Proposition 8 Aftermath

[Dead Hoosiers]

I just turned off my tv after watching hundreds, if not thousands of pro gay marriage thugs surrounding the Mormon temple in Westwood and beating hapless Mormons with fists and sticks. The cops are doing very little. If this had been an anti-abortion rally, the cops would have waded in with their clubs--breaking the heads, legs and arms of peaceful protesters.

The big media news sites are playing this down. The beef the gays have is that the Mormons raised a lot of money to defeat Prop 8, which overturns same sex marriage in California. Apparently raising money and voting for what you believe in is a crime worthy of not just thrashing people, but as I read on Pro 8 websites this morning, to kill them. It was almost laughable to watch these criminals crying about how they were "victims" and that [beating on people] is what they've been reduced to by the Mormon "haters."

Maybe there'll be some good film available by morning.

[Obviousman]

I disagree with violent protest. I am not gay - but I support gay marriage. No-one is trying to marry me off to a bloke, and I have no intention of marrying one. A gay couple pose no threat to me - even if they are married.

No matter what your position is, you can make your feelings known without resorting to violence.

[Obviousman]

BTW - I'm athiest, so I favour no particular religious view on the matter.

[Data Cable]

Looks like it's time to start the campaign for banning marriage altogether.

[Jason]

I'll be watching out my window today to see how big the planned protests around the Salt Lake temple actually get.

Of course, blacks and latinos in California voted nearly 7 to 1 for Prop 8, the Catholic church was in fact the largest CA religion that backed it, and Mormons only make up at most about 10% of the 52% of the state that passed the measure, but Mormons are apparently a more acceptable target than blacks, latinos, and Catholics.

[Data Cable]

Sucks to be an unfairly-targeted minority, don't it.

[Jason]

Nov 7, 2008 12:06:05 GMT -4 Data Cable said:

Sucks to be an unfairly-targeted minority, don't it.

We're used to it. LDS Church history is basically one long story of persecution, and we fully expect people will hate us more and more as moral standards continue to decline while we work to uphold what we feel is right.

And we weren't targeting anyone by supporting Proposition 8 - we were in fact defending a moral institution we support from an over-reaching liberal court.
If Prop 8 had failed, you would not be seeing Mormon protestors at ACLU or LGBT buildings. Certainly you wouldn't see comments coming from Church members like the following:

"Burn their f---ing churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers," wrote "World O Jeff" on the JoeMyGod blogspot today within hours of California officials declaring Proposition 8 had been approved by a margin of 52 percent to 48 percent. Confirmation on voter approval of amendments in Florida and Arizona came earlier.

On a blog website, "Tread" wrote, "I hope the No on 8 people have a long list and long knives."

Another contributor to the JoeMyGod website said, "While financially I supported the Vote No, and was vocal to everyone and anyone who would listen, I have never considered being a violent radical extremist for our equal rights. But now I think maybe I should consider becoming one. Perhaps that is the only thing that will affect the change we so desperately need and deserve."

A contributor identifying himself as "Joe" said, "I swear, I'd murder people with my bare hands this morning."
On the "Queerty" website, "Stenar" asked, "Can someone in CA please go burn down the Mormon temples there, PLEASE. I mean seriously. DO IT."

"I'm going to give them something to be f---ing scared of. … I'm a radical who is now on a mission to make them all pay for what they've done," wrote "Jonathan."

On yet another site, "Americablog," "scottinsf" wrote, "Trust me. I've got a big list of names of mormons and catholics that were big supporters of Prop 8. … As far as mormons and catholics … I warn them to watch their backs."

"I hope they all rot in hell, those servants of a lying, corrupt devil! BAN RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM," wrote Angelo.

"Hope the gay waiters at their hotel p---ed in all the drinks they served these cretins," "Jake" wrote about protectors of traditional marriage.

"If you're planning a heterosexual wedding in California … be prepared for picketers. Designate someone to watch the parking lot … You're going to have lots of unexpected expenses. Add $500 to your budget for security. … Be prepared for the flowers not lasting to the reception or the tuxedos showing up two sizes too small or the music at the reception being a way too loud or the cake tasting a little funny," stated another threat. "Be afraid. Be very afraid. We are everywhere."

**** them, any white shirt ********* come knocking on my door they're liable to be dogfood for the next year. I'll at least mace them in the face.

"Dale says he hopes people will treat each other with civility and respect."
I certainly will - with all of the "civility and respect" you mormons had in your disgusting, hateful, lie-filled commercials.
DIE IN A FIRE YOU PIECE OF HATEFUL ****.
Oh wait, did I just write that? My sincere apologies.

The Mormons can take their Scrabble boards and their family game nights and shove it up their ***.
Nothing but hate for the Mormon "Church." Rot in hell, *******.

The Mormon church is afraid of me. It is afraid that if I were to marry another woman, the entire fabric of society would fail. I am all powerful. I am omnipotent. I am lesbo.
Well f*** you Mormon church. F*** you to f***ing hell. I’ve had it with living in Utah and turning the other cheek and seeing the best in the Mormon church. I’ve had it with trying to be decent and upstanding and considerate. I love my good Mormon friends. And this is no reflection on them. It is a reflection on a church that instead of taking care of their own with the 10% their members pay, give tens of thousands of dollars to promote bigotry in California.

On the record, the Church itself donated about $2,000, in in-kind travel costs. Church members as a whole probably donated quite a bit more, but of course those are private contributions. Claims that the Church donated "$80 million" to the campaign are simply false.

[smlbstcbr]

Wow! those are very intolerant words, especially coming from a minority, but, as long as Internet be anonymous, it's relatively normal to read such nonsense written. One question: What would have been the benefits of approving Proposition 8 for homosexual persons?
As a personal opinion, I think that the Bill of Rights establishes freedom of religion. So, if Mormons/Christians believe that homosexual marriage is immoral, so be it for them. But if others believe that gender is not a decisive matter for marriage, same thing applies to them. After all, the Bill of Rights establishes the freedom of religion and action, obviously if the principles of that religion or action aren't illegal. Here comes another question: is there a law that forbids same gender marriage? Because, if there isn't, the denial for such petition is anti-constitutional (as we would call it here). I can tolerate homosexual marriages, after all, the decision is up to them, but with marriage come certain things, such as raising children; point which I find very, very controversial and I don't find myself quite tolerant with homosexual couples trying to raise children...
PS. Is there not a Constitutional Tribunal there for such things?, here we used to have one until Morales took over the government and its mission was to ensure the Constitutional Rights to be obeyed by all government institutions and Justice System.

[Jason]

Nov 7, 2008 13:43:25 GMT -4 smlbstcbr said:

Wow! those are very intolerant words, especially coming from a minority...

Especially for a minority that holds that they are arguing for the tolerant position.

One question: What would have been the benefits of approving Proposition 8 for homosexual persons?

Let me give you some background.
In 2000 California voters passed Propositin 22 to protect traditional marriage in the state by about 61%. It read: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
In May of this year, the California Supreme Court struck down Proposition 22 4-3.
So Proposition 8 went on the ballot this year, an ammendment of the California state constitution that had exactly the same wording as Proposition 22. It passed with a vote of 52%. The campaign for and against it was huge - roughly $35 million was spent on either side.

As a personal opinion, I think that the Bill of Rights establishes freedom of religion. So, if Mormons/Christians believe that homosexual marriage is immoral, so be it for them. But if others believe that gender is not a decisive matter for marriage, same thing applies to them. After all, the Bill of Rights establishes the freedom of religion and action, obviously if the principles of that religion or action aren't illegal.

Part of the argument for Proposition 8 is that legal recognition of same sex marriages might form a foundation for lawsuits against churches that refuse to perform same-sex marriages, or even for hate speech charges against churches that speak out against homosexuality.
The LDS church in particular is now being threatened with petitions for removal of its tax-exempt status because it publicly supported Proposition 8.

Here comes another question: is there a law that forbids same gender marriage?

Yes, there is. On the Federal level there is the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which was signed into law by President Clinton in 1996.
On the state level, the state constitutions of 30 states have been ammended to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

PS. Is there not a Constitutional Tribunal there for such things?, here we used to have one until Morales took over the government and its mission was to ensure the Constitutional Rights to be obeyed by all government institutions and Justice System.

New laws passed in the U.S. are subject to judicial review, and a court can determine that they are unconstitutional.
This is why Proposition 8 was really Proposition 22 re-presented as an ammendment to the California state constitution - so that the CA supreme court could no longer rule it was unconstitutional.
There are, of course, lawsuits pending on whether the Proposition was correctly passed (the legal point seems to be between whether it was an "ammendment", which it followed the procedures for, or a "revision", which requires 2/3rds approval of both houses of the CA legislature and which it did not meet).

[Data Cable]

Nov 7, 2008 14:18:03 GMT -4 Jason said:

Part of the argument for Proposition 8 is that legal recognition of same sex marriages might form a foundation for lawsuits against churches that refuse to perform same-sex marriages, or even for hate speech charges against churches that speak out against homosexuality.

Has a church ever been sued for refusing to perform a heteroracial marriage, or charged with hate speech for speaking out against race mixing?

[Jason]

Nov 7, 2008 17:07:08 GMT -4 Data Cable said:

Has a church ever been sued for refusing to perform a heteroracial marriage, or charged with hate speech for speaking out against race mixing?

Irrelevent. Race and sexual orientation are two different issues, and today's political and letigious climate is quite different than it was before the Civil Rights movement.

[Data Cable]

Nov 7, 2008 17:13:53 GMT -4 Jason said:

Irrelevent. Race and sexual orientation are two different issues.

Not when it comes to the issue of marriage, they aren't.

today's political and letigious climate is quite different than it was before the Civil Rights movement.

Do you deny that there are still churches which will not perform heteroracial marriages?

[Al Johnston]

Nov 7, 2008 14:18:03 GMT -4 Jason said:

The LDS church in particular is now being threatened with petitions for removal of its tax-exempt status because it publicly supported Proposition 8.

Fair enough: if "No Taxation without Representation" is just, so is "No Representation without Taxation"

[Jason]

Nov 7, 2008 18:02:36 GMT -4 Data Cable said:

Nov 7, 2008 17:13:53 GMT -4 Jason said:

Irrelevent. Race and sexual orientation are two different issues.

Not when it comes to the issue of marriage, they aren't.

Obviously they are, since miscegenation laws are obsolete in the U.S. but same sex marriage is actively debated.

today's political and letigious climate is quite different than it was before the Civil Rights movement.

Do you deny that there are still churches which will not perform heteroracial marriages?

There probably are some, but none that I know of off the top of my head.

[Jason]

Nov 7, 2008 18:17:13 GMT -4 Al Johnston said:

Fair enough: if "No Taxation without Representation" is just, so is "No Representation without Taxation"

There are no legal requirements for churches to not express themselves on what they consider moral issues. In fact, the 1st ammendment protects this right.