damned if you do, damned if you don't... (about prop 8)

[_asbestosman]

I'm unaware of a Mormon habbit of tyring to put words in another's mouth.

Then again Antishock8, it looks like you're right.

I still disagree with your characterization of electroshock therapy as torture. Yes, I agree that it's very wrong and harmful. However, calling it torture brings to my mind strapping them down against their will and then pushing the button--something that did not occur. The church did not treat gays like the US government interrogates suspected terrorists with waterboarding. I'm not saying that's what you meant, but it is the image that it brought to my mind. I'm just trying to understand your position lest someone make the mistake of misreading you again. ;)

[_Danna]

I think in simplistic terms this is like a bully pushing the little skinny kid one too many times, and he got punched in the face. I really don't comprehend why Mormons are surprised that they're being aggressed on after years and years of aggressive anti-gay rhetoric, action, torture, and now a concerted effort to take away their right to marry like any other Californian.

What's really sad is Mormons are now using this as an opportunity to turn themselves into the victim. How twisted. You push a people around, and when they push back you're the victim. Nice. Real nice.

In other words the violence is justified?

I didn't get any sense that AS8 was attempting to justify violence against LDS. I think I understand this the way AS8 intended(?) An metaphor to put the backlash in context. And a (valid I think) opinion that LDS are re-framing a backlash as religious persecution.

[_antishock8]

I didn't get any sense that AS8 was attempting to justify violence against LDS. I think I understand this the way AS8 intended(?) An metaphor to put the backlash in context. And a (valid I think) opinion that LDS are re-framing a backlash as religious persecution.

That's absolutely what I'm saying.

I don't condone violence against anyone, except in state-sponsored war in order to end oppression of an innocent. Why? Because the state should be held responsible for its actions as a legitimate body.

That being said...

The Mormon church put itself into the political arena. Do I feel like homosexuals and their allies have a right to boycott people, businesses, and state institutions as a non-violent means of protest in order to protect their rights? Yes. Yes, I do. It's absolutely legit.

Anything outside of exclusion, though, is wrong. Period. No violence from individuals, groups, or what have you. No vandalism. No harrassment. No violence.

But yes. Boycott. Absolutely. And yes. Point out those who are ideologically opposed to you, and hate you on a fundamental level. That's absolutely necessary. People need to know who is their friend, and who wants to subordinate them in a very real manner.

[_asbestosman]

But yes. Boycott. Absolutely. And yes. Point out those who are ideologically opposed to you, and hate you on a fundamental level. That's absolutely necessary. People need to know who is their friend, and who wants to subordinate them in a very real manner.

I'm generally ok with boycotts. I'm not as okay outing those opposed to you. That's why I like voting in polls--I can keep my real sentiments private if I so choose. I'm not Mormon becaus I want to oppress homosexuals or blacks or women or whatever. I'm Mormon because I believe in the core message about God, authority, etc. I don't really want there to be gay marriage, but I don't really want governmenal marriage at all--civil unions for all including siblings. I do not want the government being used by any side as some kind of moral legitimacy police. If you disagree, fine, but that is my view and one I wish to keep private with me at the poll (or private behind a pseudoname on the internet).

Regarding the persucution card: I agree that it is silly to claim that Mormons are innocent victims. I think the accusations of religious persecution come more from the fact that even though Mormons and blacks are both being targeted by protesters, we only tend to see people saying to knock it off against blacks. It makes it seem to us that we are a politically acceptable target while blacks are not. That smacks of religious bigotry.

But of course it's not that simple. Blacks weren't the money power behind the vote--the Mormons were. However, blacks were a more significant voting power behind it. So was the older generation of Californians--the younger voters were generally opposed to prop 8.

Having gays do to me what the church did to them? I could live with it. But that's not the point. If we want a civil society, the current situation in California won't stand--there's no way. There will either be civil unions for all, the courts will overturn it, or the old guys will die off (the latter taking too long for satisfaction).

[_cinepro]

I think the problem is that the pro-prop 8 supporters want to be able to dictate the appropriate reaction or consequence for their support. But living in a country like the United States is tricky, because people have a lot of freedoms. And so the scope of consequences is very broad, because the anti-prop 8 crowd is limited only by what is legal. (If they do anything illegal, they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.)

So we can sit here and debate the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the reactions and consequences to prop 8 supporters, but then it becomes a question of ethics and morality, and ultimately devolves into petulant whining. And why would anyone be surprised to find out that homosexual activists disagree with the LDS church over matters of morality and ethics? Is that really news?

I don't agree with harassment. I don't agree with employees being fired for their religion. But if an individual chooses to withdraw support from an enterprise because they disagree with the political actions of its employees, that's really their choice. Of course, I don't see the sense in attacking a company based on the actions of a rank-and-file employee, but I also don't see the sense in two guys hooking up, so I'm willing to accept that they see the world differently than I do.

Frankly, I'm in the "entertainment industry", and I'm actually going through a bidding process that is very important to my company right now. And the two people representing the studio for the bid are gay, so I am very thankful that my support of Prop 8 did not involve money, because I would not want to worry about that becoming a factor in the decision. (The two people already know I'm LDS, and that hasn't affected our business relationship otherwise in the last 9 years, so I hope it doesn't become a factor now.) And my two business partners also voted for Prop 8, so at least if that tanks the deal, it won't all be my fault.

I wasn't justifying anything, just pointing out that the shoe is on the other foot now.

Good luck. It seems that for some LDS, the shoe is never on the other foot.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

This is quite a different matter, although Elder Clayton has gone out of its way to say that those who opposed Prop 8 are entitled to say so and that their membership is not in jeopardy.

He also said that any discipline relating to Prop. 8 was up to local leaders, which means their membership could very well be in jeopardy depending on the particular local leader's view of things.

Moreover, the Church's revocation of somebody's membership is quite a different matter than the persecution innocent members of the Church are enduring in California who had nothing to do with Prop 8.

The former involves eternal damnation; the latter with growing a thicker skin.

My little seven-year-old son, cursed and spit upon as he participated in church services, had nothing to do with that. My ward members whose tires were slashed had nothing to do with that. One does not justify the other.

Agreed.

Boycotting and discriminating against some particular person because he contributed to Prop 8 is one thing; doing it to somebody who is a Mormon who may or may not have had anything to do with it (the call to boycott various restaurants, the State of Utah, the Marriott Corporation; standing with signs in front of the temple: "Utah is a Hate State" and "Mormons Go to Hell") is quite another. Moreover, in California it isn't a simple "boycott." It is a boycott plus all the other nasty things that are happening.

This is a byproduct of the Brethren calling on CA members to do all they could to pass Prop. 8. They never should have done that, knowing that such zeal would cause CA members who disagreed or had nothing to do with Prop. 8, to be targeted with "guilt by association." Stupid, stupid move by the Brethren, and the CA members should demand an explanation for this stupidity and lack of concern by the guys in the ivory tower.

[_rcrocket]

Boycotting and discriminating against some particular person because he contributed to Prop 8 is one thing; doing it to somebody who is a Mormon who may or may not have had anything to do with it (the call to boycott various restaurants, the State of Utah, the Marriott Corporation; standing with signs in front of the temple: "Utah is a Hate State" and "Mormons Go to Hell") is quite another. Moreover, in California it isn't a simple "boycott." It is a boycott plus all the other nasty things that are happening.

This is a byproduct of the Brethren calling on CA members to do all they could to pass Prop. 8. They never should have done that, knowing that such zeal would cause CA members who disagreed or had nothing to do with Prop. 8, to be targeted with "guilt by association." Stupid, stupid move by the Brethren, and the CA members should demand an explanation for this stupidity and lack of concern by the guys in the ivory tower.

Again, I submit there is nothing illegal about a boycott, but those who do it on the basis of religion (or any other protected class) are wrong, because there are too many in the class who had nothing to do with Prop 8.

As far as the Brethren not doing the right thing, I don't see it. My Muslim employees tell me that their mosques came out in support of Prop 8 and urged their congregants to support Prop 8, and they did along with many other religions. The Mormons aligned with the correct side of the controversy; you are not.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

This is a byproduct of the Brethren calling on CA members to do all they could to pass Prop. 8. They never should have done that, knowing that such zeal would cause CA members who disagreed or had nothing to do with Prop. 8, to be targeted with "guilt by association." Stupid, stupid move by the Brethren, and the CA members should demand an explanation for this stupidity and lack of concern by the guys in the ivory tower.

Again, I submit there is nothing illegal about a boycott, but those who do it on the basis of religion (or any other protected class) are wrong, because there are too many in the class who had nothing to do with Prop 8.

But the Brethren lumped all CA saints together in the fight to pass Prop. 8 when they issued the call to all CA members to do all they could to get it passed.

As far as the Brethren not doing the right thing, I don't see it. My Muslim employees tell me that their mosques came out in support of Prop 8 and urged their congregants to support Prop 8, and they did along with many other religions. The Mormons aligned with the correct side of the controversy; you are not.

But the Mormons played a leading role in fundraising, politicking, etc. The Brethren did a lot more than simply ask CA members to vote for Prop. 8 -- they, or their agents, were at the head of the organizing effort, not simply "aligning" themselves with one side.

As for who is on the correct side of the controversy, I can't help but show disdain for any lawyer who claims to know something of constitutional law, such as you, but who supports stripping away a constitutional right from a targeted segment of society. Shame on you, counselor.

[_TAK]

But the Brethren lumped all CA saints together in the fight to pass Prop. 8 when they issued the call to all CA members to do all they could to get it passed.

It was not just CA it was also in Arizona ..

[_rcrocket]

As for who is on the correct side of the controversy, I can't help but show disdain for any lawyer who claims to know something of constitutional law, such as you, but who supports stripping away a constitutional right from a targeted segment of society. Shame on you, counselor.

There you go, another personal slam. You just can't win, can you, without mocking some personal attribute of mine?

In reality, "civil rights" are those defined by the people. They can be granted; they can be taken away. There is nothing unconstitutional about "taking them away" unless it is somehow in conflict with the constitution. It is a continuing canard of yours to say that somehow it is unlawful to take away somebody's rights.

If Prop 8 fails, it will not be on your favored ground. If it fails it will fail on the the amendment vs. revision issue, or the fact that Prop 8 did not overrule Marriage Cases' holdings about suspect classes and equal protection. But not on the nutty doctrine that one can't pass an amendment to take away somebody's rights?

Where was the hew and cry when Californians reimposed the death penalty? People v. Frierson, 25 Cal. 3d 142 (1979), the California Supreme Court, upheld California's death penalty initiative when it was argued that one cannot use the initiative process to strip away rights.

After it was held by a court that California's school system was de facto segregation, and a court imposed forced busing, an initiative changed the constitution to prohibit forced busing. Crawford v. Board of Education, 113 Cal. App. 3d 633 (1980), affirmed 458 U.S. 527 (1982) upheld the initiative against the claim that one can't take away the rights of minorities.





And Prop 187 which took away the civil rights of illegal immigrants? That was not overturned on the basis that rights were taken away once possessed.