Latest Proposition 8 Poll

[_quaker]

wow - i can't believe it's so close. didn't know there were so many haters out there.

[_Brackite]

There is a recent News Article from the Salt Lake Tribune, about the LDS Church and California's Proposition 8.

Here it is:

Prop 8: California gay marriage fight divides LDS faithful

The church's effort against gay marriage is its most vigorous since 1970s

By Peggy Fletcher Stack
The Salt Lake Tribune

Article Launched: 10/24/2008 09:52:53 AM MDT


The thought of going to church in her southern California LDS ward makes Carol Oldham cry. She can't face one more sermon against same-sex marriage. She can't tolerate the glares at the rainbow pin on her lapel.

Oldham, a lifelong Mormon, is troubled by her church's zeal in supporting a California ballot initiative that would define marriage as between one man and one woman. She feels the church is bringing politics into her sanctuary.

"It has tainted everything for me," Oldham said, choking up during a telephone interview. "I am afraid to go there and hear people say mean things about gay people. I am in mourning. I don't know how long I can last."

The LDS Church's campaign to pass Proposition 8 represents its most vigorous and widespread political involvement since the late 1970s, when it helped defeat the Equal Rights Amendment. It even departs from earlier efforts on behalf of traditional marriage, in which members felt more free to decide their level of involvement.

This time, LDS leaders have tapped every resource, including the church's built-in phone trees, e-mail lists and members' willingness to volunteer and donate money. Many California members consider it a directive from God and have pressured others to participate. Some leaders and members see it as a test of faith and loyalty.

Those who disagree with the campaign say they feel unwelcome in wards that have divided along political lines. Some are avoiding services until after the election; others have reluctantly resigned. Even some who favor the ballot measure are troubled by their church's zeal in the matter.

"I do expect the church to face a high cost - both externally and internally - for its prominent part in the campaign," said LDS sociologist and Proposition 8 supporter Armand Mauss of Irvine, Calif. He believes church leaders feel a "prophetic imperative" to speak out against gay marriage.

"The internal cost will consist of ruptured relationships between and among LDS members of opposing positions, sometimes by friends of long standing and equally strong records of church activity," Mauss said. "In some cases, it will result in disaffection and disaffiliation from the church because of the ways in which their dissent has been handled by local leaders."

Robert Rees, a former LDS bishop in California, says he has not witnessed this much divisiveness in the church over a political issue in the last 50 years.

Whatever the vote's outcome, Rees says, "it will take considerable humility, charity and forgiveness to heal the wounds caused by this initiative."

Here is the Link to this Whole News Article:

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_10797630

[_Ray A]

"I do expect the church to face a high cost - both externally and internally - for its prominent part in the campaign," said LDS sociologist and Proposition 8 supporter Armand Mauss of Irvine, Calif. He believes church leaders feel a "prophetic imperative" to speak out against gay marriage.

"The internal cost will consist of ruptured relationships between and among LDS members of opposing positions, sometimes by friends of long standing and equally strong records of church activity," Mauss said. "In some cases, it will result in disaffection and disaffiliation from the church because of the ways in which their dissent has been handled by local leaders."

Robert Rees, a former LDS bishop in California, says he has not witnessed this much divisiveness in the church over a political issue in the last 50 years.

Whatever the vote's outcome, Rees says, "it will take considerable humility, charity and forgiveness to heal the wounds caused by this initiative."

It really has gone overboard, and I think Mauss is right.

[_mentalgymnast]

By the way, has everyone seen the anti-Prop 8 TV ads? They're pretty funny.

There is another series of ads in favor of Prop 8 that are worth looking at. Here's a good one to start with. The others are linked to from this first one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-jc4ujp9Ok

These aren't funny though. They're pretty serious.

Regards,
MG

[_CaliforniaKid]

By the way, has everyone seen the anti-Prop 8 TV ads? They're pretty funny.

There is another series of ads in favor of Prop 8 that are worth looking at. Here's a good one to start with. The others are linked to from this first one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-jc4ujp9Ok

These aren't funny though. They're pretty serious.

Regards,
MG

Obviously I am opposed to nonsense like churches being forced to perform gay marriages against their will. That would be a fundamental violation of those churches' religious freedom. But voting no on Prop 8 does not entail that sort of thing. And where that sort of thing occurs, one fights it not by revoking the religious rights of congregations that see the performance of gay marriage as a moral mandate, but rather by fighting the battle at hand and attacking the specific violation in question.

By all means, fight for your rights. I will fight for them right alongside you. But don't do it by attacking someone else's rights. All that accomplishes is to piss people off and to set an anti-pluralist precedent that you can rest assured will provoke a tit-for-tat reaction from radical lefties.

-Chris

[_mentalgymnast]

But don't do it by attacking someone else's rights. All that accomplishes is to piss people off and to set an anti-pluralist precedent that you can rest assured will provoke a tit-for-tat reaction from radical lefties.

-Chris

You mean the "right" to be married? It's not a right until it's granted, is it? There's nothing wrong with pissing people off if it accomplishes a greater good, is there? In the battle between radical lefties and those that promote traditional marriage it is to be expected there is going to be a sense of provocation experienced in the minds of those "radical lefties" as their fight for marriage rights are rejected by the moral majority.

Regards,
MG

[_The Dude]

Don't do it by attacking someone else's rights.

-Chris

You mean the "right" to be married? It's not a right until it's granted, is it?

It is of note that in California, homosexuals have been getting married for several months because of the Constitution and the judges. The"Right" wants to change the Constitution with an amendment that takes away a "right" that has already been exercised by thousands of gay couples and those who marry them, including religious groups.

[_krose]

Apparently there is talk about having to refer to parents as "parental units".

Isn't that a term straight from the Coneheads? Sounds like another made-up scare tactic to me. Perhaps people will also be forced to say "consume mass quantities" instead of "eat." :-)

[_Yoda]

Apparently there is talk about having to refer to parents as "parental units".

Isn't that a term straight from the Coneheads? Sounds like another made-up scare tactic to me. Perhaps people will also be forced to say "consume mass quantities" instead of "eat." :-)

I agree. It sounded pretty "out there" to me. But, even though I grew up in CA, I don't live there now, so I really haven't been following the issue that closely. I've just taken in what friends of mine who have weighed in on both sides of the issue have had to say.

Based on what I have read and heard, if I still lived in CA, I would vote "No" on the proposition. I agree with The Dude. It's not fair for those homosexual couples who are already married to have those rights taken away.

[_mentalgymnast]

It is of note that in California, homosexuals have been getting married for several months because of the Constitution and the judges. The"Right" wants to change the Constitution with an amendment that takes away a "right" that has already been exercised by thousands of gay couples and those who marry them, including religious groups.

In the year 2000, this same measure (Prop 22) was passed by sixty-one percent of the voters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_22

Four judges from San Francisco (go figure!) struck it down. The will of the people is (or may be) being restored with a constitutional amendment. The only reason it's been a "right" is because the will of the people was overturned by the court. The people of California should have the final say as to whether same sex marriage is a "right" or not.

Regards,
MG