Thanks, LDS church! Californians now support gay marriage

[Guest]

I guess the church will be supporting gay marriage in California now, since the church said the majority of the people of California should decide the issue:

There haven't been any actual popular votes to this effect, and no, the Church would not support any majority in favor of gay marriage.

That's right, the Mormon church DOESN'T change its doctrine because of popular sentiment, you know like Plural Marriage, Curse of Cain and the Priesthood, Changes in the Temple Ceremony, etc., etc., etc. . . . . . . . .

[_Darth J]

......the Church would not support any majority in favor of gay marriage.

Remember how defenders of the faith prior to 1978 were saying that according to the teachings of the Church and its leaders, blacks would never have the priesthood in this life? And remember how, prior to 1978, defenders of the faith interpreted statements about blacks having the priesthood "someday"?

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=14397&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

Good times (no pun intended).

[_Darth J]

.....the Church would not support any majority in favor of gay marriage.

Remember how the purported revelation canonized as D&C 132 says that plural marriage is a new and everlasting covenant, but after 1890 (or 1904, to be more accurate) "new and everlasting" did not mean "new" or "everlasting"?

[_Equality]

That's right, the Mormon church DOESN'T change its doctrine because of popular sediment, you know like Plural Marriage, Curse of Cain and the Priesthood, Changes in the Temple Ceremony, etc., etc., etc. . . . . . . . .

[_harmony]

It's too bad the poll didn't delve into more specifics in the "other religion" portion.

It would be interesting to see if there's been any change on views of Latter-day Saints in California.

Daniel2

The likelihood of that change happening is about ... nil. Not until SLC tells them what to think that is different from what they told them prior to the Prop 8 vote.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Although, I have my doubts about polls on this point. I recall during the Prop 8 fight that pollsters were predicting a Prop 8 defeat by a significant margin, even from exit polls.

Seems that some pundits, I recall, opined that somebody being called on the phone or approached for an exit interview might not want to admit to being opposed to of or having voted against gay rights. In fact, I recall a 5% skew factor or so being developed for such questions. Polled individuals did not want to experience the possible short term embarrassment to a pollster about being politically incorrect.

So, I'm interested to see the results of actual voter-wide results, not poll results.

[Guest]

I recall during the Prop 8 fight that pollsters were predicting a Prop 8 defeat by a significant margin, even from exit polls.

There was also a significant loss of support leading up to the election. The pro-Prop 8 advertising strategy was quite effective.

Interesting story about that. In our Religion and Politics class at CGU, Dr. Bushman invited a pollster named Gary Lawrence-- a name you may recognize-- to talk about his efforts on behalf of Prop 8. Lawrence described how he held focus groups to see which arguments in favor of Prop 8 would sway undecided voters. The arguments that he found most effective were those that portrayed gay marriage as a danger to children. This is consistent with what I observed leading up to the election. A lot of my acquaintances were swayed by advertisements claiming that gay marriage would lead to abuse of children and indoctrination of religious children in public schools.

The most fascinating thing about Lawrence's talk was that he seemed to take the success of these arguments in his focus groups as an indication of their validity. For example, he had begun his discussion by saying no one can argue that gender is socially constructed. When I pointed out that many scholars argue exactly that (and gave some explanation to support my point), he dismissively replied, "I could easily defeat that argument in a focus group." It was a fascinating glimpse into the mind of a pollster/lobbyist, which is strikingly different from my training as an academic.

EDIT: Corrected the identity of the presenter from Robert Crockett to Gary Lawrence.

[_harmony]

Interesting story about that. In our Religion and Politics class at CGU, Dr. Bushman invited a lawyer named Robert Crockett-- a name you may recognize-- to talk about his efforts on behalf of Prop 8. Crockett described how he held focus groups to see which arguments against Prop 8 would sway undecided voters. The arguments that he found most effective were those that portrayed gay marriage as a danger to children. This is consistent with what I observed leading up to the election. A lot of my acquaintances were swayed by advertisements claiming that gay marriage would lead to abuse of children and indoctrination of religious children in public schools.

The most fascinating thing about Crockett's talk was that he seemed to take the success of these arguments in his focus groups as an indication of their validity. For example, he had begun his discussion by saying no one can argue that gender is socially constructed. When I pointed out that many scholars argue exactly that (and gave some explanation to support my point), he dismissively replied, "I could easily defeat that argument in a focus group." It was a fascinating glimpse into the mind of a lawyer/lobbyist, which is strikingly different from my training as an academic.

Crockett, huh? Amazing how small the world is.

[_Equality]

Interesting story about that. In our Religion and Politics class at CGU, Dr. Bushman invited a lawyer named Robert Crockett-- a name you may recognize-- to talk about his efforts on behalf of Prop 8. Crockett described how he held focus groups to see which arguments against Prop 8 would sway undecided voters. The arguments that he found most effective were those that portrayed gay marriage as a danger to children. This is consistent with what I observed leading up to the election. A lot of my acquaintances were swayed by advertisements claiming that gay marriage would lead to abuse of children and indoctrination of religious children in public schools.

The most fascinating thing about Crockett's talk was that he seemed to take the success of these arguments in his focus groups as an indication of their validity. For example, he had begun his discussion by saying no one can argue that gender is socially constructed. When I pointed out that many scholars argue exactly that (and gave some explanation to support my point), he dismissively replied, "I could easily defeat that argument in a focus group." It was a fascinating glimpse into the mind of a lawyer/lobbyist, which is strikingly different from my training as an academic.

Crockett, huh? Amazing how small the world is.

I always preferred Tubbs myself. Crockett just seemed so damn full of himself all the time. Rico was way more suave.

[Guest]

I recall during the Prop 8 fight that pollsters were predicting a Prop 8 defeat by a significant margin, even from exit polls.

There was also a significant loss of support leading up to the election. The pro-Prop 8 advertising strategy was quite effective.

Interesting story about that. In our Religion and Politics class at CGU, Dr. Bushman invited a lawyer named Robert Crockett-- a name you may recognize-- to talk about his efforts on behalf of Prop 8. Crockett described how he held focus groups to see which arguments in favor of Prop 8 would sway undecided voters. The arguments that he found most effective were those that portrayed gay marriage as a danger to children. This is consistent with what I observed leading up to the election. A lot of my acquaintances were swayed by advertisements claiming that gay marriage would lead to abuse of children and indoctrination of religious children in public schools.

The most fascinating thing about Crockett's talk was that he seemed to take the success of these arguments in his focus groups as an indication of their validity. For example, he had begun his discussion by saying no one can argue that gender is socially constructed. When I pointed out that many scholars argue exactly that (and gave some explanation to support my point), he dismissively replied, "I could easily defeat that argument in a focus group." It was a fascinating glimpse into the mind of a lawyer/lobbyist, which is strikingly different from my training as an academic.

This is largely a false statement. Grossly false. I was there at Dr. Bushman's class but took positions directly opposite to that attributed to me by California Kid.

I have never participated in, organized or conducted focus groups. Further, I had nothing to do with the Prop 8 campaign in California, nor the coalition's messages. I have never been a lobbyist of any sort.

I have taken public stances in favor of Prop 8 but against the various messages urged by the coalition, including the idea that gay marriage is a threat to children. I gave an extensive presentation to UCLA law the day before the election explaining those views. When the coalition's "Six Consequences" came out (which didn't say anything about threats to children except in school teachings) I went to my friends working on the Prop 8 campaign to express opposition to these ideas. In the end, the "Six Consequences" were quietly withdrawn.

Moreover, I would have never said that I was involved in "focus groups" to deliver the Prop 8 message because, as I have always understood it, the Prop 8 campaign was developed around polling results advanced by coalition pollster Gary Lawrence.

For me to smugly remark that ""I could easily defeat that argument in a focus group" is wrong on a number of counts, because Prop 8 was not developed from focus groups and because I don't believe in and don't use focus groups. CK's smoking crack.

In any event, the conclusions attributed to me are so diametrically opposite to what what I personally believe that I wonder if the poster was there. I mean, I handed out my paper in advance of my presentation; he can see my views there.

Because I opposed Prop 8 as a libertarian, only to change when the church asked for a contribution, my views are simply that marriage is a religious sacrament and that government should get out of the marriage business. If you want to get married, go to your church. Until then, pastors have a right to argue for their brand of marriage so long as government licenses pastors to perform such.