Did Mormons help the gay marriage cause?

[_rcrocket]

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.

This was not a frivolous cause.

Both presidential candidates opposed gay marriage at Rick Warren's church. Hillary Clinton opposes gay marriage.

A very well reasoned study issued by a Princeton think tank, signed by 41 prominent natural law theorists, opposed gay marriage here: http://www.lulu.com/content/330163. Its reasoning is sound. We just didn't make this stuff up and willy-nilly and blindly follow our leaders. Because we are committed Christians to the cause, along with other like-minded Christians committed to the cause, we believed and rightly so that gay marriage would dilute and devalue the concept of marriage altogether.

You may disagree and mock, but the hard truth is that many many other people believe the way we do; it isn't frivolous.

[_Jason Bourne]

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.

Either I am not making myself clear or you are missing my point or perhaps being obtuse. The point is not reckless who cares. It is that the Church believes based on God's command and the ideals it holds as to what constitutes families that it should have put its efforts behind Prop 8. You think they did not know this would be unpopular with many? You think they did not know they might lose and if they won that there would not be a back lash? You think they thought if they lost that there would not be challenges? I think they well knew this all and decided that it was worth the cost and was not a frivolous cause at all.

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?

I am not sure why CA seemed to be the place for the Church to take a stand on this.

[Guest]

A very well reasoned study issued by a Princeton think tank,

After reading a little about the "Witherspoon Foundation" it seems to me that it's a Princeton think tank in the same way a typical doughnut shop located in Princeton is a Princeton doughnut shop. They even say upfront on their website they have no formal ties to Princeton University.

I downloaded the free .pdf and I will read it. But I had to kind of laugh because the introduction thanks the John Templeton Foundation for bankrolling the project. Templeton is notorious for sponsoring and taking seriously some of the worst kinds of pseudoscience.

At the outset then, I'm preparing to read a study on marriage that is scholarly in the same way FARMS is.

[_mms]

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.

This was not a frivolous cause.

Both presidential candidates opposed gay marriage at Rick Warren's church. Hillary Clinton opposes gay marriage.

A very well reasoned study issued by a Princeton think tank, signed by 41 prominent natural law theorists, opposed gay marriage here: http://www.lulu.com/content/330163. Its reasoning is sound. We just didn't make this stuff up and willy-nilly and blindly follow our leaders. Because we are committed Christians to the cause, along with other like-minded Christians committed to the cause, we believed and rightly so that gay marriage would dilute and devalue the concept of marriage altogether.

You may disagree and mock, but the hard truth is that many many other people believe the way we do; it isn't frivolous.

You start out by stating that this was not a frivolous cause and then explain why the position is reasonable. I am not sure the argument is over whether the position is reasonable--rather, it is over whether the expenditure of good will, money and time was reasonable when prevailing as we did brought us nothing but trouble.

The Church likely has not taken up the cause in other places because it knew it would ultimately be a fruitless use of its resources. It will turn out here, I suspect, that it was a fruitless use of its resources. The fruit so far are temple protests, the mobilizing of the gay community in a way heretofore unseen and backlash against individual members (as well as prominent members showing an unwillingness to follow their prophet's counsel--i.e., Bill Marriott and Steve Young). So were the fruits worth the price? And if it was not about that, then why not fight the losing fight in other liberal-leaning states/countries?

[_mms]

You think they did not know this would be unpopular with many? You think they did not know they might lose and if they won that there would not be a back lash? You think they thought if they lost that there would not be challenges? I think they well knew this all and decided that it was worth the cost and was not a frivolous cause at all.

I absolutely think the Church had no idea that the backlash would be what it is. I do not think they had any idea that in order to save his company from a potential boycott, Bill Marriott would have to come out and proudly proclaim that he did not follow their counsel and give any personal money to Prop 8. I do not think they believed a 25-year art director at a theatre in Sacramento would be forced to step-down from his position for giving $1000 to Prop 8. I do not think they had any idea that people would be calling for a formal boycott of Utah as a result of the Church's stand. I do not think they had any idea that the gay community would mobilize the way it has and that tens of thousands of people would be protesting more than a week after the election and that thousands would gather at Mormon temples.

Do you think they foresaw this?

Signed,

Obtuse

[_moksha]

Did we simply not foresee the disastrous result?

Are you expecting us to be seers or something? I know one really bad result has been a number of Mormons who have let the Church over this. One was a really good friend. This political effort did not go well for the Church.

[_Jason Bourne]

I absolutely think the Church had no idea that the backlash would be what it is.

You could be right but I think not.

I do not think they had any idea that in order to save his company from a potential boycott, Bill Marriott would have to come out and proudly proclaim that he did not follow their counsel and give any personal money to Prop 8.

I think Marriott was more motivated by money than principle in this case.

I do not think they believed a 25-year art director at a theatre in Sacramento would be forced to step-down from his position for giving $1000 to Prop 8.

I hope this man sues. He will win I am sure.

I do not think they had any idea that people would be calling for a formal boycott of Utah as a result of the Church's stand.

Maybe. Maybe not. I think the call for a such a boycott will largely be ignored.

I do not think they had any idea that the gay community would mobilize the way it has and that tens of thousands of people would be protesting more than a week after the election and that thousands would gather at Mormon temples.

Protesting is fine. The bigoted and hateful vandelism and other act are not.

Do you think they foresaw this?

I think it likely that they knew there could be some backlash. I think I have said that already. I think it will die down some to a simmer. Maybe not. And as noted I am sure the Church believes strongly enough in the position they took that they are not all that worried about this really.

[_bcspace]

I believe Mormons everywhere may be silently thinking:

"What did we gain by pouring our money and time into passing Proposition 8? It will either be overturned by a court, or overturned by the obviously pro-gay-marriage electorate in 2010 or 2012 at the latest. So why did we expend the resources? Why did I risk my career, my family's money, etc. for a momentary flexing of our muscles? Why did we not foresee that passing Prop 8 would end up helping the cause of gay marriage and setting the Church's PR effort back decades? Why is the result of our massive effort that tens of thousands of those who support gay marriage are rallying everywhere, collecting contact information and money for the next go around? I thought we were doing this to preserve heterosexual marriage. Why have our actions seemingly advanced the cause by probably a decade? Anyone? Why? And will I be asked to do this again in two years? Then two years later?"

Anyone got the answers?

I think we've shown it can be done and this will galvanize the silent majority.

[_collegeterrace]

Well, my kids now know what gay marriage is.

The Mormons and the few other religious conservatives have shot each other in the foot on this one.

The prop 8 campaign received SO MUCH media attention that now most small kids know about gay marriage!

Bravo you stupid Mormons.

[_mms]

true. Mormons were allegedly interested in making sure their kids did not have to learn about gay marriage and now every Mormon kid I know understands what gay marriage is--only as a result of the constant, annoying, never-ending talks about it over the last several months. The Church and its leaders went so far with the doom and gloom about what would happen if it didn't pass, that now when it is overturned (clearly within 5 years, probably 2), the kids will all be absolutely terrified that the world is going to end.