bigotry behind a smug pious brow, then shame on you. I hope you only get one wife in heaven and that your planet full of spirit children evolve into rational atheists and cease to believe in you.
gayly yours,
Troy
November 1st, 2008 at 9:58 pm
This looks like a pretty effective ad to me. You may have also seen that Steve Young’s wife is publicly opposing the Prop. Steve Young isn’t commenting, but obviously he can’t risk losing endorsement income. I was glad to see a well-known, high profile church member dare to take a stand in opposition to the church.
November 1st, 2008 at 10:11 pm
While driving north on El Camino Real in Mountain View, Calif. today, I noticed a cute young gal wearing a BYU sweatshirt and holding a sign saying “Yes” to prop 8. Many of the cars passing by the intersection honked, but many more did not. As I drove by, I yelled to her, “go back to Provo!” She smiled and waved and then looked away and toward the next oncoming car, hoping for better luck.
While toasting the newly elected Obama administration in San Fran this Tuesday evening, it sure would be nice to toast the defeat of Prop. 8, too.
November 1st, 2008 at 10:36 pm
I’ll drink to that, James.
November 2nd, 2008 at 12:03 am
“Why can’t everybody leave everybody else the hell alone”.
~Jimmy Durante
November 2nd, 2008 at 6:56 am
Not even your Messiah Barack Obama and his sidekick Joe Biden believe in gay marriage. But that is beside the point. The LDS Church has every right to speak out on moral issues. Back in the days of the ERA people tried to challenge the Church’s tax exempt status and those efforts failed miserably. But I’ll play devils advocate here, lets say the Church does lose its tax exempt status. The result is there could no longer be separation of Church and State. If the church is taxed then they have every right to full participation in government. In fact we could start electing politicians with the full backing of the Church. We could demand Angel Moroni statues be erected at city hall. We could demand Mormon prayers be administered in schools. You cannot tax a church but then claim separation. So go ahead and push to have churches that you don’t agree with lose their tax exempt status and the days of separation of church and state will be over forever.
November 2nd, 2008 at 7:44 am
Dan, I’m so glad you brought up the ERA. You reminded me of one of the reasons I left the Mormon church 30 years ago. I am a person who rarely feels anger, but I still feel anger over that — that my church did not support my equality with my male peers. And how I personally, first-hand saw the church organize and TRAIN at a ward and stake level women to disrupt the IWY conference in Salt Lake. You betcha, they had every right to do that. But I finally understood that members of the church were required to get in line and do just what they were told without studying, thinking, and understanding, and then deciding on the issues themselves. And I was stunned how willing women were to turn against themselves in this process.
The church teaches ugly discrimination. You may not want to admit it, Danny boy, but it’s true. They finally admitted blacks in 1978 under social pressure. Eventually they will get a message from God to accept gay marriage. Yes, they will. And who knows, if we live long enough, they may admit women are equal to men.
November 2nd, 2008 at 9:39 am
Danite Warrior,
At least Obama and Biden aren’t wanting to take rights away from anyone. Constitution are supposed to protect rights. Does you marriage need protection?
Do you need government to provide marriage counseling too?
November 2nd, 2008 at 10:13 am
Cliff,
Once again, you are wrong. No matter what Obama has said on the campaign trail, he does want to take away our rights…at least one in particular
Remember the Supreme recently confirmed that it was the Right to Keep and BEAR ARMS
So people have a right to keep arms, but not in the “inner city”. That isn’t wanting to take away a right?
November 2nd, 2008 at 10:21 am
guns … yawn.
November 2nd, 2008 at 10:23 am
In 2000 the citizens of California overwhelmingly (61%) voted to affirm the traditional definition of marriage, the common definition of marriage that had prevailed since the founding of the state and the definition that has prevailed until recently in virtually every society around the world. What evolved thereafter was a live and let live solution where domestic partners had de facto civil unions and every right that the state could grant without redefining marriage. Homosexual couples, unlike blacks, prosper economically more than heterosexual couples, and the homosexual lobby is arguably the most powerful force in California politics. The California Supreme Court’s recent decision, however, added two additional rights: the right to stigmatize or sue anyone who publicly disagreed with the new legal definition of marriage and right to sue for the new definition of marriage in other states based on the full faith and credit clause of the constitution.
Despite attempts to have it barred from the ballot, Proposition 8 allows the citizens of California the opportunity to re-establish the traditional definition of marriage. The opponents of Proposition 8, however, have defined a yes vote as a vote for intolerance and the state government and media have framed Proposition 8 in a most negative light.
Tolerance, however, runs both directions. The person who ripped off my “Democrats for Proposition 8” bumper sticker was not very tolerant. The people who have stolen Pro Prop 8 yards signs have not shown their tolerance. The people who on blogs assert that opposition to Proposition 8 can only stem from hatred and fail to acknowledge that there can be any legitimate arguments on the other side do not strike me as tolerant.
The latest tactic is to make Proposition 8 a referendum on the Mormon Church, betting that linking Prop 8 to a religious minority is a winning tactic. The tactic may work, but the Latter-day Saints are not alone in opposition Proposition 8. See, for example, this link or this one from the Orthodox Union, which seems a model of reasoned tolerance.
November 2nd, 2008 at 10:24 am
The U.S. Constitution says that the laws have to apply equally to everyone. Why is the LDS Church against the Constitution?
November 2nd, 2008 at 10:57 am
I have nothing against gay marriage, but what I do have a problem with are judges that impose their will against the wishes of the people. The people of California had already spoken on this subject and some activist judges thrust their will aside. This is tyranny by judge. If the people of California believe that gays have the right to marry then they will petition their legislatures to pass a law or even amend the Constitution. That way there is an honest debate and the democratic process is respected. Activist judges must be reigned in or we all are at risk of losing our freedoms. They are unelected and unaccountable and often times given lifetime appointments which makes them arrogant and indifferent to the will of a free people. Activist groups now routinely shop for sympathetic judges to impose their will and completely bypass the legislative process. This is judge-craft and it’s evil.
The Constitution never intended to give judges God like powers. It wasn’t until Mulberry vs. Madison that the Supreme Court usurped authority and heaped on itself powers it was never given by virtue of the Constitution. This decision is the father of all Supreme Court travesties because it lead the way for despicable decisions such as Dread Scott, and Roe vs Wade.
Our dictatorial court system has also given cover to unscrupulous politicians that hide behind courts to make unpopular decisions for them. They have abdicated their authority to courts so they do not have to pay the political price. What needs to be done and should have been done after the dreadful Mulberry vs. Madison treachery is that a Constitutional amendment should be ratified that puts explicit limits on the authority of courts and forbidding them from creating laws. There should be no such thing as “case law”. We are particularly in peril now with at least two Supreme Court “Justices” who have openly confessed that they have committed treason by basing cases on international law as opposed to adhering strictly to the letter of the Constitution. My fear is that Obama will appoint judges that too will put International law above the Constitution and further erode the rights that our Constitution protects. No other document should ever circumvent or be held above the United States Constitution. It is the supreme law in this country and if any International body enacts laws that contradict our Constitution then we must resist to the death any attempt to have that law imposed on us.
If we continue our present course we will no longer be a Constitutional Republic but ruled by fiat by uncountable, unelected, elitist, judges. That would be the greatest injustice of them all.
November 2nd, 2008 at 11:09 am
Sarah — Pu-lease! Why do you belittle our governmental system of checks and balances? These so-called “activist judges” in California were mostly conservative Republicans! And don’t you dare denigrate the court’s “activism” when it rightfully ruled on Brown v. Board of Education. The courts determined that segregation was against the great values and potential of this nation. So stop the hyperbolic rhetoric about the ‘tyranny of the judge’. You are being ridiculous. And moreso you are trying to hide your own homophobic bigotry by pointing to the courts. You don’t want gay people being equal to you under the law. You don’t want gays to have the same freedoms, rights and liberties that you enjoy. You want gays to be second class citizens. Admit it Sarah. Just own your contempt for us, openly and honestly. You’ll feel better about yourself. Honest. Go ahead. Try it.
November 2nd, 2008 at 11:17 am
Troy
I believe Sarah opened her statement saying she does not personally disapprove of gay marriage, she only disapproves of judges making our decisions for us. I for one am adamantly opposed to gay marriage. Yes gays have the right to pursue life liberty and pursuit of happiness like every other legal citizen of this country, but this does not mean we have to redefine marriage. Gays should be able to visit each other in the hospital, have joint bank accounts, and enjoy the same benefits as married men and women but those things can be done legislatively without being called marriage.
November 2nd, 2008 at 11:36 am
sarah:
Your comment is so full of misrepresentations it would take too much time to flush them all out, at least on a Sunday. But here are a few thoughts:
You state:
One reason for lifetime tenure of federal judges that is they are shielded them from the will of the people and allowed to rule based on the constitution. The judges in California interpreted the law/state constitution before them exactly right and, in doing so, they correctly ignored the will of the vocal opponents of gay marriage. The process you advocate was followed by the book; it’s just the result you have an issue with. Get over it.
You state:
It’s Marbury v. Madison!
You state:
“Basing” a decision versus “supporting” a decision are two completely different concepts. Your conclusion that the decisions were “based” on foreign precedent is misguided and, shall we say, baseless. Regardless, “committed treason,” you say?? Go fuck yourself! You obviously have no idea what the term treason means.
Finally, as you yourself note, the myriad assertions you raise in your comment have a common denominator - fear. Tell us, Sarah, what is really driving your fear? Sounds to me as though you have some issues with race that need resolution; and quickly, hopefully, for your sake!
November 2nd, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Yes — Sarah has “nothing against gay marriage” — just like I have nothing against black people. I just wish they had their own drinking fountain…
November 2nd, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Leo —
Mormons don’t have the right to define what a traditional family is. Sorry. The ‘yes’ coalition no longer has the right to decide what families in America will be legally recognized. I’m sorry that you are about to loose your straight privilege here, but your time is up. Liberals have too long cowardly acquiesced as conservatives have high-jacked the flag, patriotism and the definition of “family”. That day is done. You no longer get to decide what families are legally recognized, protected and honored in our culture. We queers are finally claiming the freedom and liberties of our nation and we will not back down.
Mormons who support Prop 8 are hypocrites. Your own theology allows you to marry multiple women in heaven. Apostles Nelson, Oaks and Perry are all sealed to multiple women in heaven. Your leaders are polygamists. Sorry. They are. Until they repudiate their celestial marriages and de-cannonize D&C 132, y’all are just one revelation away from being just like your FLDS cousins. You can theologically bounce that around all you want, but it doesn’t change the game.
Let me drive the point home one more time. You don’t get to decide what a “traditional marriage” is anymore. But you’ll be okay. I’m sure there where many stubborn whites who fought and argued and scowled when Jim Crow laws were abolished. They hated to loose their privilege.
Pro 8 Mormons remind me a lot of of Pro Jim Crow southerners. Thank god the courts intervened.
Troy
November 2nd, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Troy
Well in California LDS and non-LDS alike are about to define marriage and gay marriage is going away. On Tuesday every “Married” gay couple is about to be served their divorce papers.
November 2nd, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Danite:
Not so fast: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-poll1-2008nov01,0,3060511.story
November 2nd, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Oh my Danite friend. Prop 8 is one portion of a larger movement. You have to think long-term. There is a wave of social change that is sweeping over this nation. The old patriarchs are going to be wiped right out into irrelevance. Maybe it will take ten years. Maybe 15. But it will happen.
Last week on Fabrizio’s Radio West program on Prop 8, the Evergreen rep said that the Church was concerned that marriage was so irrelevant in Nordic nations (that legalized gay marriage) that many missionaries were having a hard time converting people. Ah ha! So maybe THIS has something to do with California.
The Mormon brand is becoming obsolete. Of course, maybe it’s not the gays that are the problem. Maybe it could be the product they are selling, that musty patriarchy, is just NOT a hot commodity in the 21st Century marketplace. Adapt or change. The god of the Old Testament will all his xenophobic, racist, homophobic misogyny is like a tired DOS operating system. He’s redundant and outdated. Let him die a miserable death and let the masses be liberated!
The fate of gay equality does not rise or fall on Tuesday. We are witnessing a much larger, much grander shift in human consciousness. Obama is part of that. Gay marriage is part of that. The environmental movement is part of that. It’s happening!
We are evolving from a fear based nation into a liberty based nation. And the old guardians are pissed. Let them hiss and wail!
November 4th, 2008 at 11:31 am
I was born after 1980 and I don’t like homosexuality. I think it’s bad for the family, bad for the individuals practicing it, and bad for society.
Now, I understand that people who identify themselves as homosexual have a rough time in our society which pressures them to conform. Anyone who exhibits deviant social behavior will be urged by their peers to change their ways, and this sometimes takes the form of hatred and persecution. I am sympathetic to their suffering. The stress of modern urban life can twist us in so many ways.
I don’t think I am a homophobe or a bigot. I have no problem with people who happen to practice homosexuality; rather, I have a problem with the homosexual behavior itself. Even it wouldn’t be a big deal if it were done in private, but the political gay movement has brought it very much into the public. While I respect the right of people to live according to the dictates of their own conscience, I am opposed to the idea that everyone else must endorse the homosexual way of life. I will tolerate this kind of behavior, but I will not validate it.
This isn’t about “us” versus “them”. It’s a legitimate disagreement over the role of government in the family. I don’t care what you do in your bedroom–that’s your business. But I do care what you do in the courtroom. Gay marriage as a legal institution does affect me personally, which means I have every right to support or oppose it. It has implications in tax policy, labor, military service, education, and other realms of public life.
It is not a matter of discrimination against one kind of person or another. People who are “gay” have just as much a right to marry someone of the opposite sex as people who are “straight.” I suppose the more fundamental question is, how should government and public policy look at marriage in the first place? What role does the state have in regulating relationships of this kind?
With the increasing variety and diversity of family structures these days, perhaps the state should diminish its legal regulation of the family unit and let it be only a religious or cultural construct instead. However, this raises the question of how to handle divorce, adoption, child custody, inheritance, and other things.
November 4th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Your choice of religion affects me in the same way. So what’s your point?
November 4th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
“I have no problem with people who happen to practice homosexuality; rather, I have a problem with the homosexual behavior itself.”
Uh, what? What exactly is the difference, in your mind, between “practicing homosexuality” and “homosexual behavior”?
November 4th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
“What role does the State have in regulating relationships of this kind?”
Gays, blacks, and every other kind of fragmenting concept that can be conceived of, are, in fact, the very state that you are talking about. It really isn’t a clique at the top. It’s all of us, as wide a spectrum as there is.
November 4th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Kevin,
Thanks for the honesty about your age. When I was your age, a wise man told me, “Cliff, no one will take you seriously until you are at least 30.” I think he was telling me to calm down and STFU.
I worry that you have articulated what appears to be very well thought-out argument, but a defensive one.
You should know that taken as a whole, this is the exact same argument used in past years by closeted homosexual republicans.
The dead give away is your interest in the sex part as Don just pointed out…
Believe it or not, you just told us you have no problem with the sex part, oops. I think, any straight man will agree, the thought of 2 men having sex is somewhere between disturbing and revolting. Not unlike the idea of two old people having sex, or pretty much anyone except me. (in fact, I think it should be illegal)
So if you must imagine gay people having sex, please visualize each of your family, friends, and teachers having sex. Pretty disgusting eh?
Now do you understand why singling out gay folks is bigotry?
Btw: You appear to be an active Mormon. So if you are gay, you should know that it IS NOT A CHOICE, and you cannot be ‘changed’. The sooner you come out the better for all.
Know that in the mainstream (non LDS world) being gay is not a bad thing. I imagine that must be a hard concept to grasp given the loyalty to the culture of the people who love you most. Some will understand, some will not. That sucks. But it seems, being gay in SLC is not bad at all.
But the rest of the world will LOVE you regardless and you DEFINITELY do not want to start out life in the closet in 2009.
November 4th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Obama the Paul, you asked “Your choice of religion affects me in the same way. So what’s your point?” My point is to demonstrate that I have a stake in the matter, and my opinion is not based on hatred, bigotry, or a will to dominate others. I made this point because I want to show that I am willing to “live and let live,” but that I also have a legitimate interest in promoting traditional marriage.
Don, I don’t see any difference between “practicing homosexuality” and “homosexual behavior.” They are two phrases which mean the same thing in my mind. The point of my statement is to show the difference between the practitioners of and the practice of homosexuality.
Cav, you say that the people are the State. Although the people participate in the State, through representation and other constructs, the two are not technically the same. When I refer to the State, I mean the body of laws of the people, and the enforcement of those laws, not the people themselves.
Cliff, I’m not sure that you understood me. My objection to homosexuality is not based on the sex itself, but based on the pair-bonding. People have sex for all kinds of reasons, not just reproduction, and I don’t think non-reproductive sex is any great social ill. However, the real trouble happens when that sex facilitates or accompanies the formation of homosexual pair bonds. These relationships can interfere with or preclude heterosexual pair bonds, which are necessary for the production and rearing of children, and which form the basis of the family unit.
The family, with a mother and father at the head, provide a wonderful network of support and love for children, enabling them to be happy and successful, and to move society and the human race forward. A family and a marriage is most successful when the husband and wife love each other and are committed to each other. I assume this commitment comes easier when the couple have not had a lot of previous sexual partners. So, if a man has an intimate relationship with another man, in the future he may never marry a woman and start a family; or, if he does, the emotional baggage of his previous relationship may prevent him from forming as strong a bond as possible with his future wife. If he develops a homosexual relationship after getting married and having children, his family may feel betrayed, confused, and alienated, and divorce will be likely. None of these outcomes are desirable.
Children who are raised without the strong love and support of a mother and father who love each other may have a hard time forming their own families someday. Without the example of a healthy family to draw upon, they may be lost in understanding the subtle attitudes and behaviors which are necessary to have a successful, harmonious family. This can create a vicious cycle in which children from broken families create broken families themselves, which is harmful and creates suffering. It holds people back from achieving their full potential.
As for the homosexual sex part itself, I am personally opposed to it, but I don’t mind if other people do it, as long as they keep it private. If it doesn’t affect me, I don’t know about it, and it has no social ills, then why should I care?
And the thought of my loved ones having sex doesn’t bother me at all. I don’t even mind the thought of my grandparents having sex. I understand that not everyone in the world is young and beautiful, but physical intimacy between them can be beautiful anyway. The expression of love between a man and his wife is a wonderful thing, having in it the culmination of trust, committment, honesty, and affection. It is the pinnacle of our biological purpose, and I am not disgusted by it.
FYI, yes, I am an active Mormon, and I am not gay. But I understand that there are lots of good people out there who are gay, whether practicing or not, and as a society we should be sympathetic to them and should try to figure out some way they can fit in and be productive and happy in society. I just don’t think that should come at the expense of the traditional, heterosexual family.
November 4th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Kevin:
Well, I have to hand it to you. You seem to have covered all the right wing talking points on the subject.
Now, why don’t you just be honest with yourself and to us: you hate gays and the gay lifestyle!
November 4th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Kevin you might not be aware, marriages are far more likely to succumb to heterosexual infidelity (pair bonds is such a strange expression). I assume that would not be a reason to outlaw heterosexual marriages.
November 4th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Obama the Paul,
My ideas are my own; they are not “right wing talking points”. I don’t listen to conservative talk radio. Is it really unfathomable to you that someone could disagree with you without their position being based on hatred?
Becky,
No, that is not a reason to outlaw heterosexual marriages, but it may be a reason to outlaw adultery. Infidelity is bad in any kind of sexual relationship. The difference I see between a homosexual relationship and a heterosexual relationship is that a heterosexual relationship can eventually produce and nurture children.
A traditional family, with a mother and father at the head, can only exist within the framework of heterosexual marriage. How that marriage is recognized by the state may vary, but at its most basic level, it is a relationship of love, commitment, and trust. This relationship is good for the children and good for society.
November 4th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Kevin:
Here’s the problem. You are impressing a wish on reality. Your wish is much like Paul Mero’s - some pie in the sky notion that “traditional” marriage produces a man and woman in love and who pull off raising a full quiver of children in a house with a green lawn surrounded by a fence.
Here’s reality. 50% of traditional marriages are in the trash heap. The man does not love the woman or vice versa. The kids are at wits end listening to mom/dad fight over everything and anything. I’ll take a peaceful household any day skippered by loving homosexuals than one where the heterosexual parents wish they never married.
Finally, you state that a traditional relationship is good for the children and good for society. Are you necessarily excluding the converse - i.e., a non traditional relationship is not good for the children and not good for society?
November 4th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Hey Cliff; “I think he was telling me to calm down and STFU”. Not much has changed eh?
This is such a stupidly managed issue, and typical of America’s inability to solve simple problems without a giant circus and a bunch selfish whining from all parties. I attribute this difficulty to the fact that religious freaks founded this country, and in my opinion, a nation can never completely leave its origins, any more than people can. It would be nice to think we could completely remake ourselves, but generally we don’t. I defer to Fromm in this, even if you really want to change, it will be only with tremendous effort and desire, and even then success is not guaranteed.
This issue is being tactically fought incorrectly IMO by those that want gay marriage. The trick would be to define marriage down, not levitate gay “marriage” up. Since it is such a falied institution anyway, what is the big deal?
In Germany currently, there is a move to require reaffirmation of vows after 7 years. No re-upping, marriage dissolved. The parameters to divide property and child custody are all standard, no matter which hole you like to put it in, or rather what sexual proclivities a couple has.
The Germans simply called all “marriage” civil unions, regulated under their Federal law, irrespective of how a couple is doin it.
Any complications that you wish to obligate yourself to based on ideology or religion is acceptable and will be upheld by the state like any contract. Case closed, issue decided already.
November 5th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Here’s a contrasting point of view for you!!
November 13th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
http://www.america.gov/st/democracy-english/2008/May/20080623194736eaifas0.658703.html
Allowing the majority to vote away the rights of a minority is unconstitutional and unAmerican in and of itself, regardless of your personal feelings on the minority or the right in question.