Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

An Explosive Afternoon: LDS Church

Right-wing

By Julia Rosen

The transcripts from this afternoon read like an episode of Law and Order, with the attorneys arguing with the judge over what documents ought to be introduced as evidence. These aren’t just any old documents, they are emails and letters sent back and forth between the Prop 8 campaign and Catholic, LDS, and Evangelical churches.

For example, one letter indicated that the LDS church had identified a volunteer for the campaign in every single zip code. This was a church document that was in the hands of a Prop 8 campaign official, and thus was discoverable. Andy Pugno, the general council for ProtectMarriage.com tried his darnedest to get Judge Walker to exclude it, but failed. From Rick’s liveblog:

Pugno: Objects because document will be revealing.

Judge: Not to make light of this, but the reason people want to produce documents is that they are revealing.

Boutrous: It’s from an outsider to the core group. We are attempting to show the level of coordination with groups that Protect Marriage says were not even affiliated with the campaign.

This is perhaps the most explosive bit of all, from a document between the LDS Church and the campaign:

With respect to Prop. 8 campaign, key talking points will come from campaign, but cautious, strategic, not to take the lead so as to provide plausible deniability or respectable distance so as not to show that church is directly involved.

Get that? The LDS Church intentionally worked to hide behind the scenes to disguise their involvement in the public realm. The LDS Church is well aware that the general public does not have the most favorable opinion of them. Attention on their involvement could have hurt their cause, namely passing Prop 8.

Brian has more here on the tangled web between officials on the campaign and the LDS Church.

These documents were not the only interesting pieces of evidence from today. AFER released these two deposition videos, both of experts that the defense had on their witness list. These witnesses were both dropped from the witness list. Now we know why. They seem to be supportive of marriage equality. David Boies conducts the interview in both examples.

Here is Paul Nathanson, Ph.D. The transcript is up here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZeCWCSP79E&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1]

And

One more piece of news of note. AFER also announced today that they will be publishing transcripts from the trial on their site right here.

[UPDATE] It appeared in Rick’s liveblogging as if he was quoting directly from a document, not a witness for the critical quotes above. That is incorrect. It was a witness’s characteristic of a document as several bloggers have pointed out. My apologies for the false information.

Tags: ,

297 Comments

  • 1. James Sweet  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:48 am

    For many people, this may be a minor issue. But for those of us raised by the Mormon church, for those of us with relatives still giving away 10% of their income to this hateful organization (and being flim-flammed all the way along), this is vindication. I'm so psyched ūüėÄ

  • 2. JefferyK  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:50 am

    And when very angry gay people demonstrated at Mormon churches after Prop. 8 passed, the Mormons cried victim!

  • 3. fiona64  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:51 am

    Like James, I'm not at all surprised. I guess it's because of my involvement with the MormonsforMarriage site, in part, and also because I watched my parents (otherwise perfectly intelligent people) get sucked into LDS.

    Plausible deniability … gotta love it. I guess they learned that lesson back in 1978 …

  • 4. fiona64  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:51 am

    But … but … Jeffery! Their rights were being abridged!!

  • 5. Bob  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:51 am

    This should not be a minor issue for anybody.

  • 6. Bob Donahue  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:52 am

    I'm wondering if the degree of collusion is enough to invoke RICO?

  • 7. Rebecca  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:54 am

    "With respect to Prop. 8 campaign, key talking points will come from campaign, but cautious, strategic, not to take the lead so as to provide plausible deniability or respectable distance so as not to show that church is directly involved."

    OK, how do we file to remove their Tax-Exempt status?

  • 8. fiona64  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:55 am

    Hmm. I don't think so. There is a section in this wiki article on how RICO is applied, and I don't think it fits.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced

  • 9. Alex  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:57 am

    wait ….hold on…these are the PROPONENTS' ex-witnesses??

    wow…lol

  • 10. nightshayde  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:00 am

    IIRC, they also cried, "we had nothing to do with it!!"

    Disgusting.

  • 11. JefferyK  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:05 am

    Yes, they did.

  • 12. Glenn I  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:06 am

    It was a conspiracy to steal rights from millions. Theft is criminal. Thus it was criminal conspiracy.

    Usually thieves can benefit from what they steal. In this case no one benefited; there were no gains for anyone. No one was protected, no one was helped.

    Prop 8 was a law created for one purpose only – to hurt people.

  • 13. Gaby Tako  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:08 am

    Wait! Aren't there investigations and/or cases moving forward regarding Mormon and Catholic church involvement in the Prop H8 campaign? This is great stuff – and I am sure will be used again (and again, and again)…I hope they have to spend millions more defending themselves.

    I agree with another poster – how do we remove their tax exempt status?

  • 14. James Sweet  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:09 am

    In fairness, many ordinary members honest believed they had nothing to do with it. LD$, Inc. is all about control of information.

    You know I was in the LD$ church until I was about 17 or so, and I only learned about some of their secret temple ceremonies from the Internet? Hell, technically I'm still a Mormon priest! (never been excommunicated, though I will probably seek to have my name removed from the roles after my parents die. It probably wouldn't be a big deal even if I did it now, but I have heard horror stories about church leaders putting major pressure on family members of those wanting to leave, and I'd just rather not risk it)

  • 15. Slade  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:10 am

    Very very much this.

  • 16. Pedro Lopez  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:12 am

    I talked to Mormon missionaries once. I asked them their reasoning behind their support for the vicious campaign of Prop 8. Apparently I was lucky to even get a response because according to them, their Prophet specifically told them that if the Prop 8 issue was brought up that they were to immediately walk away. Every single time I asked them to think of a non dogmatic reason to support Prop 8, it always went back to their faith. Looking back at this, I'm not really shocked to now hear of Protectmarriage.com's coordination with LDS church and its leaders.

  • 17. Pete  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:12 am

    Indeed, this isn't minor to me either! My Great Aunt was telling me that the Mormon Missionaries used to come by and show how becoming LDS would make your skin lighter if you were black. They had photos of people before and after their conversions, showing how much lighter-skinned they were afterward. But, I guess they didn't learn their lesson then…

  • 18. Anthony N  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:13 am

    Wow, I think that Paul Nathanson, Ph.D. is gay :-)

  • 19. Pete  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:14 am

    I think there are complaints lodged with the IRS right now. I don't know how that's going though…

  • 20. Wade MacMorrighan  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:18 am

    "Heterosexuality is always fostered by a cultural norm"?!?!?! WTF?! Nathenson (and Gallagher!) seriously have not examined other cultures with differing views. he's a heterosexist apologist! Yes, of course the late prof. of History, John Boswell (who's BRILLIANT) stated that we live (presently) in a culture of enforced heterosexuality. However, this has only been since the onset of Christianity, as homosexuality was tolerated according to historians up until about the 14th. century. Other cultures have a far more fluid view. My Celtic ancestors, for example, were recorded as preferring homosexual relationships according to a contemporary Greek historian who walked among them in Gaul [ancient France and part of Germany]. According to openly Gay professional and prof. of Anthropology, Will Roscoe, numerous pre-Colonial Native American ensconced a reverence for men and women whom we would call "Gay" or homosexual. (Note: John Boswell discusses the fascinating use of the term "Gay", and has found that it has always referred to homosexuals during the Medieval and Ren. periods.) These native Americans were viewed as natural-born Shamans, and were sought after as spouses by the other men. While the Chuckchi Shamans (which Roscoe also disclosed in his most recent work), known as "Soft men" in our tongue, have almost identical reverence and were allowed to marry a member of the same sex…again, they were much sought after as spouses by other men!

    Incidentally, 2 academic articles re: the history of Gay marriage have been published in the Virginia Law Review:

    * "A History of Same-Sex Marriage", by William Eskridge
    * "Will We get What We Ask For: Why Legalizing Gay and Lesbian Marriage Will Not 'Dismantle the Legal Structure of Gender in Every marriage'," by Nancy Polikoff

  • 21. Josh  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:18 am

    Wow. What an amazing day for our case.

    I just don't understand how Paul Nathanson or Katherine Young ever showed up on the defense's witness list. What the holy hell were they thinking?

  • 22. fiona64  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:20 am

    There are two different cases related to Prop 8.

    The Election Defense Alliance collecting evidence for a case pursuant to Prop 8 election fraud, but it is related to voting machine tampering.
    http://electiondefensealliance.org/Investigate_Pr

    The Fair Political Practices Commission is investigating LDS involvement: http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?p=17624

  • 23. Daniel Katzin  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:20 am

    This seems to be getting so heated and it is getting hard for me to contain myself because no one around my community at all seems to be taking notice of what is happening. No matter the outcome, or who appeals what, this is so historic and the fact that all of this is being laid out on the table now (and even though it is not broadcasted BUT IS ON THE RECORD) will be a step in the right direction. We may loose but I feel that the gay side will not loose simply because the defense seems to be crumbling under it's own implications and there is finally so much study on the plaintiff side. No matter what happens, all of this finally goes on the record here and no matter what happens this is going to put the LGBTQ/Q community NATIONWIDE many many large steps in the right direction towards equality.

  • 24. Steph  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:33 am

    Right?! Can they become our witnesses?

    I just loved the sound of frustration every time Katherine answered one David's questions. I guess this explains why their witness list is so short…

  • 25. RAL  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:40 am

    Okay,

    Andy Pugno is SCREAMING over at Protectmarriage.com

    Not a word specifically about the Mormons, but a wailing and gnashing of teeth about "religious bigotry".

  • 26. fiona64  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:43 am

    Yep: here's what he said, in fact (I was about to post about this).

    In any event, religion has taken the stage, front and center, in the battle over the constitutionality of Prop 8, and is being portrayed as an illegitimate basis for supporting traditional marriage. Religious bigotry surely found expression in today’s presentation by the plaintiffs.

    —–
    I can't help wondering whether Mr. Pugno really believes what he is saying. You bet religious bigotry was expressed — by the churches who organized a campaign to *take away rights* from law-abiding citizens.

    Good grief.

  • 27. Marlene Bomer  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:49 am

    AFAIC, RICO should've been filed against the Vatican and everyone else associated with the pedophilia scandal!

  • 28. Ozymandias  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:53 am

    From Protectmarriage.com:

    "Today, the legal challenge to Prop 8 took an ugly turn as religion itself was put on trial. "

    Yep, I knew that was coming. Now they'll start whipping their followers into a frenzy by screaming about attempts to outlaw Christianity or some such idiocy – and those people will EAT IT UP! Idiots.

    No matter what Pugno rants and raves about – and it's interesting to note how wildly his 'summary' veers from what the court transcripts show – this has been an AMAZING experience being a part of this!

    Rock on to Equality folks!!

  • 29. GAYGUY  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:54 am

    About 2 weeks prior to the 2008 vote…a report came out that of all the states that had the highest percentage of "NEW HOMELESS FAMILIES, (mom, dad & kiddies)", was Utah…it still astounds me that they would take 10% tithing and put that money towards a proposition in another state rather than towards feeding/clothing/housing its own FAMILIES! We are talking, (from what I heard), $30 milllion. Just a thought!!

  • 30. David Kimble  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:58 am

    Well, said, James Sweet, I too, was raised by LDS parents and my mother still can't comprehend "conflict of interest"

  • 31. Dave T  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:58 am

    I'm not very familiar with either Mormonism or Scientology, but I'm getting the impression (from the trial & the comments posted here) that they have a lot in common …

    Just sayin' …

  • 32. Ann S.  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:59 am

    These videos only show bits of their depositions, which were probably hours long. It's certainly interesting to speculate about what the Yes on 8 folks thought they were going to say.

  • 33. Bill  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:01 am

    They only believe it when they aren't tapping their feet in men's room stalls and doing crystal meth with prostitutes in sleazy hotel rooms.

    But at all OTHER times, hells yeah, they believe it!

  • 34. Richard  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:01 am

    Of course not! They are too much like the Southern Baptists. You know, those good old folks who have to visit Aunt Betty's Cafe on Saturday to get their sleeping draught for Sunday Morning Sermon Time!

  • 35. David Kimble  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:02 am

    James, I agree with you to a point. After telling my branch president in 1975, I was gay, I had midnight visitors that came armed with baseball bats – like I could have done anything against them – they wore white sheets over their heads, but I still recognized one of their voices and antoher's very distinctive ring.

  • 36. Bill  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:03 am

    I can hear the sounds of opening wallets and the scurrying for purses now.

    There was, no doubt, a request for more donations?

    Boy, a fool and his money, no?

  • 37. Bill  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:04 am

    Hating homos keeps them warmer than a furnace and a louse-free bed, apparently.

  • 38. Richard  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:05 am

    And how do I get a copy of the Virginia Law Review?

  • 39. Bill  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:05 am

    Do a Google search for 'magical underpants.'

    Do it. DO it!

    Just sayin.'

  • 40. HiveRadical  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:07 am

    The time will soon be at hand when the hidden things of your side will come out. When they do it will not be merely a Church trying to not let commonly held misconceptions about it get in the way of a social issue that it finds to be important–rather it will be evidence that demonstrates that key components of your side are actively hiding the nature of what it's actually advocating rather than merely hiding the fact that a particular group is strongly involved.

    And following what I heard a few years back on NPR's "The Ethicist" that using the basis of what he told a lesbian woman (he told her that she could ethically lie to her boss) there's nothing wrong at all with the Church merely keeping it's participation on the down low.

    Your side is predictably hypocritical. You want the internal documents of the LDS Church exposed but I don't see all of your side opening up all their correspondences. You expose the minimum the law requires and no more unless it can help your side. Our side seeks to do the same thing you all do (and as sure as the worlds turn you do) only we don't actually go to the point of lying, simply seeking to not be overly exposed seeing the history of the General Public's treatment of Mormons.

    Following your logic the fact that you're not airing anatomical realities of your relations to everyone then you too are trying to 'hide' something.

    Anyone who wanted to be aware of the Mormon Church's envolvement was aware. You had Prop 22 for goodness sake, you had Bastiat, a former Mormon and possibly the biggest single early contributor to your side, telling you what you now find in this document. You all act like this is some evil empire you're fighting and you all forget how it actually went down. You all forget that it took more research by journalists in your own community to get to the roots of who ran your side of the campaign than it's taken to understand the Mormon Church's or Catholic Church's role.

    Grow up. You're all looking for some scape goat, some boogie man that is not widely loved. You'd never do an investigation like this to bring up the extensive and rather unique support for prop 8 by the general Black community in California. Even if you had a memo by a group of Black pastors that mentioned that they wanted to not make this look like it was driven by as many Black people as it was promoted by you'd never NEVER post that because then your own double standard and stupidity would be out for all to see. Because then your favorite taunt lines would be shown for the inconsistent garbage logic sound bytes they are.

  • 41. jsw  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:08 am

    I think the short answer is that it's not really possible. IIRC, they can be politically involved as long as they don't support *candidates* and as long as the political involvement doesn't use up a significant portion of their resources. LDS and the Catholic Church are so rich that they aren't even close to expending a significant portion of their resources on making sure that gay people have fewer rights than straight people.

  • 42. Richard  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:09 am

    This is EXACTLY why the proponents of Prop 8 did not want thist elevised. They were afaid their "sheep" might actually log into YouTube and learn the truth, rather than their sanitized, cherry-picked version of the truth.

  • 43. drjams  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:09 am

    Yeah, seriously – does anyone know what the defense planned to do with them?

  • 44. Slade  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:11 am

    If you're wanting to keep your religion out of testimony and courts, maybe you shouldn't get involved with public politics?

    Just sayin'

  • 45. Richard  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:11 am

    Trust me, I will. And my husband said, "Oh! That is just TOO PRECIOUS!!"

  • 46. Ozymandias  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:16 am

    *reads HiveRadical's entire post*

    Wait a minute…

    *re-reads HiveRadical's entire post*

    That's odd…

    *re-reads HiveRadical's entire post one more time*

    You just described the entire pro-Prop 8 position. Well-done.

  • 47. Ann S.  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:16 am

    "On the down low" — LOL!

    Be careful what you wish for on the anatomical descriptions. I'm sure some of our friends here would be willing to share. Me, I'm a straight ally.

    Why do you care so much about denying rights to others?

  • 48. HiveRadical  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:19 am

    Gay Guy your comment demonstrates your ignorance.

    The tithing wasn't what was going to Prop 8 support. And most of the LDS (read 'Mormon') Members that gave to Prop 8 came from Mormons in CA not in Utah. And I'd be interested to see the details of that report, was it detailing homeless to include those in transition from house to house?

  • 49. Slade  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:20 am

    Did you read/hear anything about what happened in court? You do realize that the LDS/Catholic Church was the central part of Prop 8, by which promoted hate, disgust, and cruelty?

    Where's your God now? I am sure he is very very disappointed in you. What ever happened to unconditional love, respect, honor, care, and understanding of all brothers and sisters?

    Seems you guys left that memo at the cross.

  • 50. Richard  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:24 am

    It isn't essential for the gay community to make transparent our so-called "agenda." You have only to look at the numerous and copious documentation being used by the opponents of equality of gay and lesbian rights. those documents were gladly and freely and profusely make public by none other than our loving adversaries. There is little that has not or could not be exploited by the right-wing conservative phlegmatic hard-core right, i.e: Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Glen Beck, Scott Hannity, Michael Steele. All of these seek to oppress one of the few groups it is still politically correct to oppress. We really have nothing to hide. And when it comes to our so-called "agenda" these same people are so wiling to not only "expose" it, but also to twist and pervert it into so much that not only is incorrect, but is entirely antithetical to the LGBT community at large. The implementation and the contempuous nature of fundamentalists spewing and the dissemination and manipulation of these self-appointed holier-than-thou demigods are nothing more than a vicious attack on society at large to encompass and control the general society by antiquated, fraudulent, and venomous control by use of "social institutions." These, having evolved from flawed, misunderstood, misquoted, dictums of dogma and "Church Law," share and are based in history as organized religion enslaved society resulting in the Dark Ages. Isn't it time that mankind find its way to reasonable conclusions devoid of basing its future on unsound, hate-filled, egotistical, antiquated, long-outlived tyrannical values?

  • 51. Carl E.  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:25 am

    Two things –

    'Scapegoat' is one word, and it's 'sound BITES'. A byte is a unit of electronic memory capacity.

  • 52. Carl E.  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:26 am

    Damn you, REPLY button!!!

  • 53. Nikki  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:26 am

    Yeah, he set off my gaydar too. Hmmm…

  • 54. Richard  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:28 am

    And the LDS Church never practiced polygamy in this country, right, HR?

  • 55. Bill  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:31 am

    Their Phrophet or their profit?

  • 56. Bill  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:32 am

    100% ping.

  • 57. Nikki  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:32 am

    Many of the 20,000 LDS "volunteers" who canvassed and rallied here in CA were from out of state, as were the phone banks set up by the LDS church to make Prop 8 campaign calls.

  • 58. Bill  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:34 am

    snap!

  • 59. Scot  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:36 am

    And your impression would be incorrect, for the most part.

  • 60. Bill  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:37 am

    love that.

  • 61. HiveRadical  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:40 am

    Ann S.

    I'm not about denying rights. I'm about not removing a key component to a versatile but vital institution that's been the bed rock for human cultural transmission for time immemorial. I'm about not buying the hogwash that the dynamics of all relationships are equal (and that's what's at issue, not individual's worth, not the intensity of love or intent, but the actual net potential, overall, of different relationship dynamics).

    Are children of single parents made second class citizens because their parent can't have the title of 'married'? Certainly not. Does that mean that we should equate singlehood with marriage? No.

    The same is true with same gender arrangements. The children are not lesser citizens, nor are the participants, but the dynamics that come out of the relationship are not the same and it's something independent of the love or capacity or intelligence of the parties participating.

    I've family and friends that have chosen to live their lives in these relationships. I'm all for them having what they choose. I'm not for them distorting how society treats these relationships. Because the dynamics of the relationships are FAR from equal.

    Intimacy rates and fidelity rates go horribly against same gender relationships as being relationships even close to as stable, generally, as heterosexual relationships.

    For example homosexual relationships self report 'non-monogamy since the start of the relationship' rates in excess of 80%. Even in our promiscuous culture married heterosexuals of either gender come no where close to that. And Lesbian 'non-monogamy' rates average above even what's found in non-committed heterosexual relationships.

    Physical intimacy rates, at least one indicator of a couple's degree of bonding and closeness (that then being important for any children involved as emotional bonding and fidelity between the pair would have significant impacts on both the emotional and socio-economic condition of the child) plummet for both Homosexual and Lesbian relationships over the first decade (and that's if they stay together).

    This is nothing about any rights being taken away. It's about not doing violence to the component of marriage that's been shown, especially on an evolutionary level, to be key, and that is the representation of both genders as immediate parents for children.

  • 62. Larry  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:41 am

    My question: will all these witnesses and these incriminating documents also be used in the 9th Circuit appeal and ultimately in the SCOTUS trials?

  • 63. Bill  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:43 am

    Grow up?

    Really Hive Person? Tha'ts all you got? Grow up?

    Jusy say you are sorry, and let's call it a day.

    Believe me when I tell you, LGTB citizens want absolutely nothing to do with your brand. You've clearly mistaken us for someone else. Someone who gives a damn what you think. You're wrong.

    And when youtry and use God to advance inequality of human beings, you might want to seriously reconsider your approach to life and your purpose for being here.

    God will forgive you.

    And so will 'the gays.'

  • 64. Larry  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:46 am

    Also, will Pugno be Protect Marriage's counsel throughout? I sure hope so. He's no match, not even close, for Olson and Boies.

  • 65. Ann S.  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:46 am

    Yes, the trial record will be used in the appeals. No evidence or witnesses in the court of appeals or the SCOTUS. Those proceedings are not trials.

  • 66. HiveRadical  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:48 am

    Richard,

    Within our life time it will be discovered that key members of the LGBT intelligentsia actively and knowingly hid or seek to hide findings that they have made and discovered simply because they believed exposing them would endanger their ideological goal.

    In essence how is that action different from things such as the Index?

    How are their threats to insure that people are removed from their professions simply for not falling in line ideologically different in essence from what motivated the Inquisition?

    There are evil people on all sides of this issue. Don't be certain that your ideological leaders are inclined to more ethical purity simply because they agree with you on this point.

  • 67. Ann S.  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:52 am

    HiveRadical, I have no idea where you get your statistics, but the expert witnesses here and the many medical and psychological and psychiatric organization that were testified to are all saying something rather different.

    Prop 8 did take away rights, that is a fact. 18,000 same-sex couples married before Prop 8 passed.

    How would your marriage be affected by extending marriage equality to LGBT people?

    You're also propogating the fallacious fantasy that homosexuality is a choice. When did you choose to be straight? Why would anyone choose to be the victim of so much bias and risk of physical harm?

    And suppose they did choose. We protect your right to choose what religion to follow. Why can't these couples have the right to be married?

  • 68. HiveRadical  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:53 am

    Richard,

    Polygamy had the advantage of not segregating the genders from the total relationship dynamic. Children in polygamy had mothers and fathers. They were not denied the dynamic that comes from the close and active presence of both genders.

    Again this is not against individuals. Just as children and parents from single parent families are not lesser citizens because they lack the legal condition of being in the bonds of matrimony neither would any other parents or children be lesser citizens.

    It's the dynamic of the relationship that matters. This is not a judgment on individual's capacity or value, but it's a judgment on the relative capacities of relationships of differing dynamic realities.

  • 69. Rob  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:54 am

    ABSOLUTELY FACSINATING! Did I read this correctly? These two depositions were witnesses for the defense? It's no wonder they backed out. It is becoming crystal clear to me that the Defense has NO CASE! I'd be very surprised if the Judge sides in their favor.

  • 70. Ann S.  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:54 am

    "Within our life time it will be discovered that key members of the LGBT intelligentsia actively and knowingly hid or seek to hide findings that they have made and discovered simply because they believed exposing them would endanger their ideological goal."

    And you know this how, exactly?

  • 71. Larry  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:56 am

    So, although there won't be evidence submitted or witnesses testifying in the appeals court or the SCOTUS, they will get all of this via the trial record?

    Good to know.

    I'm still cautiously optimistic that Prop 8 (and hence all the other marriage bans) will be struck down as unconstitutional.

    I still think Kennedy has given some previous indicators that he's sympathetic to the cause. Didn't he even go as far as to state that Lawrence v. TX in '03 left SSM bans "on shakey ground"?

    As well, couldn't Alito's expressed support for Lawrence v. TX and Roberts pro-bono work on Romer v. Colorado possibly indicate some room there, too?

  • 72. Carl E.  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:58 am

    'Bedrock' is also one word.

  • 73. Ann S.  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:06 am

    Larry, as far as I know about J. Roberts's role in Romer, he spent a very small amount of time as part of his firm's commitment to performing pro bono work. I don't think I would read much into that at all.

  • 74. michael  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:10 am

    They have 100,000+ online supporter's who are just eating that crap up. Sad to know that most of them wont even question what they heck they get told…..

  • 75. Kahu Aloha  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:12 am

    This line of questioning will be very helpful to us in Hawaii where even civil unions are being opposed by red and white shirted mobs turned out by the Hawaii Family Forum sponsored by the Roman Catholic Church and the Evangelicals with the Mormons on the downlow for reasons of plauible deniability.

    BTW Muffie Hunffington, mayor of Honolulu and candidate for Governor (Dem.) in the primary is a Mormon and I hear the contributions from Utah are rolling in.

  • 76. Ann S.  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:16 am

    Larry, I'm not sure where you read about Alito supporting Lawrence v. Texas. I'm not finding anything about that.

    I don't think that Alito or Roberts, or even Kennedy, is necessarily our friend.

  • 77. michael  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:20 am

    No they only hear what they are told. And somehow they always have a "gay" friend or relative that "chose" to live the "lifestyle". It like reading a bad movie script that everyone of them thinks is brilliant! Quite Sad really.

  • 78. David from Sandy UT  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:22 am

    Attention must be drawn to the Loren C. Dunn correspondence concerning efforts to hide LDS involvement in anti-equality political activity in Hawaii.

  • 79. DeseretDame  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:22 am

    Hive radical said, "Polygamy had the advantage of not segregating the genders from the total relationship dynamic. Children in polygamy had mothers and fathers."

    Uh, like they had five mothers and 1/30th of a father.

    " They were not denied the dynamic that comes from the close and active presence of both genders."

    Really? And how would you explain Brigham Young not knowing his own son's name?

    "close and active" is quite a stretch compared to the reality. And that doesn't accomodate the reality that a good many of the polygamists were often on overseas missions in Britain trolling for new converts and brides all the while "The Millenial Star" ( tracting newspaper the LDS Church published in the UK) was not just hiding but actually lying about polygamy being practiced across the pond in the US.

    The deception this church uses is an age old standard they've always adhered to. Same goes for "milk before meat" in evading deal-breaker doctrines with new converts nothing new. See Robert Millet lecturing at the Missionary Training Center on youtube.

  • 80. michael  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:24 am

    WOW…..The planets that you are supposed to inherit are calling you….
    My Goodness. Maybe once we get all your dirty little secrets out that are real, we can then focus on your fictional BS.

  • 81. Larry K Little  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:24 am

    It is time to hold the church responsible for all the pain it causes to ordinary citizens using huge amounts of their tax free wealth. The church is not to be in the political environment, yet the Mormon Church, the Catholic Church and many Evangelical conspired together to have their hatred legislated. This activity is criminal from the perspective of the damage it causes, especially when these religious leaders erroneously portray gay people as child predators when in fact it is the Catholic Church itself for the last 300 years that has molested altar boys as a way to celebrate their vows of celibacy.
    All these churches who were guilty of taking part in and contributing to Proposition 8 must have their tax free status revoked and appropriate dollar awards as punitive damages to all the victims of their hatred. I am gratified that somebody has taken on the church to underscore the passionate need for the gay community to have their equal rights free from religious repression.
    It appears the opponents of Proposition 8 are going to win in this trial that unquestionably shows the bigotry and hatred against the gay community was created by the church.
    However, the victory will most probably will be short lived. Scalia and Thomas who have already decided the church is the victim already have their pens poised to overrule Judge Vaughan to make sure the church gets to have its hatred legislated. The Supreme Court is no longer a trusted institution. Rightwing ideology always triumphs over common law and that was proven to the country when Bush got the Whitehouse over winner Al Gore.

  • 82. Clark  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:25 am

    Nowhere in either of these replies have I seen sufficient proof or reasoning against gay marriage other than "I don't think they should have it because marriage is for a man and a woman."

    What's worse, you seem to be grossly misinformed about the history of marriage. There are many times in life when it's important to overlook things that happened more than 600 years ago, medical Science being a prime example.

    However, it is the proponents of proposition 8 who seem to want to bring history into the discussion, and you have yourself, mentioning time immemorial. So, let's talk history: In Europe, Same-Sex Unions were recognized and celebrated up until the 14th Century AD. In North America, many Native American tribes recognized and celebrated SSU until their dismantling and destruction by white settlers. One need not even bring up the classical period with such recent examples.

    Furthermore, studies confirm that Homosexual behavior is observed in nearly every animal species; rather than go on a tirade about this, here are two links to the same study:

    Science Daily: Same-Sex Behavior Seen In Nearly All Animals
    Physorg: Same-Sex Behavior Seen In Nearly All Animals

    What this means is that not only are Same-Sex Unions supported by the history you claim rejects them, but nature itself supports that SSU are completely natural and can be expected in a given population of any species.

    So, in conclusion, I have yet to see any argument that doesn't boil down to "I hate faggots I just don't want them to marry." Even if you pull the classic "Some of my friends are gay and that's great for them but they still shouldn't marry" you are deluding, if anyone, only yourself, into thinking that you view them as anything less than unequal, lesser creatures.

    Kindly spread your hate elsewhere, you'll find it has no place here.

  • 83. michael  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:29 am

    Ann do you even think that this creature would even take the time to read anything on this webpage? Or that it would reach it? Someone that irrational is beyond the ability to see reason, have any independent thoughts, or any type of human compassion on this issue.

  • 84. michael  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:31 am

    AMEN!!!!

  • 85. HiveRadical  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:33 am

    "I have no idea where you get your statistics,"

    Studies found in a book used widely in Psychology Courses from Yale and Harvard to the public university I attended. It's titled

    "Intimate Relationships"
    ~ Sharon Stephens Brehm (Author), Rowland Miller (Author), Daniel Perlman (Author), Susan Miller Campbell (Author)

    " but the expert witnesses here and the many medical and psychological and psychiatric organization that were testified to are all saying something rather different."

    And if they said something different the underlying accrediting and professional institutions would not view them as experts or reliable. Institutional Ideological Entrenchment is not something that is limited to the openly dogmatic or faith centric institutions. Piltdown man, Global Cooling, 'Crazy-Fritz' and his Dark Matter, Plate-techtonics–Heck I can given you links to present day professional psychologists lamblasting a great many assumptions held by their professional community for decades. The fact that a scientific or professional consensus is had a t present does not a reality make.

    "Prop 8 did take away rights, that is a fact. 18,000 same-sex couples married before Prop 8 passed."

    Rights that, in the giving, were doing violence to the underlying core component of marriage through the ages. Yes marriage evolves like virtually all things. But look at something else that evolves, a virus for example, influenza let's say, now structurally they've identified parts of the virus that are in virtual constant flux through the generations. Then there are other parts that seemingly never change. The parts that never change don't change because through all the environs the virus has endured the modification of those parts renders whatever virus that receives it incapable of successful propagation. My position is that to remove this component of marriage is to do just that. It makes it stop being marriage. to use the term marriage so broadly, and have such broad usage endorsed, would impact the views of, and hence the adoption of, marriage in future generations.

    "How would your marriage be affected by extending marriage equality to LGBT people?"

    This is like me asking how the nuclear waste we're going to store in a desert in Nevada is going to affect you ever? The fact of the matter is that if we limited social choices only to what could impact us here and now, or even through the entire course of our lives, then we'd have to scale back on global climate change legislation among many other things.

    "You’re also propogating the fallacious fantasy that homosexuality is a choice. When did you choose to be straight? Why would anyone choose to be the victim of so much bias and risk of physical harm?"

    I've never claimed to choose inclinations. If an inability to choose desires and inclinations was a reason for forming social policy then we'd have some difficulty inhibiting a large number of things that either society (even the portions of society in harmony with your view) would find destructive or wrong. The attraction to a variety of partners, the desire to draw attention to one's self, the inclination to violence, the desire to horde. I am fully convinced some people have a natural inclination for the other gender, but instances of natural desire should not alone dictate the formation of social institutions and norms, not if civilization wants to survive. Not if we want lasting cohesive groups of humanity above petty tribalism.

    "And suppose they did choose. We protect your right to choose what religion to follow. Why can’t these couples have the right to be married?"

    Why can't I then have the right to give a degree to someone I've found to be very smart and capable that would then have the same legal standing attributed to that degree as is found in the degrees obtained by those in public universities and colleges? What if I don't agree with the restricted view of what an 'education' is or isn't as held by the powers that be?

    I hope you see where this is going. I hope you can start to understand to some degree that I'm not just some 'hater' and not just some brain-washed religious fanatic.

    To further illustrate the education point. How would you respond if someone were to say that those who oppose the liberalization of the titles given to graduates from accredited institutions are anti-learning or anti-knowledge? How would you respond if I asked you how will my giving a degree to someone I think is as smart as any Ph.D I've come across impact your degree or those held by your friends and family? Will it make that degree disappear or ineffective? Will you suddenly stop being as intelligent as you were?

    That's trying to give you an idea of kind of how the questions you've posed to me on marriage appear from my side.

  • 86. Peter  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:34 am

    This is why the Prop 8 supporters considered Nathanson and Young potentially strong witnesses: http://www.marriageinstitute.ca/pages/keep.htm

  • 87. truthspew  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:37 am

    This is a big deal. It has now exposed the Mormon Church and the Catholic Conference of Bishops as being behind the fundraising and propaganda in this fight.

    I consider both religions abhorrent and despicable for their actions in this civil rights struggle.

  • 88. Boston  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:39 am

    Just catching up here on all that happened today… Whew!

    I was reading HiveRadical's (rather odd) posts, and in between the meaningless palaver, there's one clear statement. S/he doesn't believe that the relationship dynamics in gay relationships are equal to those in straight relationships.

    It's true that they are different. The belief that either is somehow superior is ridiculous. The question is: why would someone actually believe that? This trial is doing a great job of pointing out the historical prejudice that is so deeply embedded in our culture that for some people the reasons for their opinions are completely obscured.

    I hope this trial is discussed loudly for a long, long time.

  • 89. michael  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:40 am

    I am sure that once this news breaks to the main stream they will not dare to overturn this. If they do they will be removed from the benches that they sit on like kings!

    They have a responsibility to remove their own prejudices if they fail to do their duty they are not fit for the SC.

  • 90. HiveRadical  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:40 am

    Clark,

    Concerning your presentation of the nature of the animal kingdom with regards to homosexual behavior, aside from the fact that given more time I could find you Jane Goodall stating in a video I saw on the internet in the last year that the vast majority of homosexual practices found in nature are tied to artificial environment alteration by humans, I really hope you're not taking the view that simply because something is natural in nature that it should be institutionalized. Primates have been demonstrated to fight deadly turf wars. Many parents in nature take out children after birthing them. Nature is great and all, but let's not make it's various examples the basis for forming our institutions. I say rather let's look at the tried and true fact that the dynamics of the pairing of the sexes have done far far more to advance life than some of the other elements you can find in nature.

  • 91. Mikey  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:42 am

    To get a copy of the Virginia Law Review, you might want to try http://www.virginialawreview.org/

    They have articles from their 2004-09 issues online.

  • 92. Mikey  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:44 am

    L. Ron Hubbard learned how to start a religion by looking at the Mormon example.

  • 93. Engaged for 8 Years  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:47 am

    That's what it always boils down to. My other half's LDS sister pretty much says exactly that when she has nothing against all the sense and logic of our arguements.

    Our relationship is simply less than hers.

  • 94. michael  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:49 am

    I think that they already have…LOL

  • 95. nightshayde  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:50 am

    Yes.

  • 96. Alex O'Cady  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:53 am

    I have to wonder if this has anything to do with the LDS, actually. I admit I'm not an expert on the subject, but I've heard some nasty rumors equating the LDS (in Utah at least) to the Mafia…if you make the church unhappy, you get booted. Albeit, they don't kill you, as the Mafia might do, but you essentially get blackballed in any community they have influence over, and lose all of your assets. A mother can lose her children, even if she goes against church teachings. It doesn't seem a stretch that the "new homeless families" might have been families that got fed up with the LDS' political involvement, or stance on lgbt's, or even just their priorities.

    Like I said, I'm not an expert, this is hearsay. If bychance one of our trackers is from Utah, LDS even, they might be able to confirm or deny. I'd be interested to know how much truth is in it.

  • 97. HiveRadical  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:55 am

    Aw… DeseretDame, one wonders why you'd use such a quintessentially Mormon icon in your name. You could have done DesheretDame and sounded like a Princess on the Nile.

    Are you really going to hammer a parent for not recalling the name of a child at some point? Sure in a world where fertility rates are dropping like no one wants any responsibility for kids the concept of forgetting the name of a child seems so foreign and outrageous, but plenty of kids have had their parents mess up or temporarily forget their names (or switch them out for someone else's) and we've turned out just fine.

    DeseretDame, if you actually do know your history you'd know that Young, for having as many kids as he did, kept far better track of them than many parents today do of their one or two children.

    Polygamy had the curious impact of lending Utah with the highest per capita rates in women's education (via advanced degrees in medicine and law etc) at a time when virtually no women in the US had access to such. Women's sufferage and women's empowerment actually rises significantly under the brand of polygamy practiced by those under Brigham Young. That's why it was the federal government, and not Brigham Young, that reversed Women's sufferage in Utah in an attempt to stop the Mormon Church.

    Few people actually look at the principles that Utah used in it's legal battles with the Feds. If they did they'd realize that we've remained true to the core principles. And that these principles that upheld polygamy are the very ones that are effective AGAINST same-sex "marriage"

  • 98. Sheryl Carver  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:59 am

    I just tried to watch both videos, only to get messages saying they'd been removed by the user. Anyone know why, or where they might still be found?
    Thanks.

  • 99. Aconite  |  January 20, 2010 at 12:00 pm

    "Hive Radical"–that name would, I imagine, be a reference to Orson Scott Card's _Ender's Game_ universe, yes? The very, very Mormon and vocally homophobic science fiction writer Orson Scott Card.

  • 100. fiona64  |  January 20, 2010 at 12:05 pm

    HivemindRadical wrote: I’m not about denying rights. I’m about not removing a key component to a versatile but vital institution that’s been the bed rock for human cultural transmission for time immemorial

    Except, of course, that it has not always been the same. Heck, even in your church it hasn't always been the same. I suggest that you take a gander at something other than what the church spoonfeeds you.

  • 101. fiona64  |  January 20, 2010 at 12:08 pm

    Hivemind wrote: Rights that, in the giving, were doing violence to the underlying core component of marriage through the ages.

    Yep, s/he's got the LDS talking points right in front of him/her. How, exactly, is "violence" being done to marriage if more people marry? I'm keen to know.

  • 102. Holly @ Domestic Dor  |  January 20, 2010 at 12:08 pm

    http://marvelousblunder.blogspot.com/2010/01/what… <—The Mormon Church & Charity

    When I was Mormon I had NO FREAKIN' IDEA that the church was pulling this kind of crap with their money. And by "their money" I mean MY money.

  • 103. marmot  |  January 20, 2010 at 12:08 pm

    HiveRadical at #67? Did you really say that children in polygamous relationships had both a mother and a father? Some did, some didn't. Many polygamous wives raised their kids as single parents. One of mine certainly did, as G-G-Gpa left town with two wives, leaving my ancestor and her four children behind. Brigham Young had wives that didn't live with him; he rarely saw many of his kids.

    No no no no no. Just no.

  • 104. Scot  |  January 20, 2010 at 12:15 pm

    I'm a strong LDS member, and while largely leaders everywhere would not even condone any of the behaviors you've listed above, that doesn't exclude some members from doing such despicable behaviors, that run contrary to the spirit of Christ.

    Losing all of your assets – that's total hogwash, to say the least. But blackballing might occur on a familial and local levels, and those who do it ought to be ashamed of themselves, and usually do so without the knowledge or consent of the leaders, local or higher up.

    However, such behaviors, in my experience, are more common in the offshoot group of the FLDS Church. That, I have heard over the years to be coming from that church, rather than the LDS Church.

    So the hearsay you've heard must be referring to the FLDS Church.

  • 105. Cassie  |  January 20, 2010 at 12:30 pm

    I'm still being raised in the Mormon church. I'm 17 and a senior in high school. My parents sent me to an LDS shrink when they read my emails telling my fried that I'm not straight. They force me to go to church and be the perfect little Mormon girl that I once was. This is vindication, I agree. They try to hide their bigotry, but here it is, right here. And it feels great to have it in the open. It saddens me that people still feel so much hatred towards people because of their sexual orientation. I'm gay, whoop dee doo, but not to them. To them, you're gay, we need to change you. Help you. Make you better. They can't, they don't get it. I'm not gonna ignore my "urges" for their god. I'm happy with who I am and they can just deal with me as I am right now.

  • 106. Clark  |  January 20, 2010 at 12:49 pm

    Here we go again, talking about history.

    First, your point about tried-and-true only applies to the last several hundred years, whereas in the overall human dynamics, general homophobia on the part of leaders notwithstanding, same-sex unions have been recognized and sanctioned long throughout history.

    Second, while I would dispute, given recent studies, that all homosexual behavior in nature is based on unexpected consequences of human interaction, you did list several good reasons why we should not seek to emulate the animal kingdom; in general, yes, we get to be better than them because we have significantly more advanced mental faculties. Nature prescribes that small and weak young should be killed off in order to prevent a strain on the "society" in having to raise and protect them, whereas we are well known to keep underdeveloped and retarded children alive almost without a second thought. Of course, it wasn't always this way, but I digress from my intended point.

    With respects to humans and their history, we (as humans) were pretty good at enslaving anyone that couldn't run away fast enough since the time we started building cities. This is an example of the following ideals: some people are inferior, some people are inherently worth less, some people do not have rights (or as many rights).

    However, as we progress as a society we must recognize that ideas such as these are false and destructive. Indeed, the vast majority of nations today can agree that, though a recognized social construct of the past, slavery was an evil we had to struggle to rid ourselves of. Even in our world today we are not 100% free of slavery, though it is certainly looked upon with greater disdain.

    The view that homosexuals cannot or should not marry is based on the following assumptions: Homosexuals are inferior, Homosexuals are inherently worth less, Homosexuals do not have the same rights as "Normal, Straight" people do.

    The very same concepts that allowed us to treat perfectly normal people in barbaric, devalued and inhumane ways in the past justify the continued ostracization of a group of people now, and for what? What reason can you possibly give as to why homosexuals do not deserve to marry? Marriage is not your institution any more than love is your emotion. You may partake, but it does not exist for you alone.

    So I ask the question again, what reason can you possibly give to prevent homosexuals from marrying? I assume you have no plans to get "gay-married," so why then do you presume either that you will be affected by this in even the slightest way or that you have any right to decide what two people who love eachother can do? How is this any different than being enslaved and told that you cannot marry because you are a slave?

  • 107. Jerry  |  January 20, 2010 at 12:50 pm

    Elsa Prince, of Blackwater fame….

  • 108. Ann S.  |  January 20, 2010 at 12:51 pm

    Many LDS resources were used to support Prop 8. Websites run by LDS. Pledge cards. Videoconferencing. Trips by church elders. It goes on and on. These were LDS church funds, not donations from members. It's all in the election reports. A lot of this they somehow "forgot" to include in their first report and had to file an amended one.

    Trying to hide their tracks, and maintain their "plausible deniability".

  • 109. Clark  |  January 20, 2010 at 12:58 pm

    Wow, so Nathanson really is gay (I assume that's the one they're reffering to in the article when it is stated: "One of us, in fact, is gay").

    I agree that heterosexual unions for procreation are important to the species as a whole, but I have a very hard time believing that any, let alone every, straight couple in the world is going to go on a tirade such as "What!? GAY people can get MARRIED now? Well forget this, not only am I not going to get/stay married, but I'm also going to stop procreating and/or kill all of my current children! GRAAAH!"

  • 110. Derrick  |  January 20, 2010 at 1:02 pm

    Cassie, you are a very strong person. I remained in the closet until after graduating from BYU and having wasted years in the LDS religion. Be patient and your family may come around eventually.

  • 111. Clark  |  January 20, 2010 at 1:12 pm

    <blockquote cite="HiveRadical">Why can’t I then have the right to give a degree to someone I’ve found to be very smart and capable that would then have the same legal standing attributed to that degree as is found in the degrees obtained by those in public universities and colleges? What if I don’t agree with the restricted view of what an ‘education’ is or isn’t as held by the powers that be?

    I hope you see where this is going. I hope you can start to understand to some degree that I’m not just some ‘hater’ and not just some brain-washed religious fanatic.

    To further illustrate the education point. How would you respond if someone were to say that those who oppose the liberalization of the titles given to graduates from accredited institutions are anti-learning or anti-knowledge? How would you respond if I asked you how will my giving a degree to someone I think is as smart as any Ph.D I’ve come across impact your degree or those held by your friends and family? Will it make that degree disappear or ineffective? Will you suddenly stop being as intelligent as you were?

    First, if you are a degree-granting institution, you can grant honorary degrees if you so wish, though arguably those are the the degree-equivalent of a domestic partnership: fancy words, but effectively meaningless in the visceral sense (meaning, the DP feels like meaningless paper and usually isn't accompanied by a ceremony, and an honorary degree is rarely a worthwhile credential).

    However, you're comparing apples to rocket fuel. I've been civil to this point, but this has sent me over the edge.

    When you work for a degree, you go through years of trying to prove yourself worthy of a degree, and so if someone could just snatch up a degree from the same institution with little-to-no effort or just because someone decided to give it to them, you'd have every right to be angry. A degree is something you work to earn the right to have.

    Now, this is where my civility runs out: WHAT THE FUCK have you done to deserve to be married? WHAT HAS ANY MARRIED COUPLE DONE TO DESERVE TO BE MARRIED? I'm not talking about since the marriage, what you've done to preserve it and keep it going: what were your credentials, the day before you said "I do" that would make anyone, anywhere think "That guy/gal deserves his/her marriage certificate".

    Marriage is not a merit-based institution. Not in history, when it was used to keep factions (families, nations, etc) friendly with one another, not when it was arranged BEFORE CHILDREN ARE EVEN BORN, not in vegas when drunk people get married, not when gay people get married in sham marriages because they're too afraid to come out of the closet, not in the shotgun-wedding scenario, and not even in your, I am sure, perfect marriage full of love and harmony focused on duty to family and god.

    Think what you want about your religion's idea of marriage, but unlike a college degree, you would never think of it as something you had to earn, you think of it as your natural right, and for some reason you can't apply that reasoning beyond your own sticky little fingers. You are the very embodiment of "FUCK YOU, GOT MINE".

  • 112. Ann S.  |  January 20, 2010 at 1:20 pm

    "This is nothing about any rights being taken away. It’s about not doing violence to the component of marriage that’s been shown, especially on an evolutionary level, to be key, and that is the representation of both genders as immediate parents for children."

    I'm glad you believe in evolution, but I don't think you understand it very well if you think we're seeing evolutionary changes in humans during the same timeframe as the institution of marriage has existed.

    Prop 8 took away rights, which you admit, while trying to deny that you are taking away rights and simultaneously claiming that the rights weren't valid in the first place and so those who had them — what? Shouldn't care that they were taken away?

    I haven't read your Psch 101 book, and since I haven't seen it all I can say is that I'm very skeptical.

    You are trying to claim that plate tectonics is a myth? Where are you pulling that claim from? Yes, scientific consensus changes. That's what the scientific method is all about. But when you claim stuff that the current scientific consensus contradicts, then I have to be skeptical.

    I'm not buying your educational analogies. My degrees were earned through years of hard work and study. Legal recognition of my marriage isn't a right that I "earned", it was just a bonus I got because I happen to be straight.

    That's how your bogus reasoning appears to my side. Just trying to return the favor.

  • 113. David Kimble  |  January 20, 2010 at 1:24 pm

    Thanks and according to the site's date, this is a very new allegation – it will be interesting to follow, too.

  • 114. Taylor  |  January 20, 2010 at 1:27 pm

    I feel so much pity for people like HiveRadical. To have your heart consumed by so much hate must be a tremendous burden to bear. Maybe they're immune to the hate because their brain was not only washed by LSD but also waxed.

  • 115. Vaati  |  January 20, 2010 at 1:30 pm

    @HiveRadical: "I really hope you’re not taking the view that simply because something is natural in nature that it should be institutionalized."

    … that's what a lot of the opposition's argument is though, gay unions are somehow, "unnatural" and therefor should not be allowed. It is natural though, it occurs in many different species, and now you want to argue that things that are natural aren't necessarily worth institutionalizing. Great, forget talking about marriage based on man-woman procreation then. It might be natural to most, but I don't think it's really worth putting on a pedestal either.

    HiveRadical: “Within our life time it will be discovered that key members of the LGBT intelligentsia actively and knowingly hid or seek to hide findings that they have made and discovered simply because they believed exposing them would endanger their ideological goal.”

    What findings could those be? You know, the problem we've heard time and again is that proponents for prop 8 *don't* like that we're talking about ourselves. They *don't* like that we're trying to share our true identities with the world and make peace with it.

    Gay and lesbian relationships and their dynamics are in court and on the table as evidence, they are there for the world to see from an economic, psychological, and personal viewpoint.

    We have nothing to hide, this is about gay people stepping into the public forum saying, "This is me, this is my partner, this is our family. We want to honor marriage and the society that respects it by having one."

    Love that you referred to them as intelligentsia, has a James Bond ring to it.

    HiveRadical: "Grow up. You’re all looking for some scape goat, some boogie man that is not widely loved."

    We're looking at and calling out the major players in passing prop 8, we want them to show themselves and be held accountable like everyone on our side is. If this is what they believe, if that is what LDS did with it's money, then they too should be on trial right now.

    Separation of Church and state mean anything to you? It is to keep government out of churches as well as to keep church views out of government policy. Scrutiny is placed upon everyone in a legal proceeding, the Judge wants all facts on the table. They have presented proof that LDS Mormons collaborated with and played a big role in Prop 8. After which they tried to cry victim when they were protested against by the people who lost the privilege to marry. Beg your pardon?

    Also, I found it hilarious that you compared marriage to a virus that changes form. :)

  • 116. David Kimble  |  January 20, 2010 at 1:33 pm

    In all fairness, I am not certain that any of the money they raised for the Prop8 campaign came from tithing (10%). Still it has been a very clever scheme on their part to hide try and hide their involvement.

  • 117. michael  |  January 20, 2010 at 1:42 pm

    Sure Scot just keep telling yourself that.

  • 118. desertmac  |  January 20, 2010 at 1:58 pm

    As a gay man who was raised in the church, and who is now through circumstances living in Salt Lake City, let me just pass on what I tell missionaries when they show up at my door:
    The entire Mormon religion is predicated upon the American Native peoples being the "lost tribe of Isreal". Science has proven as fact that the American Natives have absolutely no Jewish DNA. They are not and cannot be the descendants of Abraham, hence, the entire religion is based on a lie, something Joseph Smith never conceived could be proven nor disproven.
    The whole religion is a sham.

  • 119. Ann S.  |  January 20, 2010 at 2:07 pm

    Yes, I also love how the golden tablets and special tablets conveniently had to be given back to the angel — leave no evidence (or lack thereof).

  • 120. Exmormon-84084  |  January 20, 2010 at 2:09 pm

    Well, it's true that Mormons have fewer aliens in their theology than Scientologists do, but there are a lot of other similarities — especially in the way the leaders control information and the members' social lives.

  • 121. Renee  |  January 20, 2010 at 2:13 pm

    Double snap!

  • 122. michael  |  January 20, 2010 at 2:15 pm

    LAMO Clark that last bit was to darn funny. But they do act like that is going to happen.

    Wife;"You know honey Timmy and Bill from down the block got married…."

    Husband; "what?"

    Wife;"Honey Timmy and Bill from down the block got married…."

    Husband;"what do you mean?"

    Wife;"Timmy and Bill Got Married…"

    Husband;"To each other?"

    Wife"Yes Honey to each other."

    Husband;"Well babe we had a good run, go gather the kids while I get my Gun."

    Wife;"Yes Dear, Life was so great before the Gays Ruined everything!'

    Husband;" I know Babe, I know…."

  • 123. michael  |  January 20, 2010 at 2:18 pm

    They seem gone from everywhere.

  • 124. Renee  |  January 20, 2010 at 2:23 pm

    Brilliantly put, thank you.

  • 125. Renee  |  January 20, 2010 at 2:25 pm

    To clarify: My comment ("Brilliantly put, thank you.") at #89 was in response to Ann S's comment at #84.

  • 126. Jay Allen  |  January 20, 2010 at 2:33 pm

    I have the same issue. Anyone have a link or reason why they were taken down? Time to start spreading via Facebook.. :)

  • 127. Jay Allen  |  January 20, 2010 at 3:06 pm

    Here you are:

    Paul Nathanson: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FylixiSFwqg

    Katherine Young: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmactPnxYvM

    Oh and ive downloaded it in case they go missing again. Happy to distribute via other means.

  • 128. Renee  |  January 20, 2010 at 3:12 pm

    Here's a pre-filled out IRS complaint form re: the LDS's activities in support of Prop 8- -http://www.mormonsstoleourrights.com/complaint.pdf

    "supporting documentation" includes the official Prop 8 letter from the Mormon leadership to their churches– http://lds501c3.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/lds-c

    and now, of course, the document containing the "plausible deniability" statement.

    What we have to do is work to pass a law that closes the loophole that enables churches to fund legislative activities, as opposed to donate to candidates, which is currently all that they can't do. Until this loophole is closed, especially in the Internet age, there really won't be any true separation of church and state.

  • 129. Joshua  |  January 20, 2010 at 3:29 pm

    I recently set out to find the EXACT qualification to get Tax Exemption Status. (See Link At Bottom) After reading about many different Supreme Court cases and opinions from both sides concerning this, I decided to see what exactly our Tax-Code says about it. What I found is that IRC 501(c)(3) (Non-Profit) organizations are restricted in their actions for/against certain candidates running for public office. They can however make their opinions known about issues, such as abortion, and in this case, gay marriage.

    As someone who was part of the Prop 8 battle, I can say that everyone who participated was a volunteer, and all actions were planned on a personal basis. Nothing was taugh from the pulpit, and nothing was planned as a sanctioned "church event." It was just a bunch of people that happened to be from the LDS church, and many others who were not part of it. The LDS Church was LEGALLY allowed to send out a letter affirming their beliefs on the issue. There were no Church finances that were put toward the actual campaign. All donations were given by individuals.

    I feel as though the LDS Church knew what they were getting in to as far as legality goes. Below are the links to the IRS website about tax exempt status:

    (Exemption Requirements – Section 501(c)(3) Organizations) http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0

    (The Restriction of Political Campaign Intervention by Section 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Organizations) http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0

    (Political and Lobbying Activities)
    (Its important to note that political activities and Legislative Activities are different under US law.) http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0

    (Exempt Purposes – Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3)) http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0

  • 130. Sheryl Carver  |  January 20, 2010 at 3:40 pm

    Thanks, Jay!

  • 131. ScottNH  |  January 20, 2010 at 3:51 pm

    If this is heard by SCOTUS everything hinges on Alito, Roberts, or Kennedy. One of them must side with us or this particular attempt at equality is all over. To be certain Scalia and Thomas are both lost causes and a 5-4 against us is possible. Have to admit, I feel sick just thinking about it. I'm wondering if it is remotely plausible SCOTUS will decline to hear the case. They could simply call it a matter of states' rights, couldn't they?

  • 132. phinneyj  |  January 20, 2010 at 3:52 pm

    Finally, someone who actually used first-hand information in their argument regarding the LDS church involvement. Too many people who blame only the LDS church for Proposition 8 getting passed don't realize that the church itself donated only non-monetary support, which cost a total of around, I believe, $800,000. An additional $25 million was not donated by the church itself, but by chuch members. These donations were not forced/mandated, coerced, or given for any reason other than the personal desires of the donors.

  • 133. phinneyj  |  January 20, 2010 at 3:57 pm

    One last note: The amount of non-monetary donations from the LDS church itself, mentioned above, is meager in comparison with the total donations on either side of the campaign. If only people would look up this information from reliable sources instead of playing "telephone" across unreliable sources, far less people would have such harsh views against the involvement of the LDS church.

  • 134. Sheryl  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:20 pm

    A Mormon here who did not vote for Prop 8 and know other Mormons who did not. Really not sure why evveryone is acting like the LDS' churches depth of involvement is a new "revelation". Maybe because you aren't LDS and didn't have to listen to all of the letters read from the pulpit or the broadcasts, etc. Anyway, it really upset me that my church which faced such persecution for believing differently than society aligned itself with other churches who do not consider us Christians and helped to spread the half-truths. I really don't believe that action was taken against those not in favor of Prop 8 as I proudly displayed my NO on 8 bumper sticker on my car at all church functions. Pretty obvious to all where I stood on the issue.

    And when I started seing the signs at the corners, I immediately got myself a sign and would hold it up as I drove by or was stopped at a light. And, I personally don't understand people who believe that legalizing same-sex marriage will harm their marriage. Certainly won't harm mine.

    Oh, my son is gay. But as I told him, I would not vote for Prop 8, even if he were straight. I believe in equality for all. And to do what prop 8 did and take away rights from a group of people is wrong, wrong, wrong.

    I also firmly believe that people do not choose their sexual orientation. I know I certainly did not make a conscious choice to be straight.

  • 135. Sheryl  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:23 pm

    Sorry for all of the typos.

    Sheryl

  • 136. HiveRadical  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:31 pm

    Clark,

    You said

    "When you work for a degree, you go through years of trying to prove yourself worthy of a degree, and so if someone could just snatch up a degree from the same institution with little-to-no effort or just because someone decided to give it to them, you’d have every right to be angry. A degree is something you work to earn the right to have."

    As many here are doing with the analogies, your forgetting it is an analogy–that is it isn't meant to connect on every level in every dimension. The point wasn't effort put into something but rather matching with something. It's alignment I'm speaking of not earning or being more worthy via actions.

    But your point brings up some interesting additional thoughts that also further demonstrate my point.

    I know plenty of people who just went through the motions of an advanced degree, they didn't earn it in the sense of being worthy of it, not at least to the point of their effort matching their return, or the input they make to society and culture matching what they receive from it. On a technical level they 'earned' it because – well – they received it. Following all the various requisites our society has applied they got it. With that they used their 'earned' status and advanced through the socio-economic ladders upwards and onwards in terms of personal access to society and it's resources. And much of this is independent of their actual input for, or worthiness in terms of what they bring to, society.

    So yes there's nothing really inherently 'done' by many people who marry, no real 'deserving' of it. But the same is essentially true for many who manage to jump through the hoops of academia. In the economic world it's often an easier sell to say that the system is gamed. But it's gamed in academia as well.

    The question could then be, what if I seek parity legally but separation from the presently formed institutions?

    Just as the same sex ideologues claim that there's no evidence that such a new system would inherently ruin the world. Turn it on it's head a bit, but that's what redefining marriage would do also.

    Just as your side claims that our side has no substantive evidence that such a change would harm children I could make the same claim about my setting up a system structurally separate from the present degree granting/accrediting system and you couldn't refute any of my claims because my system hasn't had a chance to escape from the long held social prejudices that my system could work. It's just some unjustified fear. My people could form a system independent of the present system that could produce doctors and scientists that would be just as effective if they were given the same opportunities and privileges as the present system.

    Just as the person who snickered at the analogy between the structural realities of viruses and the varying degrees of importance in components found in marriage you can take your whole merit not being part of marriage rant and unjustifiably use it to dismiss those portions of my analogy that link quite well with the education/degree/accreditation situation.

    The truth is that your side of this is trying to pretend that you can have variance in the net dynamics of a relationship without that variance impacting the net result as felt by children, and hence the future of civilization. Where there are two different things there will be a means to rank those things in variance to each other. If there are different dynamics from different familial organizations then some will be better suited generally and across all possible environs than are others. That's what natural selection demonstrates, a wide range of diversity to be certain, but clear sectors where there is durable fitness.

  • 137. heathjh  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:38 pm

    Joshua, you said "Nothing was taught from the pulpit, and nothing was planned as a sanctioned “church event.”"

    This is not exactly true. That letter was read from the pulpit. It was asked that the members put as much time and means that they could to fight this. And members in the church are told to "follow the prophet, follow the prophet".

    "Always keep your eye on the President of the church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, even if it is wrong, and you do it, the lord will bless you for it but you don't need to worry. The lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray."

    LDS President Marion G. Romney (of the first presidency), quoting LDS President (and prophet) Heber J. Grant "Conference Report" Oct. 1960 p. 78

    "When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan–it is God's Plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give directions, it should mark the end of controversy, God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God."1

    Ward Teachers Message, Deseret News, Church Section p. 5, May 26, 1945

    These quotes demonstrate the thinking (or lack there of) that goes on in the mormon church.

  • 138. HiveRadical  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:39 pm

    Actually no Aconite. The reference has ties to a Book of Mormon reference to honey bees.

    Study bee-cults and things like the red crown of Egypt if you're really interested in my name, they'll get you a lot further than just a Sci-Fi writer that shares my faith.

    Actually me and DeseretDame have in part the same name. Deseret is the term for 'honey bee' as given in the Book of Mormon. Additionally Desheret is Egyptian for honey bee (and for the red crown of Egypt.)

  • 139. michael  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:39 pm

    Heyyyy

  • 140. michael  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:41 pm

    Yes keeping them to busy to think! Mindless ATM's

  • 141. michael  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:56 pm

    Yeah you two are the "reliable" sources we should believe. Call off the trial folks two Mormon's told us we are all wrong.
    Glad you could clear that up for us. Oh wait….NOT!

    My Goodness what the heck do you loose all reading comprehension when reading something other then the book of mormon…..shezzzz

  • 142. michael  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:59 pm

    Great Mom he's got there Sheryl. Tell 'em I said he's very lucky.

  • 143. HiveRadical  |  January 20, 2010 at 5:05 pm

    Ann,

    The evolution thing is more in terms of cultural adaptations, though I've heard some rather learned people from academia, even with their talks on TED Talks and FORA speak for humans evolving in the here and now.

    And the series I laid out there visa vis dark matter and plate tectonics etc. was simply to demonstrate that things that relatively recently were seen as the lunatic fringe and certainly boneheaded are presently held as close to doctrinal, while other things seen as solid and certain, like piltdown, are now sure frauds.

    While referencing the earning part of degrees is to miss the point of the analogy —(the 'other' I propose could have a system of earning them also, earning is independent of the key feature which is the introduction of a foreign and seemingly arbitrary definition for a previously agreed upon term–as I point out to Clark in post 142 a system could, in theory, be as effective as the present if given the same privileges and the societal bias was compensated for. And there are plenty of reasons to think that a separate system wouldn't do any more harm to the institution than the present one does to itself–how many people use the vast majority of what they learn in college? how many actively apply their degrees? how many earned it in the sense of being significantly better contributors to society? how many use their status to exact from society significantly more than they contribute?)— it is earned simply by the merit of what you choose and the dynamics it produces generally for society.

  • 144. Mormon church wanted R&hellip  |  January 20, 2010 at 5:18 pm

    […] and leaders of the Catholic and Mormon churches," the Los Angeles Times reported.One key email that got the attention of Julia Rosen at the Prop 8 Trial Tracker blog was one between officials of the Church of Latter-Day Saints and […]

  • 145. Aiden Raccoon  |  January 20, 2010 at 5:35 pm

    I wrote a letter of complaint to the IRS and I recieved back a letter stating that the IRS cannot reveal anything about an ongoing investigation, but I've read the rules on it and it seems that 5 years could pass before anything is done. I think it is to make sure enough time has passed so that people will forget about it.

  • 146. Wade Hone  |  January 20, 2010 at 5:45 pm

    hmm, kinda interesting, but I don't get the fuss… the article itself is pretty clear about why the church wanted to maintain, as the quote clearly says "Respectable Distance" ( plausible deny-ability… which was a poor use of wording since 'Respectable Distance' already described accurately the intent of the instructions.

    The articles author says the following, "…Attention on their [the churches] involvement could have hurt their cause, namely passing Prop 8."

    ok, true enough – so in order to get prop 8 to pass, the less knowledge of 'the mormon church's' involvement = the better the odds of it passing, right? maybe that info. ought to be passed around some…. Wala! the 'birth of the memo'

    The church was in quite the fight to define marriage as being between man and woman, attention on their involvement could have hurt their cause, so some one (the quote really isn't at all clear on who,) suggested ways to maintain that respectable distance. I see nothing nefarious in this.

    but 'plausible deny-ability' ohweee boyhowdy! what a fun villainous phrase to play with eh? the press can have a hay day with that one heh, no big deal, the church and it's members have suffered much worse persecution.

    Wade -out.

  • 147. Box Turtle Bulletin &raqu&hellip  |  January 20, 2010 at 5:54 pm

    […] Rosen calls this revelation “explosive.” While these transcripts are rather crude and catch-as-catch-can, they give a sense of how deep the […]

  • 148. Shira  |  January 20, 2010 at 6:44 pm

    HiveRadical wrote:

    "I really hope you’re not taking the view that simply because something is natural in nature that it should be institutionalized. Primates have been demonstrated to fight deadly turf wars."

    You know, it's the funniest thing – I'm pretty sure the US has funded a few of those over the years.

  • 149. Daily Prop 8 Update: The &hellip  |  January 20, 2010 at 7:01 pm

    […] integral role in the Prop 8 battle. ¬†Interestingly, they wanted it to remain secret. ¬†Julia Rosen writes: …from a document between the LDS Church and the […]

  • 150. What is Power? « Pr&hellip  |  January 20, 2010 at 7:42 pm

    […] juxtapose this with the amazing revelation of documents earlier this afternoon that show how clearly the Mormon and Catholic Churches coordinated and ran […]

  • 151. Morrigoon  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:25 pm

    Jeez, you'd think a lawyer would have read the Constitution at SOME point during their education, wouldn't you?

  • 152. Morrigoon  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:26 pm

    I give that two snaps up with a twirl!

  • 153. Morrigoon  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:32 pm

    Sounds more like the stories of the FLDS (read "Escape" by Carolyn Jessup, for some really effed up s–t).

    As pissed as we are at the regular LDS church right now, mixing them up with FLDS reflects well on no one. Make sure we're only accusing them of crimes they're actually committing (such as the subject of this post) and not those committed by an extremist offshoot group.

  • 154. David Kimble  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:33 pm

    And Joshua – tell me just how is that you ascertain that no LDS money was used in the campaign. The Church has already admitted they did spend money on the campaign.

  • 155. David Kimble  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:37 pm

    Excuse me, phinneyj, but have you been reading from the same trial transcript, as the rest of us?

  • 156. Morrigoon  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:41 pm

    One this your side is trying to do that our side isn't: Take away the rights of a group of people to do something that HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU.

  • 157. Aldon  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:51 pm

    Is Andy Pugno, the general council for Protect Marriage running for the California State Assembly from the 5 or 10 District.???

  • 158. Morrigoon  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:11 pm

    Um… you do realize that Supreme Court Justice is a lifetime post, don't you?

  • 159. Morrigoon  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:13 pm

    Clark: No, but I know straight couples who have considered holding off on getting married until everyone has the right to marry.

  • 160. Jeffrey  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:39 pm

    Excuse me? Did you just make an 'evolutionary' argument regarding gay marriage? I am an anthropologist. I can tell you that the so called 'traditional marriage' or monogamous couple has not been the tradtional marriage. Homo sapiens lived in much the same way for the last 180,000 years and the males have had one to two long term relationships bringing forth children and many short term relationships. In biological terms, youre trying to pass on your genes. you stay in a relationship to guard your genes as they grow up and pass them on yet again. But you 'play the odds' when you do short term matings. if you go back further, you get ancient apes and that means no marriage at all, just short term matings only.

    Yes, im speaking as if humans are animals, because, humans are animals and are studied the very same way in evolutionary biology. Monogamy is not the history of humanity. Further, in the modern world, do we really want procreation to be the basis for all marriage? I hear that argument too. They say same sex marriages are not equal because they are not natural. they dont lead to offspring.

    But is that where you want to go? Many people in the church can no longer have children, would you deny them the right to marry? What if your have been married for years but no longer can have kids, should you divorce now, after all, marriage is just about procreation, right?

    you say, same sex marriages are not equal, yet you never say why. why? why are they not equal?

    but of course, inherent in this argument is another fallacy. if its natural, its good, if its not, then its bad. That is simply not so. Further, if you look at every animal species, you find animals with exclusive homosexual tendencies. so, its natural.

    then there is the fallacy here that just because its 'traditional' or the way weve alwayd done it, we should continue to do it that way. Why? We use computers now instead of typewriters because we have grown. There is no reason to simply assume that tradition was better, in the past slavery was accepted by most socieites. now, it is abhorrent.

    i still dont get your main point. You say gay marriage is not equal, yet you never explain why.

  • 161. James Sweet  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:11 pm

    religion … is being portrayed as an illegitimate basis for supporting traditional marriage.

    Um, yeah, apparently Pugno's never heard of the "rational basis" test. Oh wait, he has, but he also has no qualms about lying through his teeth to rally public support. My bad.

    Also, as far as "religious bigotry" against LD$, I have two points:

    First of all, it is only in the context of religion that I can critique your idea and have it labelled "bigotry" — how absurd would it be if two people were arguing over, say, whether to raise the capital gains tax, and one of them said, "How dare you criticize my feelings about the capital gains tax! This is capital gains bigotry!" Whence this special deference? If any religion wants to succeed in the marketplace of ideas, it's going to have to grow a pair. And that means being open to the harshest criticism and willing to respond to it directly, rather than hiding behind lame excuses like "bigotry" or "blasphemy" or "intolerance".

    Second, depending upon how one defines "bigotry", I will gladly proclaim that I am "bigoted" against the leadership of LD$, Inc. and make no apologies. I am also "bigoted" against the Klan, birthers, holocaust deniers… And I'm also going to go a step further and say that if you aren't "bigoted" against these groups, you've either been deeply misinformed, or you have something wrong in the head.

  • 162. James Sweet  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:16 pm

    The tithing wasn’t what was going to Prop 8 support

    I do not feel that this can be asserted either way. Personally I suspect that some tithing money has been used to finance anti-gay marriage campaigns, but I have no evidence of this.

    There is evidence that only a small fraction (anywhere from 2-10% depending upon whose estimates you believe) of tithing money paid by wards to the central church authority is ever redistributed back to the wards for charitable work. The balance is in the billions, so… where is that money going? Certainly some of it is to finance their aggressive recruitment campaign (wait, isn't that teh gays that recruit? Oh wait…), certainly some of it is going to build opulent temples, and certainly some of it is going to finance the church's massive business endeavors and fatten their coffers (move over, Vatican, Temple Square is comin' to getcha!). So who knows…

    But given the massive amounts of unaccounted-for tithing money, and the fact that we now have documentary proof that the Mormon leadership has been actively trying to conceal the extent of their involvement in anti-gay marriage initiatives… it does not seem at all implausible to me that tithing money — gobs of it! — was spent for political purposes.

    Tax exempt status for religions — worst idea EVER.

  • 163. James Sweet  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:21 pm

    Scot, you'd be surprised. It really depends what part of the country you are in. Where I am (upstate NY) the church is not so much into bullying, or at least that has been my experience. (Though it's fucking IMPOSSIBLE to get them to stop contacting you if you are an ex-member) But I've heard some real horror stories coming out of Utah, Idaho, and other places where the church has an iron grip on the community. I really don't know how extensive this sort of thing is, but it does happen, and the knowledge of it extends at least to the stake presidency level.

  • 164. Joshua  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:59 pm

    You're missing the point. Regardless of the churchs financial involvement, (which, if anything, was small compared to the total donations) legally, their tax exemption status cannot be taken away. If you actually spent time reading the links I posted, you'll read (reading… what a novel concept) that non-profit groups are not allowed to endorse or support CANDIDATES running for public office. As far as legislative action, that is different than political action. (also provided in links.) if the church donated money, regardless of how much, it was their legal right.

    And one more thing health. Your pathetic attempt to legislate obedience would never hold up in any court. The church can say whatever the heck they want, but in the end, the people donated on their own free will. We weren't forced to donate. Being pressured by friends and family is a possibility for some people as to why they donated, but like I said, you can't legislate something as subjective as obedience. At this point, your attempt to remove the tax exemption status seems nothing short of a desprite, pathetic attmept by a group of sore political losers to attack a church that you feel is completely responsible for your misfortune. I don't care if they were involved, because frankly, they were legally allowed to be. Accept that, and get over it.

  • 165. Marcia  |  January 21, 2010 at 12:05 am

    "I was reading HiveRadical’s (rather odd) posts, and in between the meaningless palaver, there’s one clear statement. S/he doesn’t believe that the relationship dynamics in gay relationships are equal to those in straight relationships."

    IMO, that's the root of religious opposition to same-sex marriage, and the regular disclaimers of equality opponents that they "support civil unions" (whoop-de-do) but 'OMG, dont' use the word marriage!. Marriage equality would be an ongoing contradiction to that. In that sense, gays who want to marry are the radicals they're really afraid of.

  • 166. Marcia  |  January 21, 2010 at 12:14 am

    This must be rattling quite a few homophobes' cages if they're showing up here.

  • 167. Janeway  |  January 21, 2010 at 12:35 am

    That is nonsense. I do not know who came by your Aunt's house but no Mormon missionary would do that, and if they did, it would constitute a charge for excommunication. That is absolutely not a part of the LDS doctrine, to the contrary, we believe and you can find it anywhere in our in house literature (Sunday school manual, etc.) that every person born on the earth is a spiritual being as well as a physical being and our Creator made us equal spiritually and physically as brothers and sisters. Why and how there are many races and cultures is His business, and there is no "plan" for them to become white on the earth or in heaven. All are equal in his sight as his children so the "Aunt story" is just that – a story. Want to hate the LDS religion, go right ahead, but hate it for it real things not a bunch of nonsense.

  • 168. Mykelb  |  January 21, 2010 at 12:49 am

    and these people are playing the victim? Disgusting.

  • 169. Mykelb  |  January 21, 2010 at 12:51 am

    You are wrong, Their organization benefits greatly by using Prop 8 as a recruting tool and a tool to keep their current members in line. It was money well spent, until now that the truth is being told in court.

  • 170. JD  |  January 21, 2010 at 12:51 am

    Hey guys. Prop 8 won. :)

  • 171. Barb  |  January 21, 2010 at 1:01 am

    what did they win?

  • 172. Mykelb  |  January 21, 2010 at 1:14 am

    Religion as it pertains to being infused into law, needs to be put on trial. Religion has no business being the basis for law or the rationale for passing laws. These people are very ignorant.

  • 173. Rebecca  |  January 21, 2010 at 1:22 am

    Ultimately the United States Constitution will win out over Bigotry, Ignorance, Hate and the repression of a minority by the majority.

    In fact, I feel strongly that the vociferous homophobes will have made matters even better for us in the LGBT community by proving we are a Suspect Class and then it will be really really tough to have any hate inspired laws passed against us.

  • 174. Janeway  |  January 21, 2010 at 1:28 am

    I believe that "marriage" is between a man and woman, husband and wife. With same sex couples, there is either two husbands or 2 wives. I personally do not care whether they "marry" or not. I wish they would find a legal binding, with benefits of traditional marriage. If they can have what they want without starting to sue every LDS, Catholic, Evangelical for refusing to perform their "marriages" (there are plenty who will perform their "marriages") – have at it, but Gays do not want that, they want new reasons to punish all those who disagree with them. I have Gay friends and I consider their lifestyle their business. They have been together for 20 years and if they were to have a legal arrangement with all legal benefits of traditional marriage, I would give them a reception and if they wished to call it a marriage, fine, but changing 5000 years of family law is not the way to go. The marriage laws were intended to protect women and offspring, ensure inheritance laws, custody issues, etc.. A whole restructing of law would be needed to address the special circumstances of Gay marriages. EX: a birth certificate, just how would you fill it out whether the child has a biological mother, or just 2 fathers or 2 mothers. Lots of issues. People are not evil because they disagree with you.

  • 175. Barb  |  January 21, 2010 at 1:33 am

    I agree, but I was wondering why JD says Prop 8 won.

    I do have to be honest though, through this fight against Prop 8, I do feel like 'I/We' finally matter to someone. Thanks to everyone at Courage Campaign and the people fighting this battle for us. It is a step in the right direction.

  • 176. JimiG  |  January 21, 2010 at 1:50 am

    I have had a number of conversations with pastors in the area, all the church in my community had prop 8 support, the Lutherans, the Presbyterians, the Non-denominations, The Assembly of God, The Baptist and in my community they all spoke from the pulpit and fought against same sex marriages. I am an ordained pastor my wife and I no longer are in ministry I couldn't stand the hatred and having to answer to the counsel. I asked my mentor if he preached on prop 8 and family values, his comment well it was just a small point on the Sunday before the election. 2000 people go to his church talk about influencing people, handouts in the lobby and 5 minutes from the pulpit and the election is effected.

    I send my two boys to a Christian School I love my God and my faith. My two boys are 7 and 9 my 9 year old asked me why I didn't go to church anymore. I told him it was wrong what they did in not supporting same sex relationship and it was wrong for me to go to church if it made me sad it should be a safe place for all people. His comment that's to bad Jesus teaches that it is important to be with the one you love, it doesn't say who to love, God doesn't care as long as you are loving one another. If I had died that day I could never have been prouder. My point many of us of faith believe and we are standing up and teaching our children God's word is love.

  • 177. Ann S.  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:00 am

    @Aldon: Yes, Pugno's running for Assembly from, I think, the Folsom area? Not sure what District. His campaign webpage, for now, is all about fiscal responsibility and lowering taxes. I wonder if that will change when the trial is over.

  • 178. Janeway  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:01 am

    Desertmac – no one has ever said that Native Ameicans were the Lost tribe of Israel, you obiviously have never read the Book of Mormon, it is the story of an Israelite family, approximately 30 or so people, who came to the American continent 600 +- years before Christ. The intermarried with the "Native Americans", more likely central America or S America already here who numbered in the millions and had migrated through the centuries from various lands. I really doubt any DNA could ever be found from a small group of samples of a huge gene pool. It neither proves or disproves the Book of Mormon story. It is impossible to discuss any issue with people who have incorrect information. Have a good life. Go to church where ever you feel welcome, there are many fine congregations of Catholic and Protestant you could benefit from and quit worrying about Mormons. If they bother you that much. Move.

  • 179. RAL  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:04 am

    The Folsom area is almost certainly correct. That's where his Yeson8 donation came from in 2008.

  • 180. Ann S.  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:04 am

    Sheryl, thank you for your actions and your support for your son.

    The actions of the LDS church aren't really a revelation — the interesting thing is actually having all these documents as evidence, and also that they actually stated in writing that they wanted to have "plausible deniability".

    A phrase about hiding your light under a bushel comes to mind, among other things.

    Thanks for your post.

  • 181. Ann S.  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:11 am

    Your educational degree analogy just doesn't work. I've seen it before, though — it must be one of the LDS church's talking points. It isn't convincing in the least. Not only does it "not match on all points", I don't see where it matches on any points. Stop bringing in pointless analogies.

    Even if someone "just went through the motions", as you put it, they did more than someone who just sat on the couch.

    I know that I've done nothing at all to earn legal recognition of marriage for myself other than happening to be straight.

  • 182. Ann S.  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:13 am

    What about the fact that the LDS church conveniently omitted the majority of the in-kind donations that they made when they first filed an election report? I think they're playing pretty fast and loose with the election laws, not to mention the tax laws. Political donations by religious organizations are NOT limitless.

  • 183. Justin  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:24 am

    I don't get why pro family organizations want to keep so many families from having the same protections and rights as any other family!

    Also are there not some IRS rules that bar taxes except religious organizations from direct involvement in an election? Not that I think it would be successful but isn’t there some way that could be pursued?

    And about those 5000 years of family law someone above mentioned…. I totally agree, as a male I would love to see the return of absolute Patriarch rule, polygamy, the use of women as currency, and political pawns. Women also really don’t need to vote or worry about such silly things as property ownership or contracts. Men are more suited to manage these things what with their ability to better control their emotions. Surely, women would agree, this will leave females more time to enjoy their favorite things such as cooking, decorating, and raising children. We must also dispense with the whole idea of interracial marriages, yet another disastrous liberal experiment. It is necessary for the survival of our species that bloodlines be kept pure. We must also think of the children, fore surely the abhorrent product of such a union will have no place in civilized society.

  • 184. Ann S.  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:26 am

    You said: "If they can have what they want without starting to sue every LDS, Catholic, Evangelical for refusing to perform their “marriages” (there are plenty who will perform their “marriages”) – have at it, but Gays do not want that, they want new reasons to punish all those who disagree with them."

    No church can be forced to marry couples that the church doesn't want to marry. May Catholic churches won't marry people who were previously divorced, and no one can force them to. This is nothing but a red herring.

    You said: "The marriage laws were intended to protect women and offspring, ensure inheritance laws, custody issues, etc.."

    Don't you think that gay couples have these exact same issues when they decide to spend their lives together?

    You said: "A whole restructing of law would be needed to address the special circumstances of Gay marriages. EX: a birth certificate, just how would you fill it out whether the child has a biological mother, or just 2 fathers or 2 mothers."

    We already have all of these issues with straight couples with artificial insemination, surrogacy, adoption, etc. The laws are already adapting to these new situations.

    You said: "People are not evil because they disagree with you."

    People are hypocrites if they create false reasons why they deny rights to others.

  • 185. Sheryl Carver  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:28 am

    Where did you get the idea that anybody's going to sue ANY church for refusing to perform a gay marriage? This has been answered before – NO church can be forced to marry anyone. However, when Prop 8 is overturned, the GOVERNMENT will be required to issue a marriage license.

    Your birth certificate issue is a non-issue. Babies are already born to parents where one or more biological parents are donors, etc. They all seem to get valid birth certificates. We already have ways of dealing with this.

  • 186. Skippy  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:37 am

    I've read thru a lot of these replies, and to be honest, my mind is a bit squishy right now.

    Can someone tell me in a nutshell what the bombshell revelations are with the Mormons? I mean, we always knew that they hated us, so what's the big reveal here and what are the implications?

    Is it just that for the first time a religious organization has been shown on paper to flex its power to discriminate? Does it prove we're a "suspect class" and therefore we should be protected against discrimination much like race and RELIGION?

    Thanks

  • 187. fiona64  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:39 am

    Joshua insisted: And one more thing health. Your pathetic attempt to legislate obedience would never hold up in any court. The church can say whatever the heck they want, but in the end, the people donated on their own free will. We weren’t forced to donate. Being pressured by friends and family is a possibility for some people as to why they donated, but like I said, you can’t legislate something as subjective as obedience.

    Hmm. In the other thread I posted two of the many links that talked about people being visited by their stake president and being told how much they were "called" to donate to the Yes on 8 campaign. Others have testified to the discussion of quotas for each stake and ward.

    Yes, reading. What a novel concept.

    Here's just one of the many links that talk about people being told they had to donate: http://www.nine-moons.com/2008/08/07/the-my-girl-

    Perhaps you would like to read that …

  • 188. fiona64  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:41 am

    Janeway wrote: but changing 5000 years of family law is not the way to go.

    Hmm. Which part of the 5000 years of family law do you mean, here? Because, you see, marriage has not always been what you (or even your church) insists:
    http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/h

  • 189. phinneyj  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:45 am

    Ann, you must have missed where HiveRadical said "The point wasn’t effort put into something". When I read the educational analogy, I thought the point was very clear: the two degrees would be indistinguishable, and would have the same benefits attributed to them. The problem with this is the following: those who were entitled to their degrees would then have a document that, eventually, would be deemed of less worth or importance (since those who were not entitled to degrees received them nonetheless).

    The "entitlement" of the degrees in this analogy, when applied to marriage, should not be interpreted as meaning that two individuals had to earn their marriage.

    The education analogy was intended to explain the consequence of allowing gays to marry.

    From the anti-proposition 8 side, your views are "It doesn't affect you if we get married, so why prevent us from doing so?"

    From the pro-proposition 8 side, the views are mostly that, scripturally, homosexual relations are sinful and the marriage covenant is sacred. The marriage of an iniquitous relationship, if allowed, would make the marriages of those who were married in a righteous relationship of less importance, since the marriage covenant would then not be sanctified.

    To make sure there is no confusion: The marriage covenant's sanctity is, in the education analogy, the diploma's worth. The iniquitous relationship is compared to the unearned diploma, and the righteous relationship is compared to the earned diploma.

    Please, remember that there are two sides to the issue and that although you do not understand the importance of religion in the lives of the people supporting proposition 8, it is at the core of our livelihood. When such a sacred covenant as marriage is threatened to be applied to relationships that are religiously iniquitous, it personally affects each of us.

  • 190. phinneyj  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:48 am

    The Church's donations were non-monetary, but totaled around $800,000.

  • 191. phinneyj  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:16 am

    Mormons don't "hate" the members of the LGBQ community. They are Christians, and as such, hold dearly the Christian belief of loving one another, regardless of if they are sinful or not.

    The reason many LGBQ believe Mormons hate them seems to be this: the Church believes that same-sex relations are sinful, and that allowing sinful relationships to partake of their sacred covenant of marriage would destroy the covenant's sanctity. Therefore, the Church doesn't want same-sex marriage to be allowed, to preserve the sanctity of marriage.

    This does not mean that Mormons hate the LGBQ community. It means that Mormons are attempting to preserve the sanctity and importance of their sacred covenant of marriage. They are not targeting the LGBQ community, they are focusing on self-preservation. This is not hate.

    Many would say, then, that the Mormon church holds hateful beliefs, since it is against same-sex relations. The beliefs held in the Church are the same beliefs that have been held in other churches, arising from the days of the Old Testament. In the Old Testament, it is indicated that homosexuality is sinful. Therefore, a member of any religion that believes the Old Testament and follows its commandments will also believe that homosexuality is sinful.

    Thus, Mormons believe homosexuality is sinful for the reasons explained above, but because they are Christians, they do not hate those who are sinful.

    Be aware, though, that not every person from such a large church follows the commandments as they should, and that there will always be instances where a member of the Church acts in a hateful way. This person is not a spokesperson for the Church as a whole, and as such, their actions should not be seen as representative of the church.

    Hopefully my explanations will be well-understood. I simply wanted to explain that Mormons, as a whole, do not hate the LGBQ community.

  • 192. Ann S.  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:18 am

    @phinneyj:

    You wrote: "From the pro-proposition 8 side, the views are mostly that, scripturally, homosexual relations are sinful and the marriage covenant is sacred. The marriage of an iniquitous relationship, if allowed, would make the marriages of those who were married in a righteous relationship of less importance, since the marriage covenant would then not be sanctified."

    Please keep your religion out of my laws. I do not adhere to your religion. Your religion should not be the basis for my laws. Your church can recognize whatever marriages they want, and not perform whatever marriages they don't want to. Leave state recognition out of it.

  • 193. phinneyj  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:20 am

    He said Prop 8 won in an offensive way, rubbing it in your faces that the legislature was passed. I thought this was obvious.

  • 194. phinneyj  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:21 am

    Thank you for the synopsis, well done =]

  • 195. fiona64  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:23 am

    Phinneyj wrote: From the pro-proposition 8 side, the views are mostly that, scripturally, homosexual relations are sinful and the marriage covenant is sacred. The marriage of an iniquitous relationship, if allowed, would make the marriages of those who were married in a righteous relationship of less importance, since the marriage covenant would then not be sanctified.

    Hmm. Could you clarify that for this straight woman who was married by a JP and is just as married as anyone in your temple? How is my marriage more important than anyone else's or, for that matter, less important than that of someone married in your temple? In either case, the license is issued by a state authority and we are talking about civil law here, not liturgy.

    I really am hoping you can explain. No one else has been able to tell me.

  • 196. fiona64  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:27 am

    Phinneyj: I think you missed the point of Barb's post … which is that you Yes-on-8 folks haven't really *won* anything. In the fullness of time, I am confident that the Prop 8 supporters (and those organizations that bankrolled them ::ahem::) will be viewed with the same jaundiced eye that we now reserve for the Jim Crow and Nuremberg Laws.

    And yes, Prop 8 is directly analogous to the Nuremberg Laws. http://www.ushmm.org/outreach/en/article.php?Modu… They dictate who is legally allowed to marry whom.

  • 197. fiona64  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:29 am

    ::standing ovation::

  • 198. phinneyj  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:29 am

    If you'd like to have "marriage", an institution based in RELIGION, then any laws regarding marriage will have religious influence. If you want to avoid religious influence, don't call it "marriage", simply have a legal binding, which has the same legal benefits but does not destroy the religious sanctity of "marriage".

    Even though you don't adhere to my religion, you can at least respect my religion as much as I respect those in the LGBQ community (whom I do respect).

  • 199. phinneyj  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:36 am

    If you place race and sexuality as equal, then yes, the Nuremberg Laws are directly analogous. However, those against Prop 8 do not believe that race and sexuality are equal ideas. Race is viewed by many as a biological attribute, and those who are of a race cannot help the fact that they're of that race. Discrimination against those people on the basis of something that is not their decision should not be allowed. You may say that sexuality is something that cannot be helped, but there is just as much research supporting the idea hat sexuality is biological as there is supporting the idea that it's based on environmental factors. Therefore, you can use your supporting evidence to say that you can't help being gay, and at the same time I can use my supporting evidence to say that you can help being gay.

  • 200. Ann S.  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:38 am

    I respect your religion as much as I respect any other and as much as I respect atheism and agnosticism. Please respect the legal and civil rights of the people you claim to respect.

    Marriage is a civil and legal institution. Why do we receive legal and tax benefits from marriage? Many people are married without involvement of a religious institution.

    Call your religious sacrament something else. Call it "sacramental marriage" if you want. "Marriage" is a legal institution in this country.

  • 201. Ann S.  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:38 am

    Thank you, Fiona!

    ::bows::

  • 202. phinneyj  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:46 am

    In response to your question, Fiona64: From someone outside of the church, both the temple marriage and the marriage by the JP would be of equal weight, since such a person would be looking at merely the legal document attributed to the marriage. However, inside the church, a temple marriage can only be partaken of by righteous church members. A temple marriage is a very special and sacred thing in the church.

    Thus, to an outsider of the church, the two marriages are of equal weight. While to someone inside the church, the temple marriage is of immensely more value.

    This, however, is not directly associated with Proposition 8. Not all supporters of the legislation were from the Mormon church. A great number of supporters were from the Catholic church, and I know that the Catholics believe just as strongly in having a marriage ordained of God as Mormons do. Thus they would be against having un-ordained "marriages" that hold the same weight as those which are ordained.

  • 203. Marcia  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:48 am

    If the best the other side can do is this kind of sophomoric taunting, they're doomed.

  • 204. Ann S.  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:49 am

    Well, there you go — you guys have "temple marriages". Other couples get to have civil marriages, aka "marriages".

    No problem.

  • 205. fiona64  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:53 am

    So, what you're saying to me, PhinneyJ, is that because of your religion, my marriage is less equal than one in your Temple (or the Catholic Church)?

    Well, since a) I'm not a follower of your religion and b) the United States is a secular nation, I would submit that your position is incorrect. We are no talking about liturgy, but law. Why should your liturgy be permitted to trump secular law?

    I don't really think that "because I said so" constitutes an explanation, BTW. And that's what your response amounted to: "since you're not a member of the secret club, you don't understand … so just be quiet. Because I said so."

  • 206. Marcia  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:54 am

    If this troll's sophomoric wisecrack is the best the anti-equality side can come up with, they're toast!

  • 207. phinneyj  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:55 am

    A "civil ceremony" is the non-religious, civil form of marriage you're referring to. The institution of marriage, once again, is based in religion and is called "marriage".

    You receive legal and tax benefits, not from marriage, but from the result of obtaining a marriage certificate. This can be through either a civil ceremony or through an actual marriage. If LGBQ wanted to have civil ceremonies, I would be all for it. This is because it does not affect the sacred covenant of marriage.

  • 208. phinneyj  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:56 am

    But when LGBQ want to have a "marriage", not "civil ceremony", I do not support that because it is against the religious basis that "marriage" has.

  • 209. Marcia  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:56 am

    Oops, sorry. Thought the first post didn't take!

  • 210. fiona64  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:59 am

    PhinneyJ wrote: Therefore, you can use your supporting evidence to say that you can’t help being gay, and at the same time I can use my supporting evidence to say that you can help being gay.

    I hate to break it to you, Phinney … but not everyone supporting marriage equality is gay. I'm straight. Please show me your peer-reviewed, scientific evidence that true change in sexual orientation (not behavior … I know all about Evergreen, NARTH, Exodus and the other organizations that are debunked by every reputable psychiatric and psychological institution) is possible.

    I'll wait.

    Really.

    In the meanwhile, here are a few links (I know, this will take a while to get through moderation as a result) that show the biological basis for homosexuality:
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_an
    http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/born-gay/art
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sc
    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,…

    Of course, you could take the radical step of actually ::gasp:; talking to some LGBTQ people and asking them. I know I didn't choose to be straight; I just *am.* And guess what? Every LGBTQ person I know just *was.* They didn't choose it … in fact, they tried damned hard (with very few exceptions) *not* to be gay … and failed.

  • 211. fiona64  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:01 am

    PhinneyJ wrote: If you’d like to have “marriage”, an institution based in RELIGION, then any laws regarding marriage will have religious influence.

    Um, no. The church didn't get involved in marriage until about the mid 13th C. CE, because at that point it was becoming rather popular with the rising middle class (and there was money to be made). Before that, it was a business transaction, with daughters being used as chattel/hostages to ensure that the transaction "took."

    I suggest taking a gander at this link: http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/h

  • 212. Ann S.  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:02 am

    You know that marriage was originally purely a property transaction, right?

    Guess what, the state and federal laws all call that "civil ceremony" that you're talking about "marriage".

    A marriage certificate gives you legal and civil rights. Oh, and marriage. You're really getting into the double-speak if you're trying to say that a "marriage certificate" doesn't give you "marriage".

    Keep your "temple marriage" out of it since we're discussing legal and civil marriage.

  • 213. fiona64  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:02 am

    Guess what, Phinney? Whether you like it or not, your sexual orientation is just as immutable as your race/ethnicity. Prop 8 is directly analogous to the Nuremberg Laws in that it dictates who is allowed to marry whom. I know you don't like that particular reality, but that's just the way it is.

  • 214. Ann S.  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:05 am

    PhinnyJ, your religion is mutable. Yet laws can't be made that discriminate against someone based on religion.

  • 215. phinneyj  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:08 am

    Fiona64, I was quite clear in distinguishing that there are two different pairs of value assigned to the same two marriages. I said "to an outsider of the church, the two marriages are of equal weight. While to someone inside the church, the temple marriage is of immensely more value."

    This says nothing to the effect of "because of your religion, my marriage is less equal than one in your Temple". It stated simply: TO ME, my marriage in the temple would be of greater value or weight than a civil ceremony. This does not say that EVERYONE must believe this, it merely says that it's what I believe. I also said that to someone outside of the church, they are of equal weight. I was merely stating an observation, in both instances, and was not mandating a widespread belief that everyone MUST believe in the value of temple marriage as I do.

    You didn't make yourself look very smart just now.

  • 216. Donovan  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:09 am

    That's highly plausible depending on the year missionaries came by.

    The 50's-70's they were doing that sort of thing, until it became socially inappropriate thanks to the civil rights movement.

  • 217. Donovan  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:09 am

    I went to BYU and left the church. Best decision of my life.

  • 218. fiona64  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:10 am

    Phinney wrote: But when LGBQ want to have a “marriage”, not “civil ceremony”, I do not support that because it is against the religious basis that “marriage” has.

    Really? Hmm.

    You know, I've gone through the entire CA civil code relating to marriage, and I don't see a single thing that shows a religious requirement. Perhaps you can start here and show me what I missed?
    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdo

  • 219. phinneyj  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:24 am

    Haha really? Keep my "temple marriage" out of it? It was YOU who first brought temple marriage into this debate! "Well, there you go — you guys have “temple marriages”"

    And no, a marriage certificate does not give you marriage, you have it backwards. A marriage (or for those who don't want religion involved, a civil ceremony) gives you a marriage certificate. The marriage certificate is a physical symbol that you have the property of being legally bound to another person, to enjoy legal and tax benefits. For those who have had a marriage, not a civil ceremony, the marriage certificate is just part of the benefit (the rest is religious).

  • 220. phinneyj  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:25 am

    Could it be because the legal system uses the word "marriage" to refer to a civil ceremony or legal binding? Whereas churches use the word marriage in its earlier sense, which involved religion? Hmm….

  • 221. Ann S.  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:30 am

    Haha, really? You brought up how your marriages in the temple are so superior and all.

    So a marriage and a marriage certificate go together. The state issues a couple a marriage certificate, they get married, whether by a JP or a religious officiant or whoever, and they have a marriage.

    And BTW that "civil ceremony" is a marriage ceremony under law. And law is what we're talking about.

  • 222. phinneyj  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:32 am

    Fiona64, in response to your second-last post, at the end, you explained that all the LGBQ people you've met have told you they couldn't help it, and you acted as though this proved me wrong or something. I said there's evidence in support of being gay as a result of environmental factors, which includes from the time you are born until the current time. Your LGBQ friends may have been raised in an environment that promotes LGBQ behavior, and after being raised in such an environment, find that they cannot change from how they are. That doesn't mean it's genetic, it means it's so ingrained in their mentality from a young age that they will not be able to control it.

    It will take me a while to get through those links you posted, I will respond to them when I'm done.

  • 223. phinneyj  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:34 am

    Also, Ann, I'd like to let you know that my religion is IMmutable. We follow the teachings in the scriptures and if anything is contradictory to those teachings, we do not accept it.

  • 224. Ann S.  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:37 am

    Phinny, I'm saying that people join the church (that's what your missionaries want, right? for someone to change religions to yours?) and people leave the church, possibly to join other churches.

    And those rights are all protected under law. Why does mutability or immutability of sexual orientation matter to you? Someone wants to pledge to another that they will spend their lives together. This is a Good Thing.

    If your church doesn't want those people marrying in your church, you don't have to have them. That's your loss.

  • 225. phinneyj  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:41 am

    Actually, Fiona64 asked me why my marriage is more superior then hers, and I told her it depends on whether you're in the church or not. If you are, then you view your marriage as of more worth, if you're not, then you view your marriage as equal worth. So don't blame me for bringing something up that I didn't bring up, especially since I never said that my marriage is more valuable than your marriage. I gave the value that someone in the church would give it, and I gave the value that someone outside of the church would give it. Please don't twist my words, it reflects poorly on both of us.

  • 226. Prop 8 Trial Today Called&hellip  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:55 am

    […] Julia Rosen, blogging for the Courage Campaign notes: "Get that? The LDS Church intentionally worked to hide behind the scenes to disguise their involvement in the public realm. The LDS Church is well aware that the general public does not have the most favorable opinion of them. Attention on their involvement could have hurt their cause, namely passing Prop 8." […]

  • 227. Ann S.  |  January 21, 2010 at 4:57 am

    Phinney, I don't care who first brought it up. Your religion's doctrines should not dictate what constitutes legal marriage. No religion's doctrines should.

    Your religion can have the final say over what goes on in your temples and houses of worship. But laws should not be based on religious dogma.

  • 228. Justin  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:01 am

    Phinneyj, so what you are saying is that since Marriage is a "RELIGOUSE INSTUTION” Governments should not bestow any special rights or privileges to it, or recognize it at all. After all we do have separation of church and state in the USA. Do you really think the government should stop giving preferential treatment to religious people and only recognize civil unions? I can certainly see your point, that way churches can marry or refuse to marry any one they want, and if a couple (gay, strait, interracial, or whatever) wants their relationship recognized by the government they can apply for a civil union certificate. You really are quite brilliant. I’m sure the church would be on board with this. After all they really do care about and love Gay people as equals, and are just looking out for the best interest of their flock who would be so very lost confused without this sacred tradition.

  • 229. Missy  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:12 am

    James – I couldn't have said it better! I feel the same way!

  • 230. Ann S.  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:18 am

    Justin, maybe the government should stop giving tax-exempt status to those "religious institutions" as well, since then the separation of church and state would be more complete.

  • 231. Clark  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:18 am

    HR,

    I'll agree that analogies are often imperfect and that the idea of a degree being a perfect comparison for marriage is a preposterous one; in fact, that was the whole point of my comparison. Talking about getting angry over a degree versus getting angry over marriage is like talking about the difference between the government printing too much money and the government deciding that homosexuals can marry.

    In the first, the government quite literally devalues the thing in your pocket that you use to survive in your day-to-day life — you have every right to be angry.

    Marriage, however, is not a tangible currency. If homosexual marriage is such a sham, what about marriage between persons who don't love eachother, or between felons, or drug dealers/addicts, or anything like that? Would you dare suggest legislation to allow the government to perform extended background checks on people getting married, psych exams, etc? Very few people would actually admit to wanting that, and the overwhelming majority would crush them under heel.

    Your beliefs and proclivities toward marriage are yours to have and hold and however you feel the institution of marriage should be conducted is exactly how you are free to conduct it in your life. You are even free to tell me all about it, and even if I am offended by your ideas you still have every right to say it. But why, please tell me, do your views supersede mine? We've established that nature can't be used either way, history can't be used either way, so how about precedent, which is like history but generally considered more relevant.

    You keep bringing up a separate institution (like DPs, Civil Unions, etc) as being a fine alternative, despite all the evidence to contrary. I will bring three points against this:

    First: I live in Florida, which specifically states (thanks to a ballot initiative in 2008) that no institution but marriage itself shall be considered equal to marriage (marriage itself being defined as a heterosexual-only union). No DPs, no CUs, and even some Common Law marriages became invalid under this law. Furthermore, with things like DOMA in effect, no state has any burden to accept CU/DP arrangements from other states, making it an inherently lesser "institution."

    Second: While it confers certain benefits in terms of legality and recognition, marriage is an emotional attachment. Without even bringing up the history of marriage, you can look across the world today and see that the pairing of people far outshines the simple religious pairing of people. I would imagine that more people get married for love than "for God", but this is only speculation. However, one must see past simple prejudice (not used here as a pejorative term, but religion will prejudice you correlated to how deeply you follow it) and remember that this country in question, the United States, has a duty to ALL of it citizens, ESPECIALLY to repressed minorities who are subject to the tyranny of the majority, and has ABSOLUTELY ZERO duty to religion to uphold its ways or espouse its views. FROM A PURELY LEGAL STANDPOINT marriage is the legal union between two consenting adults (or what passes for consenting adults in weird states that allow children to be married if the parents give consent) into a type of corporation. We have so many standards and laws which talk about how it is illegal, improper and unjust to deny something to a man that you would give to a woman, so why would you deny "Bill" the right to marry "Tom" when you would grant, without hesitation or second thoughts, that same right to "Jill"? If you remove religion and bias from the equation, and look at it on the table, it is asinine to care at all who the two people are — it is not, nor should it ever have even been considered, the government's job to decide who can and who cannot love each other.

    Of course, with all that, I'm sure I would have redoubled the argument for Civil Unions and what-not, but I said I had three points, and I do.

    Third: Separate but equal is inherently unequal. If you think that the DP/CU still has anything to bring to bear when stood up against this powerful statement from the SCOTUS in 1954, then I question your logic circuit. You are proposing an unrecognized, inconsistently applied and often outright ignored system (which, many/most continue to say is "just not the same" and "worth very little") be placed against the privileged and emotionally charged (positively, hopefully) institution of marriage? Unfathomable.

    Your arguments sound like this:
    Homosexuals are either unfit or inferior, and their unions must be as well. This is prejudice and animus, and invalidates your opinion.

    It will harm the children. The American Medical, Psychological, Psychiatric and Pediatric societies would like a word with you. Some of them in private, behind a rusty chemical shed, with a garden hose in their hands for some inexplicable reason.

    They can have this other thing and I'll keep my marriage over here. Separate but equal…

    They are unfit for relationships for whatever reason I'm using this time. The government doesn't grant straight people marriage licenses based on whether or not they are deemed fit or unfit, healthy or unhealthy, or anything. You are holding homosexuals to some ridiculous standard that is, and this part is key, not enforced, anywhere (in the U.S.), for the existing institution of marriage as it applies to straight people. Or, to put it more plainly, your are pulling shit right out of your ass.

    My religion says it's wrong. Then don't let gay people get married in your church. 99/100 of them probably don't want to anyway.

    It makes me uncomfortable. Fuck you, it's not about you. If you want something to be about you, put on an art show with all of your incredibly lifelike salt-sculptures of Joseph Smith, but this pony just isn't your pony.

    Remember, you are, right now, part of the tyrannical majority. The same type of people who wanted to keep the races from intermarrying. The same type of people who wanted to prevent women's suffrage. The same type of people who didn't want slavery to end. The same type of people who, and I apologize for the Godwin's, perpetrated the Holocaust (again, I'm sorry, and I'm not comparing the holocaust and the plight of homosexuals in this country, but it's the same mental attitude – "they are inferior, unworthy people whom I am better than" that sparks these ideas into acceptance).

    You have no right to decide how they live their lives. I'm not even gay and I know that much.

  • 232. Ann S.  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:21 am

    You go, Clark! Bravo! Well said!

  • 233. Clark  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:24 am

    To one of my earlier points: If marriage has some value that is reduced by more people marrying, then ONLY homosexuals should marry, since then we'd have the smallest number of marriages, and therefore the highest per-marriage value — OH, how we could rub it in China's face, wouldn't it be great?

    USA! USA! WOOOO!

    Hint: Marriage is not devalued by people marrying. That is the single dumbest argument for something I have heard since Kirk Cameron told me about bananas.

  • 234. Ann S.  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:28 am

    Clark, you are so right. It seems to be an LDS talking point to compare marriage to a college degree that is devalued if just anyone can issue one. WTF???

  • 235. TheDol  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:39 am

    Not nonsense at all. They certainly felt that conversion would "cure" Native Americans of their "sinful" dark skin. I grew up near the Navajo reservation and my best friend was Mormon. I can tell you for sure that even in the 90s, the Mormon Church saw it as their duty to "save" the poor, lost Lamanites. They convinced many an impoverished Navajo family to send their children to live with white people in Utah.
    http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Lamanites

    "Once such statement made by Elder Kimball in the October 1960 General Conference, 15 years before he became president of the Church:
    I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today … they are fast becoming a white and delightsome people…. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised…. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.[6]"

  • 236. Justin  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:46 am

    Ann S. In all sincerity I totally agree with you. I'm hoping that documents in this trial will come to light showing the Catholic and LDS churches in violation of IRS exemption Requirements – Section 501(c)(3) Organizations. Yesterday makes me think that perhaps we will.

  • 237. Ann S.  |  January 21, 2010 at 5:53 am

    Justin, I strongly suspect that the LDS Church has, at a minimum, violated California election laws. The IRS limits on political donations by religious tax-exempt organizations are rather vague and unfortunately seem to be lacking in enforcement (I suppose the IRS doesn't want the shit-storm that would come with going after the LDS church). I am also hoping that can be shown more conclusively, that they are in violation.

  • 238. fiona64  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:04 am

    Phinney, is it really possible that you are illiterate? I ask this in all sincerity.

    You wrote: Could it be because the legal system uses the word “marriage” to refer to a civil ceremony or legal binding? Whereas churches use the word marriage in its earlier sense, which involved religion? Hmm….

    Um, no. Because marriage was CIVIL long before it was religious. Let me refresh your memory with a link I have already provided.
    http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/h

    This excellent article explains how marriage was a business arrangement for much of the history of Western civilization, and how the church only got involved in the mid-13th C. CE. So yes, sweetiepie, marriage predates religious involvement — not the other way around.

  • 239. Bill  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:05 am

    HiveRadical YOUR comment demonstates your hostility.

  • 240. fiona64  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:07 am

    @janeway:

    Sorry, but it's not nonsense at all (and I am indeed sorry that it isn't nonsense … I wish it were). Just a few sources:
    http://www.lds-mormon.com/racism.shtml
    http://purplepew.org/news/opinion/20070223/utah-s
    http://mormonthink.com/blackweb.htm

    Enjoy.

  • 241. fiona64  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:09 am

    You know, I have a number of friends who are archaeologists (I'm a forensic anthro major). Every one of them said they would risk "eternal damnation" by revealing the golden tablets … it would be far too significant a find.

  • 242. fiona64  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:14 am

    Phinney, you made me laugh out loud with this: Your LGBQ friends may have been raised in an environment that promotes LGBQ behavior, and after being raised in such an environment, find that they cannot change from how they are.

    I grew up in a rural part of Oregon. Believe me, buddy, there is nothing in THAT argument that promotes LGBTQ behavior. And yet, I knew gay people. How can that possibly be?

    There are gay people in your church, Phinney. What is it about your church that turns people gay?

    What would you say to someone like Stuart Matis? http://www.newsweek.com/id/83973

    Oh, wait. I'm sorry … you can't say anything to Stuart Matis, because he committed suicide as a direct result of your church's policies toward GLBTQ people.

    You are so full of shite that it isn't even funny.

    You told me it'll be a while before you can get your links to me. Yeah, I'll wait for those peer-reviewed scientific links that shows it's all about how you were raised. I know I'll be waiting a long time, because there is NO SUCH EVIDENCE.

  • 243. Ann S.  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:14 am

    And Fiona, don't forget the special glasses that only Smith had. But gave back.

    Yeah.

  • 244. Sheri  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:17 am

    Sorry Janeway and Pete…. both of you have your facts atleast partially wrong.

    Pete, Janeway is right that is not what the LDS taught even back then… but I can see how your Aunt might have misunderstood the church's teachings.

    The Church Actually did teach that the reason that Blacks could not hold the Priesthood back then was because some untold sin that they had committed in the "pre-existance" and that once all of the black males whom had committed that sin had passed on then the Church would allow Black men to then hold the priesthood. After Death everyone would then have the same color skin (presumably white, but never stated so according to my knowledge).

    So according to the doctrine of the LDS Church then the Lord did have a plan that was different for Blacks then everyone else…

    I was raised in the Church by an Army Drill Sargent during the 60s and 70s… so this is a question that I was constantly asked by friends many of whom were (are) African American. As such it is a Question that I constantly repeated… I never got an answer that was any better then the one listed above. obviously not satisfactory then or now. especially that the church is doing its best to hide from that part of its history. To the point of parading the few prominate African American members such as Gladys Night.

    I should have left the church way back then… but I did not grow the balls to stand up to my father until about year or so after the church changed its stance on Blacks and the Priestood. Besides I could not have hurt my mother in that way… though my mother tried to support my feelings of being transgender back then atleast as much as she felt that she could and still keep the church and my father happy.

    The Ironic point of all this? According to the Church I'm still a priesthood holder in good standing… I keep trying to publicize myself and hopfully get excommunicated. Maybe this time it will work. Until then I just might be the only female in the world who holds the Priesthood from the Mormon Church ūüėČ

    P.S. the reason that I say blacks when refering to the Church is that is how the Church refered to them back then (many still do). While I personally have many African American Friends all of whom deserve my upmost respect and love… which I give Freely.

  • 245. fiona64  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:17 am

    Hooray for you, Clark!

    (You didn't Godwin, BTW … Prop 8 is exactly analogous to the Nuremberg Laws.)

  • 246. fiona64  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:20 am

    @Justin and Ann: I am rapidly becoming an advocate of the EU's policy in this regard. If you want to have 20 church weddings, go right ahead — but they have no legal standing without a separate civil marriage down at the registry/bureau. Let's really separate church and state, by removing the courtesy right afforded to churches to perform legally binding weddings.

  • 247. fiona64  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:21 am

    PS to Phinney. My apologies for a typo; "THAT argument" should have read "THAT area."

    By your logic, though, since I had gay friends despite growing up in an area where "queer bashing" is a hobby, how is it possible that I grew up straight? After all, merely knowing gay people may mean it's "catching" somehow.

    @@

    When did YOU decide to be straight, Phinney? I'm just curious. Because your implication that it's a choice means that you, too, have dealt with same-sex attraction and made a decision.

  • 248. Ann S.  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:28 am

    Fiona, I think that could work. It's just so hard to change an entrenched custom. But I keep hearing about ministers and other officiants who would like to stop being a civil servant and having that legal power to declare people married because, for one thing, there's a lot of paperwork.

  • 249. Cassandra  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:35 am

    Thank you Sheryl, for your voice, for your sanity, and for giving your son the freedom to be himself.

  • 250. Prop 8: Religion on Trial&hellip  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:35 am

    […] admitted at the trial, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS) sought to create "plausible deniability" with respect to its efforts in the […]

  • 251. Frankie  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:38 am

    The LDS church and any others involved this deeply in the Prop argument should lose their tax exempt status immediately.

  • 252. Prop 8 Trial "Explos&hellip  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:40 am

    […] it an "explosive afternoon" the Courage Campaign's Prop 8 live blog reported late today that according to documents revealed to the court, the Mormon Church labored hard behind the scenes […]

  • 253. Sheri  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:41 am

    Again Janeway you are only telling half of the story…. That 30 or so people are the (according to the Book Of Mormon, and official church doctrine) are the group whom all of the Native Americans (north, South and central americans) are desented from.

    the Lamanites (desendants of Laman, as opposed to the Nephites who were desended from Nephi) both Men Nephi and Laman were born and grew up in Jerusalem. if anyone wish's to challenge me on my facts just read the book of mormon (at any library or online at LDS.org or you could call the church and they will mail you a free copy (but the Misionaries will follow up).

    back to the Lamanites for a quick second… the Book of Mormon also teachs that they are darker skinned then the Nephites (and therfor the Isrealites) because they would not continue to follow the teachings of Christ (yes the LDS church teaches that Christ visited the Nephites in the Americas after his death). Sort of convinient again as Moroni was the last living Nephite and the son of Mormon (who compiled the book of Mormon).

    I will quit "hating on the Mormon church" as soon as they quit teaching everyone to Hate on Me! AS far as going back to where I came from…. I'm there. I am currently sitting within a one hour drive of were I was born. So sorry Janeway… I'm exactly where I belong.

    The Sad part in all of this is that there are many good people and some lifelong friends whom I never or very rarely see because of the hate that thier church preach's.

  • 254. Bob M  |  January 21, 2010 at 6:57 am

    During the 1960's while in Seminary, we were taught that any person of color would have lighter skin, if they joined the LDS church. This was a big issue for the American Indians in the Navajo reservation near Blanding, UT. Many an American Indian was disappointed when their skin did not lighten after joining. They were told they had not given up their old faith and embraced God to the degree need to receive the blessing of lighter skin. You must also remember that Utah territorial legislature adopted slavery in 1851 and made Utah the only slave state in the far west, but changed when they were forced to join the North Union Army during the civil war and of course the elimination of slavery after the war.

  • 255. Aconite  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:15 am

    Folks, the anti-equality side keeps saying, "Domestic partnerships are fine; I just don't think you should be able to get married."

    Don't let them get away with this. THERE IS NOT ONE ANTI-EQUALITY ORGANIZATION THAT SUPPORTS DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS. While these organizations–like NOM–repeat that talking point, they are at the same time actively working against DPs (usually on the grounds that DPs are the first step to s-s marriage).

    Note that anti-equality bills (like the one being voted on in Indiana now) explicitly state that not only marriage, but anything LIKE marriage, is to be restricted to one man and one woman.

    The next time someone tells you, "I don't have a problem with DPs"–tell the lying, hypocritical ass to prove it.

    (Not that separate is equal when it comes to DPs and marriage [or anything else], and we all know it. But they keep saying DPs are good enough while they campaign against them, and I'm tired of seeing them get away with it. They do not want you even to have crumbs. Keep calling them on that.)

  • 256. Ann S.  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:19 am

    Aconite, this is a good point. They claim they don't "mind" if LGBT people have equal rights, and yet — they're quietly working to undermine those, too. Lying and hypocritical asses, I agree.

  • 257. Lily  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:24 am

    This absolutely COULD be true, and it is ripped straight from church publications.

    "I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today as against that of only fifteen years ago. Truly the scales of darkness are falling from their eyes, and they are fast becoming a white and delightsome people….

    The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos;…The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.

    At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl…was several shades lighter than her parents…There was the doctor in a Utah city who for two years had had an Indian boy in his home who stated that he was some shades lighter than the younger brother just coming into the program from the reservation. These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated.

    The day of the Lamanites has come….today the dark clouds are dissipating.” (Spencer W. Kimball, Improvement Era, December 1960. pages 922-23)

  • 258. Beck  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:40 am

    Phinney said: " I was quite clear in distinguishing that there are two different pairs of value assigned to the same two marriages. I said “to an outsider of the church, the two marriages are of equal weight. While to someone inside the church, the temple marriage is of immensely more value.”

    This says nothing to the effect of “because of your religion, my marriage is less equal than one in your Temple”. It stated simply: TO ME, my marriage in the temple would be of greater value or weight than a civil ceremony. This does not say that EVERYONE must believe this, it merely says that it’s what I believe. I also said that to someone outside of the church, they are of equal weight. I was merely stating an observation, in both instances, and was not mandating a widespread belief that everyone MUST believe in the value of temple marriage as I do."

    And also stated that church members would find it offensive to have the word marriage applied to same sex unions recognized by law because marriage is an institution based in religion.

    But aren't you just arguing over possession of the word? I gather that it holds more signifigance as a sacrament in your church, so why aren't you angry over the fact that outer church straight unions are referred to as marriages as well? Isn't that also a detriment to the percieved holiness of marriage? Why should a straight couple have exemption from the argument of less holiness if their marriage wasn't ordained by a church? If the meaning of the word to you holds such signifigance, then find some way to make it a church specific term. Then will you be OK with same sex couples trying to have their relationships recognized by law with equal benefits and status as striaght couples?

  • 259. Lily  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:48 am

    God willing. There is nothing I'd like to see more than for A. the truth about this to become wide spread and well known and B. for TSCC (The So Called Church) to lose their tax-exempt status and be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

    I can only hope that this truth becoming public knowledge will help many fence-sitting Mormons to start to question their faith and realize that their church is not as infallible as they claim to be.

  • 260. Lily  |  January 21, 2010 at 7:55 am

    But they are freezing for their principles! It's religious persecution!

    Hey… maybe this will be the cause of the next mass Mormon exodus. Perhaps Utah will soon be free of Mos? Nah… they own too much real estate in Utah (none of which was purchased with tithe money, right?)

  • 261. Lily  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:01 am

    Why are you bothering with HR? The brainwashing force is strong in this one.

  • 262. Lily  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:09 am

    Here's what I honestly don't understand about LDS and their obsession with gay marriage:

    Mormons don't believe that ANY marriage outside of the temple sealing ceremony is all that valid. It might be "legal" but it isn't worthy in their religion. The goal of any good Mo is to find another temple worthy Mo and have their marriage sealed by another worthy Mo in a ridiculous costume with some ridiculous, made up "authority" from God. THAT is Gawd's true marriage.

    Similarly, most Christians believe that marriage is b/n a man, a woman and God.

    However, (straight) people who do not hold any of the above beliefs are still allowed to "marry" (although that definition is so different between the different groups) and Mo's don't try to stop it. They simply don't recognize those marriages as having merit inside their particular religion.

    So WTF? Why can't they extend the same tolerance (huh- good one!) to gay marriage? No one is asking to be sealed in a temple! They just want the same rights to marry as straight people who don't abide by Mo rules and Mo think. WHY IS THAT A PROBLEM FOR MORMONS? Keep your religious hocus pocus to yourself, and let the rest of us live the way we want to live!

    Flat out- SEPARATE RELIGIOUS DEFINITIONS OF MARRIAGE FROM LEGAL ONES ONCE AND FOR ALL.

  • 263. Mike  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:13 am

    I could be wrong, but it looks like the language that the Prop 8 Tracker and Andrew Sullivan quoted was not language from an actual email from the Church, but rather the testimony of Professor Segura (expert for the No on 8 campaign) giving his opinion on the church's involvement–a view the LDS church likely disagrees with. If I have not misread the transcript, it looks to me like it is you that is not being truthful.

    Here is the link to the transcript. Search the term "deniability" for the relevant portion.
    http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/wp-content/u

  • 264. Lily  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:18 am

    Well, OBVIOUSLY gay parents will only raise gay kids because straight parents only ever raise straight kids…

    Right?

  • 265. Larry  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:36 am

    I can't find on the website how to un-do the Prop 8 Trial Tracker email notification of comment updates. I'm getting inundated from the website and need to stop it.

  • 266. Lily  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:46 am

    Not only that, but until they start to try to pass legislation banning divorce (which is much more related to "traditional" marriage, no?), banning masturbation (though I'm sure some would love to), banning sex and cohabitation before marriage, etc the fact that they fixate on this lets their homophobia show. "God" prohibits hundreds of things they don't seem to want to make laws about, but this is the only one they are really going after right now (other than abortion.) Why is that? Why is it still acceptable in this country to take rights away from people b/c you disagree with them?!

  • 267. Mormon church wanted ‚Äėp&hellip  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:51 am

    […] key email that got the attention of Julia Rosen at the Prop 8 Trial Tracker blog was one between officials of the Church of Latter-Day Saints and […]

  • 268. Ann S.  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:51 am

    Larry, there should be an "unsubscribe" button at the bottom of each email.

  • 269. Cassandra  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:54 am

    Actually, the entire diploma argument is false, for your purposes, but it brings up some very interesting arguments for marriage equality.

    You see, the problem is, you could start issuing degrees at any time. Feel free. Have fun. It won't devalue my degree (although some people might label you a degree mill).

    If you are interested in the qualifications for becoming an accredited, or non-accredited university, Wikipedia has some general information for you. The U.S. even allows for religious-exempt degrees, if you don't wish to be held to accreditation standards.

    But here is where your argument gets interesting. I think anyone with a diploma will agree: The value of my degree lies in the value of the institution who issued it, and not in the fact that it is a piece of paper with a fancy seal. I think this is exactly the argument that Phinneyj was struggling to use below. Your marriage does not have value because you have a piece of paper, correct? It has value because you performed some act (serving four years at a university; taking vows before God; exchanging rings in front of your family; etc.), and an institution in which you believe proclaimed that act to be valid.

    No one who believes same-sex marriage should be legally recognized in the United States is claiming that your church or other ceremonial institution has to perform these marriages. So, by your own argument, your marriages will remain safe, undiluted, holy, and so on.

    We have established that United States recognizes both diplomas and marriage licenses as pieces of paper which convey meaning about a person or persons. It also has some very open standards regarding how these can be issued (just jump through a few hoops and become a county clerk, if you like, or an accredited university).

    But the United States will not issue this marriage certificate to a specific group of people: homosexuals. This is discrimination. A marriage license, unlike a marriage ceremony, has nothing to do with religious or moral sensibilities, but it has everything do with shared personal property, finances, and the ability and duty of two adults to form a family and to support one another.

    Are you still not clear on the discrimination part? Okay. Taking your diploma analogy: saying that marriage licenses should not be issued to a specific segment of the population is like saying that degrees should no longer be issued to a small group — let's use Mormons, for instance — because the idea that a Mormon might hold a certificate decreeing that he or she is educated is offensive to my personal beliefs and sensibilities. After all, there is nothing in this country that says you need to be educated or have a degree. Furthermore, I believe that to allow a member of the LDS to receive a diploma makes it stop being marriage [a degree]. to use the term marriage [education] so broadly, and have such broad usage endorsed, would impact the views of, and hence the adoption of, marriage [diplomas] in future generations.

    You see how that works?

    PS – If you are offended, welcome to our world. The above example is most certainly discrimination. I freely admit that. I submit it as an example only, and not as my personal beliefs. Besides, it is merely paraphrasing and directly quoting what you have written above. For the record, there are some very nice, educated Mormons out there. You also appear to be educated in some manner, in the sense that you often string together long sentences with big words, even if you do tend to misuse your words within somewhat awkward sytax.

  • 270. Cassandra  |  January 21, 2010 at 8:55 am

    Actually, the entire diploma argument is false, for your purposes, but it brings up some very interesting arguments for marriage equality.

    You see, the problem is, you could start issuing degrees at any time. Feel free. Have fun. It won't devalue my degree (although some people might label you a degree mill).

    If you are interested in the qualifications for becoming an accredited, or non-accredited university, Wikipedia has some general information for you. The U.S. even allows for religious-exempt degrees, if you don't wish to be held to accreditation standards.

    But here is where your argument gets interesting. I think anyone with a diploma will agree: The value of my degree lies in the value of the institution who issued it, and not in the fact that it is a piece of paper with a fancy seal. I think this is exactly the argument that Phinneyj was struggling to use below. Your marriage does not have value because you have a piece of paper, correct? It has value because you performed some act (serving four years at a university; taking vows before God; exchanging rings in front of your family; etc.), and an institution in which you believe proclaimed that act to be valid.

    No one who believes same-sex marriage should be legally recognized in the United States is claiming that your church or other ceremonial institution has to perform these marriages. So, by your own argument, your marriages will remain safe, undiluted, holy, and so on.

    We have established that United States recognizes both diplomas and marriage licenses as pieces of paper which convey meaning about a person or persons. It also has some very open standards regarding how these can be issued (just jump through a few hoops and become a county clerk, if you like, or an accredited university).

    But the United States will not issue this marriage certificate to a specific group of people: homosexuals. This is discrimination. A marriage license, unlike a marriage ceremony, has nothing to do with religious or moral sensibilities, but it has everything do with shared personal property, finances, and the ability and duty of two adults to form a family and to support one another.

    Are you still not clear on the discrimination part? Okay. Taking your diploma analogy: saying that marriage licenses should not be issued to a specific segment of the population is like saying that degrees should no longer be issued to a small group — let's use Mormons, for instance — because the idea that a Mormon might hold a certificate decreeing that he or she is educated is offensive to my personal beliefs and sensibilities. After all, there is nothing in this country that says you need to be educated or have a degree. Furthermore, I believe that to allow a member of the LDS to receive a diploma makes it stop being marriage [a degree]. to use the term marriage [education] so broadly, and have such broad usage endorsed, would impact the views of, and hence the adoption of, marriage [diplomas] in future generations.

    You see how that works?

    PS – If you are offended, welcome to our world. The above example is most certainly discrimination. I freely admit that. I submit it as an example only, and not as my personal beliefs. Besides, it is merely paraphrasing and directly quoting what you have written above. For the record, there are some very nice, educated Mormons out there. You also appear to be educated in some manner, in the sense that you often string together long sentences with big words, even if you do tend to misuse your words within somewhat awkward sytax.

  • 271. Clark  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:12 am

    Brilliant, I love it!

  • 272. brooke  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:20 am

    Cassie, I too would have to agree you are a very strong individual. The heartache you're going through now will pay off in the end. I too was raised in the LDS church by extremely strict and close-minded parents. I came out to them as a gay woman and it has taken years for them to be some-what accepting. They arent perfect and have a long way to come before I would say they're proud of who I am, but it gets better. Continue to be proud of who you are and be strong. You will get to a point when the negativity of your parents won't matter and maybe they'll begin to see things differently. If they dont, you'll still be ok.

  • 273. fiona64  |  January 21, 2010 at 9:48 am

    Heh. One of my favorite arguments ever about the sin of homosexuality and its prohibition by god:
    http://www.humanistsofutah.org/2002/WhyCantIOwnAC

    My favorite entry:

    My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? – Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

  • 274. Morning Roundup: Cindy Mc&hellip  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:40 am

    […] documents were entered into evidence yesterday in the ongoing Prop 8 trial in California that detail involvement¬†by the Church of Latter Day Saints¬†(Mormons), describing their attempt at “plausible deniability” to mask their deep […]

  • 275. HiveRadical  |  January 21, 2010 at 11:06 am

    Awwwww!

    Mike beat me to it!

    Turns out this whole "GOTCHA" moment was out of context propaganda (I thought the grammatical singularity of omitting the 'the' prior to 'church' was odd for a supposed document coming from the Church, a Church rather meticulous about dotting it's 'i's and crossing it's 't's)

    So you're all essentially going bananas over an erroneously attributed statement of a witnesses personal opinion as to what a document essentially meant RATHER than going bananas about some actual admission by the Church.

    This coming from the kind, rational, loving "No on 8" crowd.

    Can we expect such stellar reporting going forward?

    Bravo '"Courage" Campaign Institute'!!! Though willful erroneous attribution to malign a religious group which you've long aimed to make the boogie man of your failed attempt at preserving a Judge's attempt at social engineering via 'legislation' from the bench is hardly 'Courageous.'

    Oh that my side would trumpet and display for all to see the fanaticism and lunacy displayed here off your propaganda centric 'reporting' of this trial.

    They tossed you what you thought was a prime cut off meat and you'd swallowed it whole before realizing it was an aggrandized squeaky toy. You're no different than the small minded followers of the Right's pundits and demagogues that you so abhor. But few of you will ever fess up to the reality that you've as many mindless ideologues on your side, if not more, than are found any where else.

  • 276. Ann S.  |  January 21, 2010 at 11:17 am

    Grow up, Hive. The bloggers aren't trained court reporters, they're typing as fast as they can. Yeah, you're right. Big frickin' deal.

    You've got your rights, and you don't want anyone else to have theirs. Didn't anyone teach you to share?

  • 277. HiveRadical  |  January 21, 2010 at 12:08 pm

    Clark,

    I've got a point addressing the currency and another regarding some of your points on your perception of my view.

    First the latter-

    Separate but unequal.

    I agree that separate is unequal. I'm glad you agree. You see this was my point regarding dynamics. Different relationships have different dynamics. Since they are different (then by definition separate) they are not equal, they are not equivalent. So that admission ON YOUR PART demonstrates my point that there is an UNEQUAL dynamic for children. So by your own core premise, separate but not equal, we are depriving children when we endorse a condition that is separate but not equal, namely lacking a parent of a particular gender. Separate but not equal is what you are seeking. You see when it comes down to it your side is the side trying to ignore reality, trying to ignore that the physiological variances between the sexes have a hell of a lot more of an impact than skin tone ever could be imagined to have. Your side is the one trying to say that separate circumstances being equivocated for children is okay. Your side is the one that's saying that we have separate but equal.

    My side on the other hand is stating things as they are. That sex (unlike skin pigmentation) with it's massive physiological implications (unlike skin pigmentation) has a sweeping impact on the net dynamics that emerge in a relationship and thusly a separate and UNEQUAL condition hoisted on children.

    Your side also distorts the idea of merit. You conflate, erroneously, variations in sex with variations in education, social desirability, or socioeconomic condition with anatomical differences that REGARDLESS the SEXUAL ORIENTATION impact the dynamics of a relationship. This isn't about 'earning' marriage or equality, it's about seeing the purpose for marriage that merits any societal concern at all, the welfare of the children.

    And as you've made obvious through your appeal to 'separate but not equal' you are promoting a condition that is separate and not equal FOR THE CHILDREN.

    WHY DOES THIS WORK FOR CONSENTING ADULTS SEEKING SOCIETAL APPROBATION BUT NOT FOR CHILDREN SEEKING TO PARTICIPATE IN A ROBUST CULTURE CAPABLE OF ALWAYS SUSTAINING A CULTURE FOCUSED ON THE FUTURE GENERATIONS RATHER THAN JUST THE PERSONAL FULFILLMENT OF MONOGAMOUS RELATIONSHIPS??? WHY DO YOU WORRY ABOUT THE CONSENTING ADULTS MORE THAN THE CHILDREN WHEN IT COMES TO IDEAS OF EQUALITY???

    Could it be that this is not about equality but that it's about the grown adults stating GOT MINE #&%* YOU to the children???

    The currency link actually enhances my analogy. Allow me to demonstrate.

    I come up with my own exchange currency.

    I have my own little group that accepts the currency (so far so good–not devaluing anyone's green back).

    My currency becomes as stable and viable as the green back. (so I and my people claim)

    I declare that the government not regarding it as legal tender is unjust discrimination against me and my fellow citizens using the currency (say we want to use the currency to pay our taxes etc.)

    The government eventually lets us use our currency.

    Two currencies are now considered legal tender. No one's currency to this point has been devalued.

    Time passes and they are both seen as equivalent.

    Then the currency introduced starts to inflate and since they are now different in name only, since the government accepts both as equal, devaluation on one front is devaluation on the other.

  • 278. HiveRadical  |  January 21, 2010 at 12:11 pm

    Ann, If the bloggers can't pay attention to what is actually happening in the court then maybe, just maybe, they shouldn't be heading up the primary commentary for your side on a trial. You can go off in the delusion that they just didn't have enough classes in short hand but a more probable explanation can be found in either hearing what you want to hear OR repeating to others what you want them to hear-or even a mixture of the two.

  • 279. Tom B.  |  January 21, 2010 at 12:21 pm

    I offer to you the following site:
    http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/our-work/hea
    This site contains complete and unedited transcripts of every day of the trial, as provided by the court reporters in accordance with public legal disclosure laws.

  • 280. fiona64  |  January 21, 2010 at 12:23 pm

    Can it, troll.

  • 281. Ann S.  |  January 21, 2010 at 1:24 pm

    Fiona, you are so right. I'm done talking to trolls.

  • 282. Cassandra  |  January 21, 2010 at 2:31 pm

    Sorry for the double post. I must have inadvertently clicked submit twice.

  • 283. Tangled Webs « Quee&hellip  |  January 21, 2010 at 3:33 pm

    […] The Prop 8 trial continues apace. Yesterday afternoon was particularly interesting. From Courage Campaigns trial tracker: For example, one letter indicated that the LDS church had identified a volunteer for the campaign […]

  • 284. The Mormon Church Needs T&hellip  |  January 21, 2010 at 10:28 pm

    […] memo from the Mormon church to the Yes on 8 campaign surfaced a couple days ago in the trial over Proposition 8 in California.  It read: With respect to Prop. 8 campaign, key […]

  • 285. Mike  |  January 21, 2010 at 11:39 pm

    I don't think the "all-caps" part of your post is correct. The LDS church has on its website that it supports equal civil rights for all–including civil unions, and in fact supported legislation in Salt Lake City protecting the rights of same-sex couples.

  • 286. RAL  |  January 22, 2010 at 12:01 am

    Mike,

    You are partially correct that the LDS Church has very recently moved to a position of support (in Salt Lake City) for SOME protections for GLBT people. Let's be VERY clear, though. This is a new development — we should encourage it, but its new. For example, back in 1999-2000 when the Church was working actively to pass prop 22, one heard the very same sort of language about supporting DPs/civil union type arrangements — just not marriage. Then, they turned right around and supported the ant-marriage equality law that Nebraska passed in 2000. The Nebraska statute outlawed ANY protections at all for gay couples.

  • 287. Correction Needed  |  January 22, 2010 at 12:40 am

    The "most explosive" language of the email referenced in the article did not come from an email between a leader of the Mormon Church and the Prop 8 campaign as is asserted above. It's actually a direct quote from a plaintiff's expert witness as is revealed by a . Notice the "leader" who allegedly wrote the explosive email is never identified. I invite you to correct the record.

  • 288. Clark  |  January 22, 2010 at 3:17 am

    I hate to say it, but this is almost getting fun. I'm hoping I didn't offend anyone with my profanity before, sometimes I can let myself get pretty carried away into the heat of an argument.

    I don't have much time today to type my usual long-winded reply, so I'll let some others do that for me. I'll provide my concise and opposing (as well as extensively scientifically backed) view as follows: Children need loving, caring, devoted parents (two of 'em), but the gender and sexual orientation of these parents is, to the task of parenting, irrelevant.

    Here is a study by the American Psychological Association showing that children raised by same-sex couples fare just as well, in every way, as children raised by heterosexual couples:
    http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting.as

    Here again is the American Psychological Association with their position on Adoption and Co-Parenting of Children by Same-Sex Couples; I encourage you to read it yourself, but I'll distill it now: Children in these studies turn out best when they have two parents whose relationship with each other and with the child is strong; the gender and sexual orientation of the parents has found to be almost irrelevant. When is it relevant? When children raised to be cruel and intolerant tease them mercilessly, or worse.
    [PDF] http://archive.psych.org/edu/other_res/lib_archiv

    And, so I'm not a one-source pony, here is the American Academy of Pediatric's opinion on the matter:
    http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/

    And, in order to give a summary of opinions without requiring the reading of several extremely long documents, here is the wikipedia article (linked last as it is just a supplementary resource, not the primary):
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting

    So, with all of that linking and summarizing out of the way, on to the currency analogy. Let me just open and say that the comparison of love to a fiat currency is inherently flawed and ridiculous. Love, and I mean real love not getting drunk in vegas and ending up married somehow (totally legal and legitimate, by the way) is not a representative currency to be overprinted and devalued, and it is not a resource prized for its rarity, such as Gold, which could also be devalued if the market were flooded.

    Love, and by extension, marriage, defies analogy. Maybe air, as no matter how much you have, it only hurts when someone takes yours away, or gives you a poor substitute. But even air fails, because I'm sure one could draw some nightmare scenario in which Person A had to take the air away from Person X in order to stay alive, and that this is why straight people must continue to deny gay people marriage.

    I'm sorry, I just cannot understand in the least how gay marriage affects you. Nobody is going to make you get gay married, and nobody is going to dissolve your marriage, yet you rail against the simple truth that two people love each other, two people you have never and will never meet, and that as humans and citizens they have the, as we espouse them, natural right to be married. That this is even an issue defies rational explanation.

  • 289. Clark  |  January 22, 2010 at 3:25 am

    Also, as for your argument about introducing a second currency and whatnot: even though I reject the fiat currency analogy (and instead only brought it up as an example of something to get mad about, not a comparison, which makes this kind of a straw man, but I think we'll live through it), I'll bite for just one short post:

    We are not asking for a second currency to sit alongside yours. In fact, that is what is being offered by your side in the form of CU/DP. We are asking to use the same currency, and in the same places (e.g., recognized throughout the states). Love is of unchanging value and infinite reserve, so a fiat of love can never devalue.

    You see the relationships as separate, but I see them as the same: people loving each other. With respect to a loving gay couple, why are you so obsessed with another man's genitals? (Low blow, I know, I kid, I kid)

    Similarly, I'll say again, Marriage does not become devalued by people getting married. That is preposterous. Marriage is devalued by, if anything, Vegas chapels for drunk strangers, teenagers who had sex once involved in shotgun weddings, game shows where the prize is getting married, most celebrity marriages, and most of all, DIVORCE.

    But no one ever wants to initiate a ballot initiative to ban divorce, do they?

  • 290. Ann S.  |  January 22, 2010 at 3:37 am

    Again, nicely said, Clark.

    Love,
    Ann

  • 291. Kelly  |  January 22, 2010 at 10:19 am

    all i can say i wish my state isn't under california supreme court sooner were out of under there the better

  • 292. LDS Church supported Prop&hellip  |  January 23, 2010 at 2:12 pm

    […] Read more…. Tags: Church Resources, Lds Church, Mormon Church […]

  • 293. Prop 8 – The Mormon&hellip  |  January 26, 2010 at 7:58 am

    […] to the trial testimony, the Mormon church did not take the "lead" in campaign efforts. Testimony revealed that the church's efforts were spearheaded by ProtectMarriage.com in order to create […]

  • 294. When Mormons Mobilize: An&hellip  |  February 1, 2010 at 9:01 am

    […] the California-based Courage Campaign latched onto the phrase ‚Äúplausible deniability‚ÄĚ as an ‚Äúexplosive‚ÄĚ indictment of the Mormon Church‚Äôs allegedly behind-the-scenes relationship to the Proposition […]

  • 295. Hanford Searl Jr.  |  February 15, 2010 at 12:22 pm

    … As a FORMER Mormon, excommunicated for being gay after 15-yrs. membership, an honorable mission & a BYU grad in Broadcast Journalism (just named to "Who's Who in America – in the Media" for thee 3rd. consectuive yr.!), I can safely say: "NOT SURPRISING!!!"

    – Experienced the annual witch hunts for gay students at the Y in the Spring-of-'69, when I joined the LDS Church. Personally knew a fellow Bflo., NY student, who went through church-sanctioned electric shock therapy, an encouraged temple marriage (by then Pres. Spencer W. Kimball), became a temple work, divorced & trried to kill himself!!!

    … The Mormon Church STILL endorses electric shock therapy of gay members, only now off-BYU's-campus due to law suits! Thank GODDESS for-the-LAW!!!

  • 296. Prop. 8 Smoking Guns? - G&hellip  |  April 20, 2010 at 1:16 am

    […] Julia Rosen over at Prop8 Trial Tracker says: Get that? The LDS Church intentionally worked to hide behind the scenes to disguise their involvement in the public realm. The LDS Church is well aware that the general public does not have the most favorable opinion of them. Attention on their involvement could have hurt their cause, namely passing Prop 8. […]

  • 297. attorney pearland  |  June 13, 2013 at 11:53 pm

    – Leads for lawyers are expensive, especially for personal injury attorneys;.

    Moreover, attorneys in Houston are capable as well
    as skilled of offering the person with the best and good
    legal services that person needs. Bureau of Labor Statistics,
    about 26% of lawyers are self-practitioners with the majority of them working
    in corporations as staff attorneys.

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!