Did Mormons help the gay marriage cause?

[_Jason Bourne]

So why do you think we did this, Nehor? Did we simply not foresee the disastrous result? I mean, really, why spend the resources for a momentary thumping of our chests when it looks like we will now have an ongoing thumping of what were our stated end goals?

It is way too earlier to call it disaster and my guess it the Church views it as triumph. You are projecting here way, way too much.

[_antishock8]

I hope so. I have a hard time understanding how a government can take a citizen's money, but not grant that same citizen the same rights and entitlements that other citizens enjoy.

Do The Gays have to be loved and accepted? No. Not at all. No one HAS to like them or approve of them. We all have the inalienable right to not like one another. That's freedom.

But do The Gays have a fundamental right to the same kinds of liberty and pursuit of happiness that others enjoy? Of course they do. That's the tragedy of this thing. America is openly discriminating, once again, against a significant minority within its own population. I mean, how many times do we have to shoot ourselves in the foot in order to realize that it hurts? What part of the following doesn't apply to them?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

If Conservatives want to know what it is, exactly, that brought about "Change", it was their own prejudice. The people threw off the regressive social designs of the Republican Party, and elected a new one that better represents their interests.

[_mms]

So why do you think we did this, Nehor? Did we simply not foresee the disastrous result? I mean, really, why spend the resources for a momentary thumping of our chests when it looks like we will now have an ongoing thumping of what were our stated end goals?

It is way too earlier to call it disaster and my guess it the Church views it as triumph. You are projecting here way, way too much.

Jason,

I am not sure you have been reading/watching the news. Go to google, then news, then type in "Mormon" --review that bit of news (hundreds upon hundreds of articles, then do a second search on "proposition 8." As you will see, much of what I said does not need time to test it. The gay community is far more mobilized and committed than it was prior to the election. The situation is such that Bill Marriott has gone out of his way to proclaim that he did not personally give to Prop 8 but has not gone out of his way to even suggest that he personally supported the passage of Proposition 8.

Careers? Yes, just ask that theatre director in Sacramento whether he sacraficed his career by following his prophet's counsel and the restaurant owner's daughter in Los Angeles, etc., etc. Yes, people sacrificed careers.

The percentage by which Prop 8 passed was way, way narrower (bymore than 15 percentage points than it was last time around on Prop 22--the writing is on the wall--gay marriage will exist in California in the near future.

So I ask you, Jason, just what did we GAIN by passing Prop 8?

[_The Nehor]

Nehor,

Mark my words. We will not be asked to do again that which we were asked to do here. The Church simply will not risk what will be risked in doing so. if you have not noticed, in the last several decades (at least) the Church has bent over backward to appear mainstream. In fact, for a church that values marriage so much, it has even withheld any mention of Joseph Smith's 32 marriages to those other than Emma when recounting the "significant events" in his life on his official website. So marriage is important, but not important enough to constitute "significant events" in Joseph Smith's life. You gotta admit that is kind of funny. C'mon.

mms,

Mark my words. We will do worse in the coming years. We will be asked to risk much more.

[_Gadianton]

Nope, they aren't thinking that. Nehor is right. None of the contributors are thinking like mms suggested. They aren't thinking. They, like suicide bombers, are just doing what they've been told to do. It's the brethren who are after control the center of this chessboard, only they are possibly wondering about future possibilities. The members, like pawns, are merely sacraficed. They don't ask questions, for them its merely, "move one space forward".

[_harmony]

We will be asked to risk much more.

In what way?

[_Jason Bourne]

Jason,

What?

I am not sure you have been reading/watching the news.

Yes

Go to google, then news, then type in "Mormon" --review that bit of news (hundreds upon hundreds of articles, then do a second search on "proposition 8." As you will see, much of what I said does not need time to test it. The gay community is far more mobilized and committed than it was prior to the election.

So what? So the opposition is up in arms against the Church and wants to try harder to make changes. My point is this is that the Church did not base their opposition on what would or would not happen.

The situation is such that Bill Marriott has gone out of his way to proclaim that he did not personally give to Prop 8 but has not gone out of his way to even suggest that he personally supported the passage of Proposition 8.

Big deal. He is one man and clearly worried about his business.

Careers? Yes, just ask that theatre director in Sacramento whether he sacraficed his career by following his prophet's counsel and the restaurant owner's daughter in Los Angeles, etc., etc. Yes, people sacrificed careers.

It would seem to me that if people lost jobs because of exercising their right to vote on a legal proposition then they have grounds for a law suit.

The percentage by which Prop 8 passed was way, way narrower (bymore than 15 percentage points than it was last time around on Prop 22--the writing is on the wall--gay marriage will exist in California in the near future.

52% to 48%. So what? It still won. It might not next time if there is a next time. I wonder if the LDS will vandalize gay persons property if they lose.

So I ask you, Jason, just what did we GAIN by passing Prop 8?

Currently gay marriage is unconstitutional in California. Most Mormons view that as victory.

[_mms]

Bourne wrote:

So what? So the opposition is up in arms against the Church and wants to try harder to make changes. My point is this is that the Church did not base their opposition on what would or would not happen.

That a rather reckless approach to the use of its members' resources, no? "Who cares what happens? This is the right thing to do so go spend your time and money and although it may be the case that we only move forward Satan's goals, so what, we don't care what happens." Hmmmm.

If we are just doing it because it is the right thing without regard for whether we can actually make a difference, why not mobilize to change the cosntitutions of Mass and Conn since they allow gay marriage? Why not mobilize in Canada? Why not? I'll tell you why not--because we did base our opposition on the thinking that we would in fact accomplish something that would turn the tide against gay marriage. Did it work?

[_harmony]

Bourne wrote:

So what? So the opposition is up in arms against the Church and wants to try harder to make changes. My point is this is that the Church did not base their opposition on what would or would not happen.

That a rather reckless approach to the use of its members' resources, no? "Who cares what happens? This is the right thing to do so go spend your time and money and although it may be the case that we only move forward Satan's goals, so what, we don't care what happens." Hmmmm.

Have you forgotten your temple vows? We consecrate everything to the church... we have no say in how that which is consecrated is dispersed. If our leaders choose to tell us to give every single dime we earn to a frivolous cause, we are (supposedly) bound by our vows to do as we're told.

Bleah.

[_rcrocket]

I hope so. I have a hard time understanding how a government can take a citizen's money, but not grant that same citizen the same rights and entitlements that other citizens enjoy.

It happens all the time. There are many examples of initiatives passing which remove or restrict civil rights. Prop 167 is a prime example -- immigrants lost rights to public facilities. (It was overturned when Gov. Davis mediated it away during litigation).