Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Latter-day revisionism: Church allies hope memory banks are as easy to steal as wedding rings

Prop 8 trial

Cross-posted at Good As You.

By Jeremy Hooper

JoelcampbellThis is Joel Campbell, a media commentator and associate communications professor at Brigham Young University, “explaining” why the poor LDS church has been criticized in the needlessly more-hostile days since Prop 8 passed:

“Mormons were singled out more in news coverage because they were an easy ‘other’ to identify,” Campbell said.

After the amendment passed, Campbell said a New York Times article in November 2008 talked about how Mormons had tipped the scales in the gay marriage ban.

Yet Campbell pointed out the criticism was disproportionate given the number of other pro-proposition groups involved, many much more so than the LDS Church.

Part of that anti-LDS sentiment during Proposition 8 was fueled by leftover Mitt Romney angst, Campbell said. During Romney’s presidential campaign, media created an “evangelical versus Mormons” mindset, which was easy to transfer to “gays versus Mormons,” he said.

Mormon church was unfairly targeted over Prop. 8, BYU professor says [Mormon Times]

Okay, so let’s start with the “other” claim: The Proposition 8 effort was solely designed — SOLELY. DESIGNED. — to tell California citizens that their gay neighbors are an “other.” The Prop 8 spin painted gays as threats to children, heterosexual marriage, churches, and just about anything else that came to an anti-gay campaigners minds and then proceeded to poll well in behind-the-scenes testing. Whereas the state Supreme Court had made a reasoned, principled, lawful decision that removed barriers of differentiation, the subsequent months became all about dividing society in ways like never before. The overarching theme: Hetero”normality” vs. an “other.”

For their role, the Mormon church caught crap for one reason and one reason only: Because they, the leaders and members of a religious body who should fully understand what it means to be discriminated against, chose to fling the discriminatory caca in unprecedented, unexpected, and highly unnecessary ways! For starters: In a letter read to every LDS church in California during the campaign’s early days, congregants were told to “do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time.” This letter led members to respond resoundingly, both in state and out (nearly 45% of out-of-state donations to the anti-equality effort came from Utah, over three times more than any other state). Also, a disproportionately high number of door-to-door volunteers came from the church, treading around California, using their faith motivations to speak out against gays’ civil marriage equality. At the time, church members and leaders seemed pretty proud of this bold involvement, freely acknowledging most of it in the press. It was only after the vote that their feet, just like their respect for gay couples’ civil rights, turned cold. So while it’s incredibly easy to once again paint gays as the big, bad bullies who are simply scouring the nation looking for weak ones to target, the truth is that the vast majority of LGBT activists (and allies) had no need, reason, intention, or desire to even address the LDS church in the days prior to Prop 8, much less knock it. But when human beings are slapped in the face, they tend to get annoyed, pissed, angry, and then, eventually — even.

As for the Mitt Romney factor: For starters, it’s far more accurate to say “Mormons vs. gays,” not “gays versus Mormons.” Because as we’ve established: It was the LDS church that attacked gay rights. All we’ve really done in return is say, “Hey, everyone — look at what this church did to us!” When we move on from this sphere of reaction and start using our civil textbooks to close LDS churches and deny their religious ceremonies, then we can talk about gay-initiated attacks. But not until.

And then, finally, for the supposed transference of media memes from Mitt to Prop 8: How incredibly convenient. But this easy explanation once again overlooks the factuality of the situation. Because the truth is that many evangelicals did express hesitation about Romney. This idea hit the media, because evangelicals put it out there. And so too, the Prop 8 media conversation. It may be expedient to act like these things just up and spring from the agendas of the “liberal media,” but in this case, the news most certainly came from factual observation. Although not surprising that Prop 8 proponents would fail to see this, since nonfictional reality does seem to be the most notable adversary in their own drama play.


  • 1. Ann S.  |  November 16, 2010 at 8:31 am

  • 2. Lesbians Love Boies  |  November 16, 2010 at 8:47 am

    add me to getting emails

  • 3. Kathleen  |  November 16, 2010 at 8:53 am

  • 4. John  |  November 16, 2010 at 8:45 am

    As someone who is interested in religious news, I did think that some chose to focus on Mormons as a sponsor of Prop 8 based on calculating politics. They knew that many evangelicals and others would not want to support a "Mormon" initiative.

    I think that was a despicable tactic. And it's right for the Mormons to call out our side when we do it.

    That said, their church supported Prop8, sponsored it officially and unofficially, and otherwise took a much stronger and more public stance than just about any other religious organization. They contributed the bulk of the out-of-state money to it. These are all fine reasons to criticize the LDS church.

    What is not okay is what I've seen some do: criticize Prop8 because Mormons support it. It's okay to criticize Mormons for supporting Prop8. But some get these mixed up in an attempt to play politics.

    I'd also say that the Mormons had, at best, a minor role to play in getting us to the place where Prop 8 passed. I'd pass the blame around many, with Focus on the Family and the Christian Coalition getting far more of the blame, even though they contributed far less specifically to the Prop 8 issue (their groundwork was laid over decades before Prop 8 and preached in thousands of churches for centuries; without that, the Prop 8 campaign would have failed, even with unlimited Mormon money/time).

  • 5. Rhie  |  November 16, 2010 at 9:06 am

    Citation needed. I saw people correctly point out that the Mormons and Catholics were the instigators and financial backers of Prop 8 AFTER it passed. That is, when it would have been too late for anyone to vote for or against it.

    You'll have to show me that the "othering" of Mormons was proportional to their othering of LGBT. I get so very tired of the false equivalences.

  • 6. John  |  November 16, 2010 at 9:21 am

    I never saw it was equivalent.

    I did say it was wrong.

    I'd say both murder and shoplifting are wrong, but I don't say they are equivalent in any way.

    If you want to criticize Mormons because of their anti-gay stance, I have no problem with that. If you want to criticize their stance because they are Mormons, and use that as the way to get your point across, I have a problem with it.

    I also think focusing on Mormons to the extent I saw with recent cases ignores the other factions at work – and the real reasons we lost Prop 8. It's more than Mormons going door-to-door and buying ads on TV. It's the appeal to the prejudices too many people have and got from non-Mormon sources.

  • 7. fiona64  |  November 16, 2010 at 9:23 am

    When in doubt, one should always follow the money.

    'nuf said.


  • 8. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 16, 2010 at 10:01 am


  • 9. fiona64  |  November 16, 2010 at 10:09 am

    LOL, Gregory. 🙂

    In all seriousness, one of the first things I do when considering any ballot measure/proposition is to look at who is sponsoring it. Oftentimes, that's all that is needed (e.g., PG&E was the sole financial support of a ballot measure that would have required communities to have a 2/3 majority vote before they could establish a PUC instead of going directly through PG&E. Hmmm.).


  • 10. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 16, 2010 at 10:35 am

    Hi Fiona! Glad this topic interested you enough for you to chime in 🙂

    I could have used your logic at the ballet box. I usually obstain from voting on those ballot/measures I feel I don't understand adequately. One thing though, I ALWAYS vote for the animals! (we voted for funds for the local Aviary and Zoo….both passed)

    p.s. – I faithfully check my mailbox every day with anticipation….I was starting to wonder if book would ever come but got this email today…. Yay! can't wait!

    "Hi Gregory,
    Just a quick note to let you know your copy of "In The Eye of The Beholder" has shipped. It will be coming directly from the printers and they have been moving rather quickly. However, if you do not receive it within 10 days, please let me know.
    Linda Boulanger
    TreasureLine Books "

  • 11. fiona64  |  November 17, 2010 at 12:48 am

    Hi, Gregory. My publisher's teenage daughter had a TIA (transient ischemic attack, aka a mini-stroke) and wound up in the hospital for quite a while. That put Linda behind on order fulfillment, obviously. Just so you know.

    I hope you like the book.


  • 12. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 17, 2010 at 1:17 am

    Oh my gosh! Hope the daughter is doing better! Knowing a little background of the publisher and author makes this book more meaningful and intriguing! Thanks for update : )

  • 13. Rhie  |  November 16, 2010 at 12:41 pm

    Yea I agree both murder and shoplifting are wrong, and different. That's why I don't bring them both up in the same conversations as equivalent examples.

    When you say "sure this post has a point but these people over here have bashed Mormons" you are equating the two whether you meant to or not.

  • 14. Rhie  |  November 16, 2010 at 12:36 pm

    The reason I said citation needed is because, aside from a few comments here and their on blogs, I haven't actually seen people bash Mormons. I haven't seen anything like a concerted effort at all which is what you seem to be implying.

    I think a better analogy here would be murder and accidental death. The one is calculated, the other is, well, an accident.

  • 15. Sagesse  |  November 16, 2010 at 9:18 am

    Recalling that the LDS and the Catholic church formed NOM as a front organization to launder their money. It's documented.

  • 16. John  |  November 16, 2010 at 9:23 am


    I don't have any problem with someone stating that or criticizing NOM, LDS, or Cathlocs for it. I think you misread my message.

    There's a difference between saying, "The Foobians did an evil think, and thus are evil" and saying "Because the Foobians did it, it must be an evil thing."

    I'm not saying the original blog post here was wrong in any way (I agree with everything said in it).

  • 17. fiona64  |  November 16, 2010 at 9:25 am

    You're right, of course. I have LDS friends (and family members) … and they are, for the most part, the antithesis of the stereotypes many hold of the church.

    Just because the church is involved, doesn't make it bad. However, the opposite number does not hold true: the church being involved doesn't automatically make it a "good, mete and righteous thing," no matter what delusions Boyd Packer may hold.


  • 18. JonT  |  November 16, 2010 at 10:29 am

    '“Because the Foobians did it, it must be an evil thing.”'

    Has anyone actually claimed that? At least here? Prop 8 was wrong, and I 'accuse' all who supported it. I do not care what religions participated, it was wrong never the less.

    I think most people point to the mormons because they spent most of the money and expended most of the effort in getting it passed — not just because they were mormons.

  • 19. John  |  November 16, 2010 at 10:37 am

    I don't know if I've seen it here or not. I've seen it elsewhere. I don't have references handy. I'm definitely not criticizing anyone who criticizes the Mormons for supporting prop 8.

    But I do think there is more blame to spread than the Mormons alone – I personally hold Focus more responsible, despite spending much less.

  • 20. John  |  November 16, 2010 at 10:39 am

    Actually I'm not sure Focus has spent less…they just spent less on campaigning for Prop 8. They laid the groundwork. They taught millions that gay was sin, the worst possible sin, curable, contagious, and whatever else. They just did it under the guise of general hate, not trying to get Prop 8 passed.

    But I bet I know how Focus on the Family listeners and supporters voted…I bet I know how churches that believe in that crap voted…etc.

  • 21. fiona64  |  November 16, 2010 at 9:19 am

    Except for one little problem. Right up until this month, when the new Church of LDS handbook was issued, said handbook "called" members to do whatever possible to prevent legalized same-sex marriage.

    Here is a link to a red-line version of what that book now says vs. the previous verbiage:….

    For a body that says it is apolitical, the Church of LDS had its hands in this all the way up to the elbows, and other anti-equality churches held their noses and played ball because the Church of LDS was willing to organize the whole she-bang. They saw an opportunity, via CA's antiquated initiative system, to take away rights from gay people — and heck, they were "called," right there in writing, by their Church leadership. Have no doubt that the first yutz with a clipboard started gathering signatures at the behest of the Church, just as they did with Prop 22.


  • 22. John  |  November 16, 2010 at 9:25 am

    Wow, I don't know how people are misreading what I wrote. I never said that the LDS is anything but biggotted in reference to gays. I also think this latest statement is far from progress (I think it's a step back for LGBT people – the Mormons are getting more politically saavy in their approach, trying to look more "moderate" when they are anything but with regard to LGBT issues).

    I don't disagree with criticizing them for their work on Prop8!

  • 23. fiona64  |  November 16, 2010 at 9:28 am

    I got that once I saw your clarification — which I appreciate.

    Interesting comment at the link, which points out that the Citizens United case now allows the Church of LDS to function covertly in politics as the disclosure laws have changed. :-/

    I don't think it's terribly much progress, no. The point I was making is that there was an overt call to political behavior that is no longer present. I don't doubt for one minute that such calls will still come from the pulpit, mind you … but the official documents now say something different.


  • 24. John  |  November 16, 2010 at 9:38 am

    No prob – I probably need to learn to write better (okay, not 'probably' but 'absolutely'!), and it's a good reminder for me to re-read what I write before I click send (doh!).

    Related, on my overall thoughts on the current trend, I think the Mormons playing the victim is rather bogus, and the article is good to point that out. I get rather sick of the perpetrators always claiming victim status. It's not unique just to LGBT issues – I see it in the disability community too (For example: business owners claiming to be victims because they ignore the law for 20 years with regards to access – in other words, they discriminated for 20 years and now claim that the disabled people are "attacking" them for no reason by wanting the law followed).

  • 25. Sagesse  |  November 16, 2010 at 9:32 am

    John, I was elaborating rather than contradicting.

  • 26. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 16, 2010 at 11:00 am

    Hey John have you watched this Movie?

    If not, I strongly recommend. Not for the acting or direction (still decent but not great), but for its content and evidence. Those who live in Salt Lake City can attest this movie is not an exageration.

    As Sagesse says,"Its WELL documented"

  • 27. John  |  November 16, 2010 at 11:14 am

    Yes, I've seen it. And I accept the premise of the movie.

    I do not accept that Mormons somehow could have pulled off a Prop 8 victory without existing prejudice in the population. They exploited it more than other groups, yes. But the prejudice was still there. Yes, without LDS support, Prop 8 would have failed. But a lot of other things could have caused it to fail to pass too. But even without LDS support, or even any money at all on the H8 side, I suspect 30-40% of voters would have still voted for Prop 8, and I suspect most of those are not Mormon. That's a far larger chunk than the Mormon-funded campaigns swayed.

    That 30-40% chunk is made up of an over-representation of old, white, republican, christians. Not just Mormons. Granted, the non-Mormons spent less – but 30-40% didn't need a cent spent to vote for hate. We can't forget that.

  • 28. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 16, 2010 at 1:51 pm

    I appreciate all your comments here today John agree with much of what you have said.

    One dynamic about Mormons is they REALLY believe in their faith and prophet and can accomplish amazing things when asked by leaders of the church to do something. They back this up by a high rate of tithe payers (those who donate a full 10% of their pre-taxed income) and willingness to perform various church duties without pay.

    This tenacity/willingness to serve cannot be be quantified with just number of persons and $$$ contributed. Somehow the ferocity the Mormon's campaigned for "YES on 8" reminds me of the movie "300" where just a few go against many…yes they lose in the end but very impressive showing and do make a difference…at least for the moment.

    This tenacity and "get it done despite challenge" spirit is something that I appreciate learning growing up in the Mormon church.

  • 29. Rhie  |  November 16, 2010 at 1:53 pm


    That's what makes Prop 8 such a tragedy. If they had just turned that energy to something useful and worthwhile it could have made a huge, positive difference.

  • 30. John  |  November 16, 2010 at 9:28 am

    Oh, I see the problem in my writing. I said "[The] Mormons had, at best, a minor role to play in getting us to the place where Prop 8 passed." I don't mean to say they did little or were not a major driving force in the campaign.

    But they leveraged a prejudice people already had, that they got from non-mormon sources. If people weren't already prejudiced, no amount of Mormon (or other) money could have passed Prop 8. Too many people thought it was legit to worry about their kids catching "gay". This didn't come from the Mormons – the Mormons just reminded people of their existing prejudice.

    It's that existing prejudice that needs to be fought. If we win against that, the Mormons (or others) won't ever be able to win against us.

  • 31. Rhie  |  November 16, 2010 at 2:02 pm

    Oh I think you are giving people way too much credit. People have prejudices and desires because TV tells them to, frankly. Don't underestimate the effect the kind of ad buy the Mormons (and Catholics) put together.

    People are basically ignorant, stupid, fearful, and easily led. That's why the Yes on 8 campaign was successful.

  • 32. Sheryl, Mormon Mothe  |  November 16, 2010 at 4:29 pm

    Exactly, Rhie. That's why the LGBT community needs to find an effective campaign to combat the innuendos and half-truths and get it out to the general public.

    Sheryl, Mormon Mother

  • 33. Rhie  |  November 16, 2010 at 4:33 pm

    I totally agree. The problem has always been messaging. People on the good side of the fight obviously aren't going to lie and manipulate the way the wrong side does. The question is how to create a coherent message of hope that can dispel the fear of the anti-equality message.

  • 34. Darlene  |  November 16, 2010 at 10:49 pm

    Historically the LDS church is paranoid and sees persecution constantly. The evidence is in their food stockpiles. They stockpile food because they are "going to be persecuted." Huge amounts of food sets idle for decades and decades – tremendous amounts of unused resources. That seems exceptionally paranoid to me. This fear even authorized them to slaughter settlers merely passing through their territory as the wagon train was on the way to the west coast as an implementation of manifest destiny. That is collective paranoia.

    That in mind, I see no data. I went to find the empirical sources. I could not find any. I want to see numbers. I want comparisons in the data because that is what is being asserted. No data = no case. I could assert anything without data.

  • 35. John  |  November 17, 2010 at 12:59 am

    I think it rather unfair to compare modern Mormons to the historical ones. But that's a tangent.

    Total funding – on both sides of Prop 8 – seems to be about $83 million. This is direct funding, directly related to the campaign. In otherwords, money that should have been reported properly, but was often laundered and reported improperly (to, among other things, hide that it was from Mormon sources).

    Focus on the Family has an annual budget – AFTER the reduction in staff this year – of over $150 million. Now, not all of that is used for anti-gay stuff (they also have their "Elect a Republican" chunk and their "Women belong in the home" and their anti-abortion chunks), but a huge chunk of it is. And over the history of Focus (1977 was their start date), they've spent probably way more than $83 million spreading anti-gay hate.

    The Mormons claim 13 million members (probably inflated). Focus claims (also likely inflated) 220 million DAILY listeners to their programs. But it's clear who is bigger – Focus by far. Thus I suspect Focus's historical influence has been much greater, even if it was smaller in the actual campaign.

    Now, the Mormons – on one major issue in California – obviously exerted influence far beyond their size (and Focus's). That's absolutely true. But how many people did the campaign sway? Maybe 19% of the California population (based on change in the polls from the start to the end of the campaign cycle). That's significant and is right to be talked about, although it's likely that only about 1/2 of the pro-Prop8 money – maybe up to 60% – was from Mormons. So let's give them 10% of the population that they were able to sway, based on their proportion of the funding in California. But what about the other 42% who voted for Prop 8? Maybe 9% were swayed by Catholic and Evangelical donations of time/money (and the lies they bought). So we're still left with 31%. If we won had just 3% more, we would have won. So I think there are a lot of places to look for getting that 3%, not just in reducing the Mormon funding. I think a significant chunk of that 31% was people who listened to James Dobson, although I don't have a poll to prove it. Maybe James had no influence in California, but somehow I doubt it.

    So, my statements, from the data:

    1) Mormons contributed a lot in 2008.

    2) Mormons contributed not as much in 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956…up to 2008…as other anti-gay groups to sway the "hearts and minds" of people.

    3) 30%+ of voters would have voted "yes" in the absence of any campaigning.

    4) The history, prior to 2008, had an impact on some percentage of the 30% or more of voters who would have voted for prop 8 even without any campaigning by anyone.

    5) The organizations that created that 30% share the blame in passing prop 8. Significantly. And need to be called out just as much as the Mormons.

    6) If that 30% was more like 25%, we would have won. We can win by fighting the prejudice, by inoculating people to hate.

    Obviously, we also would have won without commercials 60% funded by Mormons that said "Your kid will catch gay if Prop 8 passes." But we can win by inoculating hate, too – if people didn't have already-existing prejudices against gays (specifically that (a) gay is bad, (b) gay is sin, (c) gay is one of the greatest sins imaginable, (d) gay people want to convert others to gay, (e) visibility of gays assists in that conversion process, (f) sexuality can be changed, (g) kids are all naturally straight, without gay influence, (h) kids are more vulnerable to gay), then we would have won – because those commercials wouldn't have had any effect without these other prejudices. After all, the commercials didn't specifically say, "Your kid will catch gay." It triggered prejudices that said that (I'm not lowering their guilt in this, though – they knew exactly what the message they were conveying was).

    We need to fight people being able to win elections by saying, "Your kid will learn his teacher is gay." That's a bigger job than just exposing Mormon funding.

  • 36. cowboy  |  November 17, 2010 at 3:25 am

    Obviously you have done a lot of thinking about this, John. I think you have a great insight on this…especially the last two paragraphs.

    There is vulnerability with the Mormons. They cannot acknowledge any bad press. There is a perception that all Mormons are anit-gay and that when someone needs to get an anti-gay response or statement involving something in the homosexual community, they will ask the Mormons. It’s almost like the reference for bigot in a lexicon would have a picture of Angel Moroni.

    How have Mormons been changed their attitude. Well, we all dropped our jaws in the Salt Lake City Council meeting when a representative of the LDS Church said they would not oppose anti-discrimination laws. Now we have the change to the Bishop’s little Handbook.

    At least they’re talking about us.

    Okay…so how do we make effective change? I agree, the exposing of Mormon funding is not going to garner any real change.

    What has made the LDS Church change in the past? The relaxing of the rules for membership for African-Americans was probably due to public perception. When African-American athletes stood with fists in the air at BYU games? That caught the attention of some mucky-mucks in the Church Office Building, I’m sure.

    Here is an opportunity: BYU has lost its standing in collegiate sports when they had to go “independent”. Negotiating future contests on the field or basketball floor is now a big headache for BYU. What would decimate the LDS Church is to lose their favored past-time: BYU sports.

    We need to have Notre Dame kick the Cougar’s butts.

    But, more importantly, we need to put pressure on other NCAA teams to NOT engage in sports competition with BYU until the LDS stops hassling the gay community over civil rights. They were “pressured” by the civil rights of African-Americans to change their dogma back in 1987…why can’t something like that happen today?

  • 37. John  |  November 17, 2010 at 4:22 am

    That's an awesome idea – the NCAA should require schools to fully comply with their non-discrimination policy.

    To the NCAA's credit, they did pull Focus on the Family's TV ad because it violated their principles. They do have non-discrimination policies (including on sexual orientation). They have even done a lot of thought on transgender athletes, including allowing participation for the most part in line with progressive thought.

    (I'd give them one criticism on their transgender writings – people who have transitioned shouldn't be referred to as transgender – they are their transitioned sex and gender, and continuing to label them as transgender just continues the "otherness"; but other than that, it's a pretty progressive way of thinking compared to the way my high school PE teacher thought…)

    I agree with pressuring other teams. I'd love to see another team walk off the field in protest of a team (any team's, BYU or otherwise) that is discriminating. I also think a "face" of that discrimination needs to be identified for that to happen.

    Of course the problem is that college athletics is all about the money right now. :/

  • 38. Ronnie  |  November 16, 2010 at 8:46 am



  • 39. Carol  |  November 16, 2010 at 8:54 am

    There's blame to go around – Mormon church, Catholic church, AA churches, Focus on the Family, NOM, et al. But the Mormons stand out as playing the victim: "OK so what if I hit him, but then he hit me back and I don't like that! Waaa!" It's schoolyard behavior, and it's properly ridiculed.

  • 40. -  |  November 16, 2010 at 8:04 pm

    that's good distinction, imo. the usual hardasses (dobson et al) actively cultivate a bloodthirsty hell n damnation reputation. so when they're "fascist", nobody senses any philosophical schizophrenia. obviously fascist is fascist.
    (i'm excluding the strange "hate the sinner, love the sin" aphorism, since everyone can see that's just one of the bloodthirsty's "beards", uuttered in those rare moments when they feel need to claim to represent a "loving god".)

    otoh, lds hasn't cultivated a bloodthirsty rep;utation, so when lds makel a fascist move, observers are (somewhat) surprised.

  • 41. John  |  November 16, 2010 at 9:02 am


  • 42. Alan E.  |  November 16, 2010 at 9:25 am

    I had to read the intro 3 times because it seemed like Campbell was the person writing the whole message. It's getting to that time in the day, plus I've been on hold for a total 53 minutes now (not at the same time, but 53 mins. out of the last 90 minutes).

  • 43. Straight Ally #3008  |  November 16, 2010 at 9:53 am

    “Mormons were singled out more in news coverage because they were an easy ‘other’ to identify,” Campbell said.

    Sorry, my irony meter just blew into a thousand pieces and I couldn't continue reading.

  • 44. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 16, 2010 at 10:06 am

    Love this article from the current issue from Q Salt Lake:

    (aka its not always about the Mormon people)

  • 45. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 16, 2010 at 10:14 am

    I would be interested to hear if some of you have read this remarkably detailed "book" by Gay Mormon historian D. Michael Quinn. Truly eye-popping and heartbreaking sections.


    "I dedicate this labor of love in honor of Stuart Matis, Clay Whitmer, D.J. Thompson, Carlyle Marsden, Gordon Ray Church, and all the other bright souls who did not survive Mormonism's homophobia.

    And to those of us who have survived, that we might bear witness…."

    I credit his research to saving my life.



  • 46. fiona64  |  November 17, 2010 at 12:52 am

    I read this a while back. It's most useful.


  • 47. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 17, 2010 at 1:22 am

    my first read, my reaction was "oh, that can't be true… that REALLY can't be true….come on Mr. Quinn, you are pulling my leg.." Today, with more accepting eyes, I feel most of it is true…and I follow the sources the author posts and all seem sound. Astounding how religion can blind us.

  • 48. Jim  |  November 16, 2010 at 10:21 am

    Let's go back and forth. Are we using the right words or are we not using the right words to describe what mormons and catholics did or did not do or say. Let's get real here folks. The religious hierarchy, not matter which religion you are talking about, doesn't want us (gay folks) to even exist. And if they use the right words, sounding moderate, many of our fellow americans will believe they are not as hateful as they are. It is up to us, to never let anyone forget where most of the money comes from to deny us our equal rights. I'll end with the old ACT UP words, SILENCE = DEATH!

  • 49. Steve  |  November 16, 2010 at 10:27 am

    Just the typical victim complex and sense of entitlement of religious people – but especially American Christians. Even the slightest criticism of their beliefs and action and seen as a huge attack, and they'll quickly cry about freedom and tolerance. All the while seeing nothing wrong in attacking everyone who isn't like them and forcing their world view on the whole country. They are so deeply rooted in their religion, that they can't even see the hypocrisy. It would be funny if the consequences weren't so devastating.

  • 50. John  |  November 16, 2010 at 10:30 am

    Wow. Didn't know that Christians weren't welcome here. What is the religious test that needs to be passed by supporters of equality? Is not supporting equality enough?

    (I just read something about the Lutherans that had support of gay marriage at about 50%; it seems to me that means we should only have a major problem with about 50% of Lutherans, not all of them; I imagine many other denominations are similar, such as Episcopalians and Presbyterians).

    Displaying prejudice ain't the best way to fight prejudice.

  • 51. Lesbians Love Boies  |  November 16, 2010 at 10:56 am

    John, everyone is welcome here. It is very fortunate that we have a myriad of equality supporters who are faith based – even many religious leaders chime in here to show support and respect. It think it is more of the 'battle-cry' from those who's faith has halted their minds from free-thought and come in a spew hatred that gets most of us worked up. I love everyone and rarely chime in when the heated battles begin. It breaks my heart though that there are people who claim to follow the word of G and have no idea that they themselves are truly evil.

    And you are so right about prejudice. One day our children will look back through time and wonder how some of those people lived with themselves.

  • 52. Steve  |  November 16, 2010 at 11:03 am

    Off the top of my head, the test would be keeping their religion to themselves, not judging other people based on their beliefs or lack thereof (coming out as an atheist can be a serious mistake in the south for example), keeping religion out of politics and schools, and keeping political topics out of their churches.

    I have no problems with personal beliefs. I think it's stupid and would prefer that they use reason instead, but if it doesn't affect the people around them – whatever.

    Or the kind of religion practiced in much of western Europe. Most younger people don't take the theology all the seriously, but are in it for the ceremonies. They mostly go to church for baptisms, weddings and funerals, or for big holidays like eastern and Christmas.

  • 53. John  |  November 16, 2010 at 11:09 am

    I think you would find many Christians do in fact believe in separation of church and state. Not all of us want religious rule in this country. Unfortunately, not the loud ones, but many of the rest do.

    BTW: I do take my theology seriously. The bits about love in particular. I fall far short, but I'm trying. I don't take misinterpretations about homosexuality seriously though – it doesn't jive with the rest of the theology of the new testament (particularly that what matters is faith, hope, and love – not following bizarre laws).

    As for politics, that doesn't bother me from the standpoint of damage to the country – although what *does* bother me is two things:

    1) Tax exempt status for political groups masquerading as churches (many churches fit this category). If they want to preach Republican, fine, but they should pay taxes and follow campaign law.

    2) The idea that God is a Republican. I think this seriously damages the church. It's perverting religion.

  • 54. Tomato  |  November 16, 2010 at 1:00 pm

    I agree with others here on P8TT, that we have a label problem.

    The folks who espouse Old Testament/Taliban (everyone knows the Quran is the OT, the NT, and the Muhammedan addition, right? And that the Taliban philosophy is nearly entirely OT, right?) values yet call themselves "Christian" are truly mis-labelled. They promote the exact opposite of nearly everything Jesus taught. His teachings were a huge and powerful reaction against the legalistic and inhumane tenets of his time. Yet these "Christians" push this anti-Christ agenda.

    We need a word for these people. Some use CINO (Christian In Name Only), and recently the truly perfect term "Paulinist" was suggested. (Since the CINOs push Paul/Saul of Tarsus agendas, not Jesus'.)

    Many of us here on P8TT are followers of Christ, or recognize him as a prophet, or feel he was a great teacher.

    The issue before us is one of semantics. It is not one of unwelcoming those who follow Jesus Christ.

  • 55. -  |  November 16, 2010 at 8:17 pm

    coming out as atheist in se usa is a problem? really? i can't imagine what "the good xians" do. burn a cross (for jesus)? 🙂
    (more) seriously, do they excommunicate atheists from bake sales? tell their kids to skip "the atheist's" hoise on halloween?

  • 56. Steve  |  November 17, 2010 at 2:15 am

    Not too few do look down in non-believers. If they don't try to actively convert atheists/agnostics, there is the standard passive aggressiveness. A kind of social shunning and disdain.

    It's not called "coming out" for no reason. There are many similarities. It's a problem both in families and at the workplace. For someone being an atheist in a deeply religious family, can be as much of an issue as being gay. The reactions run the same course from denial, conversion, silence to acceptance.
    Saying you're an atheist to coworkers can lead to losing friends. Me – I don't even understand why people discuss religion at work.

    I'm not making this up. I've read too many stories to that effect. If you have trouble believing that or it makes you uncomfortable – good. It's mindboggling how stupid people can be.

  • 57. Sheryl, Mormon Mothe  |  November 16, 2010 at 11:09 am

    Well, this has turned into most interesting blog with the responses.

    First, as a Mormon (as if I didn't remind you of that every time I post, LOL). I found this article (not the one by the BYU Mormon apologist) to be very accurate in response to the BYU Mormon's article.

    John, real Christians are welcome here by most, it is the pseudo Christians like Brian Brown and his ilk that proclaim to speak for all Christians with their anti-gay agenda. Those "Christians" come here and tell us all how wrong we are.

    Gregory, is this the book that talks about the first Primary president most likely being a Lesbian? I've read that story in a couple of places. One piece of history Boyd K. will not be able to revise since quotes are from a church publication (would love to see that Children's Friend). Also telling the story of the, I believe, first Tabernacle Choir director or about the church patriarch. So good that these stories are being told.

    The Mormon Church leadership needs to apologize for their involvement in, not just Prop 8, but every anti-gay legislation they've been involved in. And, that includes more states than California. That won't ever happen. When the day comes, and I believe it will, that the LGBT community is not discriminated against by the LDS church, there will be no apology, just a revelation and because it is a revelation, no apology will even be considered.

    But, do not judge all Mormons by the leadership and those that chose to heed the directives of the leadership. Plenty of Mormons who were against Prop 8. A visit to will introduce you to some more of us (you already know Santa Barbara Mom and me) plus give you links to other sites.

    While Mormons were the driving force behind getting out the Yes on 8 vote, the Mormon vote would not have defeated Prop 8, we are a minority in California. It was those ridiculous innuendos and half truths that caused voters to fear and not investigate for themselves. Somehow, the LGBT organizations need to find an effective campaign to counter those innuendos and half truths.

    Sheryl, Mormon Mother

  • 58. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 16, 2010 at 11:48 am

    Hi Sheryl : ) I enjoyed your post and can absolutly relate as I've lived all aspects of the gay Mormon/Ex Mormon experience…though I do not see myself EVERY re-joining the Mormon or any church regardless of what revelations are announced.

    Your last sentence especially rang true and inspires me to be more creative in my efforts. "Somehow, the LGBT organizations need to find an effective campaign to counter those innuendos and half truths."

    The book can be read in its entirety by click on link…I went back and found the parts you mentioned. Its interesting what jumps out and catches attention, I missed those before. For me, I relate to the atrocities at Brigham Young University and the various church literature that molded my way of thinking. Here is one such excerpt: From 1970 pamphlet entitled "Trangressors" p7

    Homosexuality CAN be cured, if the battle is well organized and pursued vigorously and continuously.
    Homosexuality CAN be forgiven. Like other serious sins, it can be forgiven by the Church and Lord if the repentance is total, all-inclusive, and continuing….
    ….God…..did not make people 'that way' "

    My Ensign article echoed this uninspired mantra and makes my heart feel sick to relive the feelings of hopelessness I experienced as a young man and returned missionary as a result of these teachings.

    ENOUGH reminscing/dwelling!! I'll save it for a book! Today I choose to focus on what we are now achieving, celebrate my new-found life, love/help/accept those suffering and teach my children and those who will listen better ways.

    Love to you always!

  • 59. Tomato  |  November 16, 2010 at 1:08 pm

    These days I'm always aghast at "homosexuality can be cured" statements.

    So…. I can be "cured" of my left-handedness? Somehow I can be magically "cured" and my index finger will instantly grow to be longer than my ring finger? I can be "cured" of my lifelong assumption (from at least age 5) that I will have a wife and not a husband?

    Sorry, I have every recognized marker (left-handedness, short index finger, homosexuality) of 2nd trimester exposure to high levels of maternal stress hormones in utero.

    I do not see how it is possible to "cure" that.

    (Ever wonder why left-handedness has always carried negative connotations? Ancient cultures weren't stupid. Those who were homophobic recognized the link between handedness and sexuality.)

  • 60. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 16, 2010 at 2:02 pm

    "aghast" — DITTO! I have at least 2 doctorates in personal attempt of reparative therapy. Made absolutely no difference in outcome.

    ..curious about left-handedness….I have one "lefty" daughter…she is very intellectual and accomplishing : )

  • 61. anonygrl  |  November 17, 2010 at 3:29 am

    Left handedness can also be associated with increased artistic ability… and, from Wikipedia…

    In his book Right-Hand, Left-Hand,[30] Chris McManus of University College London argues that the proportion of left-handers is increasing and left-handed people as a group have historically produced an above-average quota of high achievers. He says that left-handers' brains are structured differently in a way that increases their range of abilities, and the genes that determine left-handedness also govern development of the language centres of the brain.

    In a 2006 U.S. study, researchers from Lafayette College and Johns Hopkins University concluded that there was no scientifically significant correlation between handedness and earnings for the general population, but for college-educated people left-handers earned 10 to 15 % more than their right-handed counterparts.

    And, so you know, we lefties make up about the same percentage of the population as homosexuals. And while one can be TRAINED to be right handed, leftiness is not a choice either.

  • 62. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 17, 2010 at 4:48 am

    I like the way you correlated Left-handedness to percent of gays…and how non-choice.

    My dear grandfather, a lefty, spent much of his childhood with right arm strapped down. Up until the day he died he could only manage slow careful capital letters with right hand. He preferred to rapidly hen-peck type-writer when possible.

    This didn't slow him down too much though, as he because a pretty famous mechanical engineer, specializing in suspension bridges. He also founded the Engineering school at Brigham Young University.

    Not to surprised to learn you are one of those creative leftys anonygrl : ) ……So many comments/topics here elicit a walk down memory lane…..

  • 63. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 18, 2010 at 12:02 am

    meant to say his LEFT arm was strapped down (and slapped, and he was bullied)

  • 64. anonygrl  |  November 18, 2010 at 2:55 am

    I came home from kindergarten and was wrestling with trying to draw with my right hand. My mother asked what I was doing, I told her I was drawing. She said "Yes, but you are left handed. Why are you using your right hand?" When I told her my teacher had said I had to because to be left handed was wrong, Mom marched over to the school (I had morning kindergarten, the afternoon was still in session) and pulled Mrs. Powers (who was two hundred fifty six years old if she was a day, and rather formidable) OUT of class and said "You WILL not destroy my child. She is left handed. If you cannot teach her to write left handed, LEAVE HER ALONE an I will teach her. Do you understand?"

    After that, I was never again told I must not use my left hand.

  • 65. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 18, 2010 at 4:38 am

    woot anonygrl's mom!!!!

  • 66. Sheryl, Mormon Mothe  |  November 16, 2010 at 4:43 pm

    Gregory, I read about those atrocities in a link from Terrible, terrible. Carol Lynn also has one of those in "No More Good-Byes."

    And that message that used to be given that if you married in the temple and lived the covenants all would be well, those feelings would go away. Yep, you'd be cured.

    Have you ever been to This is Carol Lynn's daughter, Emily. You saw her in 8:The Mormon Proposition, Now you can read some of her thoughts. Think you will enjoy and agree with them.

    Sheryl, Mormon Mother

  • 67. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 17, 2010 at 12:08 am

    I LOVE Emily! She is a close friend of a Gay co worker of mine (he's a return missionary, 8 years with partner, living in suburbs with yard, dogs, neighbor kids running around the house). I correspond to Emily through him. She is a GEM and inspiration to me. I have not visited her website for over a year…thank you for the reminder 😀

  • 68. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 17, 2010 at 5:25 am

    correction SMM I have never visited this blog…though enjoying reading the perspectives and will refer to my ex-wife after reviewing further.

    I used to visit this other blog of Emily's

  • 69. JonT  |  November 16, 2010 at 12:06 pm

    This whole post keeps reminding me of another movie I saw a couple years ago – 'Latter Days'.

    Yes, it's a 'feel good' movie.

    It's available on netflix, I highly recommend it.

  • 70. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 16, 2010 at 2:14 pm

    Quick story about ‘Latter Days‘ I was warned about that movie disguised as propaganda, full of inappropriateness including showing Mormon underwear so I was "afraid" to see it. I boycotted it for some time for reasons that included the inappropriate use of Mormon garments.

    When I finally decided to watch it…added by courage of a little red wine (I'm not normally a drinker), I watched it alone in secret (so glad to be out of that closet!) and……I found it to be a LOVELY movie. I was right to be warned (if my goal was to stay in the closet) because it portrayed feelings I had buried deep inside. I credit watching this movie as one of the important sparks I needed to move out in the daylight.

    note: the church "court" and heavy-handed verdict was portrayed a little over-dramatized (I've been disciplined twice this way) but not so much as to make it fiction. Seems very much the way my hubby describes his being "thrown out" of the church as a young man after his mission.

  • 71. Sheryl, Mormon Mothe  |  November 16, 2010 at 4:45 pm

    This movie available? Would like to see it. Haven't heard of it before.

    Sheryl, Mormon Mother

  • 72. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 17, 2010 at 12:11 am

    Its avail to watch instantly on Netflix:

    Rated R for language, nudity.

    will send you email too…

  • 73. Ronnie  |  November 17, 2010 at 12:25 am

    Here is a promo for "Latter Days"…..I love this song….<3…Ronnie:

  • 74. Ronnie  |  November 17, 2010 at 12:30 am

    And here is the trailer…..<3…Ronnie:

  • 75. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 17, 2010 at 1:08 am

    thank you for Posting Ronnie…I haven't watched this movie for 4-5 years and I don't recall this particular song… I enjoyed the music and the lyrics and glimpses of LD's scenes.

  • 76. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 17, 2010 at 1:11 am

    crying and laughing after watching trailer Ronnie posted…definitely time to revisit this movie!

  • 77. Sagesse  |  November 16, 2010 at 11:11 am

    'Don't ask, don't tell' moves to crucial phase (audio)

  • 78. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 16, 2010 at 11:50 am

    getting anxious!

  • 79. JonT  |  November 16, 2010 at 12:03 pm

    I don't know how you keep up with all of this stuff Sagesse, but I appreciate it. This was a worthwhile listen.


  • 80. Straight Ally #3008  |  November 16, 2010 at 9:04 pm

    WOW, Kieran Lalor is terrified of teh ghey.

  • 81. Lesbians Love Boies  |  November 16, 2010 at 11:51 am

    OT – but a great read.

    In Response to Ignorance

    …I would like to take a moment to consider your idea that heterosexual marriage is the only kind of marriage with "structure." A recently published 24-year-long study reported that out of 78 children with lesbian parents, none were domestically or sexually abused. Conversely, 26 percent of "traditional" heterosexual families deal with domestic abuse, while 8.3 percent must cope with sexual abuse.

    Now, this is not to say that all lesbian couples make perfect parents and are therefore superior to heterosexual families. That isn't the point at all.

    The point is that, while heterosexual couples run the constant, unfortunate risk of having a child accidentally, this is not possible for homosexual couples. Where heterosexual couples can conceive without being fiscally, mentally or emotionally prepared for their forthcoming child, homosexual couples must be completely ready before raising a child is even an option.

    Gay and lesbian families must be equipped for parenthood before they can adopt and must be positive that they want a child. This guarantee of readiness ensures that LGBT families are the loving, caring families that children deserve and proves that they are certainly not family units lacking "structure."


  • 82. Tomato  |  November 16, 2010 at 1:14 pm

    LLB, that is so true.

    I was unwanted, and my mother didn't even know she was pregnant until 2 months before I was born.

    My parents had an "emergency" wedding, and I was terribly abused as a child.

    Oh, and my good Catholic mother was so stressed out (as a worried-that-she-might-be-preggers unmarried and sinful teenager) that I ended up being born with every marker associated with high levels of maternal stress hormones.

    I'm quite certain my life would have been better if my mother had given me up for adoption at birth, whether to a straight couple or a gay couple.

  • 83. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 16, 2010 at 2:20 pm

    Oh my goodness. LLB's story brought me up…big smile! We hope to adopt when ready too!…then Tomato's story brought me down. What an absolutely powerful story T. Thank you for sharing with such brutal honesty . Thank you for surviving so (among other things) I have the pleasure of associating with you– thereby benefiting from your insights and wisdom. ((BIG HUG)) Gregory

  • 84. Tomato  |  November 16, 2010 at 3:24 pm

    Hugs back, and thanks! And best of luck with your adoption (when you are ready). I'm sure you will be great parents!

  • 85. Ray in MA  |  November 16, 2010 at 1:05 pm

    I dismissed and distanced myself from the Catholic church primarily because of their stance on homosexuality. I went to Catholic school and I was an Altar Boy.

    For the life of me, I can't understand why people would stay stay within such institutions. Remaining a participant is like enabling an alcoholic…

    The leaders of these churches would not be 'leading' if no one followed. Those who remain are those who I blame for my "persecution" along -with- those "leaders".

  • 86. Ray in MA  |  November 16, 2010 at 1:10 pm

    and because people do remain in such institutions, the LGBT organizations need to find an effective campaign to counter those innuendos and half truths.

  • 87. Tomato  |  November 16, 2010 at 1:27 pm

    In many cases, enlisting the help of equality-based congregations can be very valuable. Often these faiths can speak theologically to those whom logic cannot reach.

    A good place to start is There are many resources on the main site. Also contact any Unitarian Universalist, United Church of Christ, or Metropolitan Community Church near you.

    There are literally THOUSANDS of equality faiths, Abrahamic and not. They do not have the money and they are not hateful and vitriolic enough to get attention like the vile spewing of the minority.

    I've only listed a few places to start. Once you begin making contacts you will find many, many more. Give them your time, your support, some money if you have any to spare. They are strong allies in "an effective campaign to counter those innuendos and half truths."

  • 88. Tomato  |  November 16, 2010 at 1:31 pm

    Oh, and if you need scriptural examples, is a classic. Great examples with strong historical and linguistic backing, taken directly from the OT and NT.

  • 89. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 16, 2010 at 2:26 pm

    Thank you Ray for your contributions here!

    I'll research Tomato! Thank you for references!

    I would like to also offer "Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth" avail from Netflix. Helped me cope with disappointments of my own Christian upbringing.

  • 90. Tomato  |  November 16, 2010 at 3:26 pm

    Seattle Area folks might be interested in this:

    Thursday, Nov 18th at 7:00 pm PANEL DISCUSSION: How faith communities are working to secure marriage equality

    At University Christian Church, 4731 15th Ave NE, Seattle, WA 98105

  • 91. Richard A. Walter (s  |  November 16, 2010 at 1:56 pm

    Will try to catch up after the wedding trip.

  • 92. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 16, 2010 at 2:26 pm

    Yay!!!!!! You are on my calendar!!! Safe journey Richard

  • 93. Richard A. Walter (s  |  November 16, 2010 at 3:09 pm

    Thanks. Still trying to get everything finished up, because I have a husband who thinks that schedules to get things done are for other people, so everything was pushed aside until the very last minute.

  • 94. Sagesse  |  November 16, 2010 at 10:38 pm

    Richacrd, You and BZ have a sage trip and a wonderful day!

  • 95. Sagesse  |  November 16, 2010 at 10:39 pm

    That would of course be 'safe' trip. I can spell, I just can't type.

  • 96. Ann S.  |  November 17, 2010 at 5:24 am

    A "sage" trip would be awesome, too!

    Let me add my good wishes to Richard and BZ for a safe, sage, and wonderful trip!

  • 97. fiona64  |  November 17, 2010 at 7:19 am

    Mazel tov, Richard and BZ!

    Love you both,

  • 98. Mark M (Seattle)  |  November 17, 2010 at 10:21 am

    BIG HUGS!!
    Will be thinking about you two on your very special day!!

  • 99. elliom  |  November 17, 2010 at 2:36 am


    You and BZ have a safe trip, and a wonderful, joyous day!

    *Throwing virtual rice*

  • 100. bb  |  November 17, 2010 at 9:11 am

    Don't throw that virtual rice…. it's gets caught in the virtual bird's thoats…. don't you know… LOL

  • 101. Richard A. Walter (s  |  November 16, 2010 at 1:57 pm

    Let's try the clicking on the subscribe button again.

  • 102. Straight Ally #3008  |  November 16, 2010 at 3:06 pm

    Don't forget the contributions of this guy:

  • 103. Kathleen  |  November 16, 2010 at 3:09 pm

    Thanks for that. I was trying to find these videos and couldn't find my bookmark.

    These videos are chilling. This is what all that money bought.

  • 104. Sagesse  |  November 16, 2010 at 10:33 pm

    I agree with Kathleen. This analysis of the campaign was entered into evidence in the trial from a magazine article that is only available by subscription. I don't recall testimony about it, but it is referenced in closing arguments.

    Although the conference presentation is long, the matter-of-fact way they discuss crafting the messages and organizing the church participation is instructive. A good companion to 8: The Mormon Proposition in documenting the involvement of the churches and how Protect Marriage operated.

  • 105. Bob  |  November 16, 2010 at 3:38 pm

    Sagesse posted a great link to make us think on the last thread, about Nom and Brian Brown, her link is#75

    and refers to the division in approaches by gay rights groups,

    what this thread is about is all religions supporting one organizetion to oppress gays……..

    But the gays, are using seven organizations, all asking for time and money to fight one law DADT go figure

  • 106. Ed  |  November 16, 2010 at 5:20 pm

    I always assumed Sagesse was a male…..whoops….

  • 107. Sagesse  |  November 16, 2010 at 10:55 pm

    Hi Ed, I am indeed a she, a straight ally, and a Canadian living in Toronto. The handle is drawn from my French-Candian heritage on my father's side, and means wisdom… well, one can dream :). Nice to meet you.

  • 108. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 17, 2010 at 1:40 am

    Glad 2 know more about you Sagesse! thanks for background!

  • 109. Sagesse  |  November 16, 2010 at 10:49 pm

    Bob, just to be clear, it isn't helpful for there to be differing positions at this critical time, but the equality groups that 'specialize' in military matters are immensely credible, and it is good that there are several of them, each making their own contribution.

    The groups that are supporting the military by allowing that the Defense Authorization Bill is more important that DADT repeal are taking a principled stand, and the other groups recognize that. Unfortunately, the anti-repeal side wouldn't recognize principle if it hit them over the head with a 2×4.

  • 110. Bob  |  November 17, 2010 at 3:27 am

    Sagesse, thanks for clarifying, you always have such interesing links, and so much info. as I said before, I always look forward to your posts.

    My rant on the other thread, regarding your original post on this issue, still holds for me..

    those three organizations who support the military by saying the Defense Authorization Bill is more important than DADT. are just that, supporting the military, and not the LGBT community they are supposed to support,

    We can differ here, no poblem, but really they've taken the approach that DADT is secondary to the funding issue. I don't think DADT is secondary to anything, but is even more important than funding, and could be put forth that way, no compromise on DADT. period.

    On the news the other night (Maddow, biased I know) they talked about this and she brought out some interesting truths, most of us don't know. for example there is much that can be cut from the funding , we always see it as a necessary thing, and have done so for so many years we are still funding defense, at the ramped up cost applied during battles with the Soviet Union, which doesn't exist any more, They found an instance where they have been manufacturing parts for planes, (replacement parts) which have beeen stock piled in such numbers there isno reason for. Many things like that can be cut from the defense budget, but no one questions it.

    The troops on the ground will get their funding, but there could be an intense study of those expenses, and there use, aside from pitting it agianst DADT,, which I consder as important as spending. No amont of funding can replace the demoralizing impact of this policy on the troops. In terms of moral and emotional readiness, DADT will save money by improving these things and save costs on counselling, as well as lives.

    those groups that would separate DADT out, may sound principled, we all understand the reasoning, but come on, they are just playing to the anti-repeal side, Why should an organization representing LGBT attempt a principled approach with an oppressor who doen't undrstand it,

    My other point was yes it's good to have all these organizations, and it's good that four of them seem really on the same track, but I question the duplication of services, and the cost. to the LGBT community. couldn't we have one organization that takes care of DADT.

    As far as keeping DADT in the defense funding bill, maybe we would have hudge support, everyone would quickly buy into accepting us if their funding was threatened???

    Imagine if the last straw in passing the defense budget was the repeal of DADT, you'd have a lot of folks that don't even care right now, saying, get rid of it and lets get on with moving the money.

    Your last statement clarifies everything, THE ANTI=REPEAL SIDE WOULDN'T RECOGNIZE PRINCIPLE IF IT HIT THEM OVER THE HEAD WITH A 2×4 if DADT was seperated out, they are not going to say, well those gayz were so principled know it's our turn to vote for them………

  • 111. Sheryl, Mormon Mothe  |  November 16, 2010 at 4:55 pm

    Ah, so much easier for churches to do this than for other organizations. But, I do think that is what needs to be done, especially in this economy (right now, I am unable to donate to one organization let alone 2 or 3; however, when financial situation changes, it will be to CC because they have provided this site to which I am addicted) , to be able to produce those slick commercials that will make people think and to combat those innuendos and half-truths that sent people to the polls to protect their children from corruption.

    Sheryl, Mormon Mother

  • 112. anonygrl  |  November 17, 2010 at 3:59 am

    I hear you on the donation thing. I've given $10 here and there when I can especially during the political season, but am not able to make sizeable donations (right now, I am looking at next month's rent and wondering a bit if fairy godmothers can be petitioned for help :). I have to remember that even $10 helps. It may not buy a whole slick commercial, but if everybody who reads this does make a tiny donation somewhere, when they can, the world will be a better place for it.

    I think that when a political campaign gets my small donation from an out of state donor who is just doing it because the candidate is RIGHT, not because it will affect me in any way, it probably does more good for their souls than their purses, but even that little bit of support is a good thing to give.

  • 113. -  |  November 16, 2010 at 7:23 pm

    overall agree with, "lds who" before prop8. sure, i'd heard of latterday (don't call them Mormons, etc). and i'd seen a little suggesting that other christian sects often consider lds to be fake xians. and ldsers were the last bike-riding door to door salesmen.

    but i never thought much about them. I'd never heard of an lds equivalents of falwell, robertson, dobson, ad nauseam.
    and aren't the nom people non-lds type xians?
    all i'd seen about lds was news that they'd "gone wild" and heavily funded prop8.
    that reminds me of the chamber of commerce suddenly "gone wild" in this November's elections.

  • 114. fiona64  |  November 17, 2010 at 12:59 am

    Nope. NOM is a LDS front organization.

  • 115. Sheryl, Mormon Mothe  |  November 17, 2010 at 5:56 am

    Fiona, do you have citiations to show that the LDS Church (as opposed to members of the LDS church) fund NOM? And aren't Catholics also involved with NOM (but again, as the church or as individuals). Really would like to see this. I know prominent members are involved but that does not make the church, as an organization, funders of NOM. I think that if it cold be shown that the LDS Church itself sends funds to NOM, that would concern a lot of members–we don't do donations for them to go to outside political organizations — helping the needy around the world, yes, political organizations, no.

    Sheryl, Mormon Mother

  • 116. fiona64  |  November 17, 2010 at 7:24 am

    Citations include the information provided in "8: The Mormon Proposition," which shows several members of the Quorum of Apostles (including Pres. Hinckley) as founders. Listing is here at


  • 117. Sheryl, Mormon Mothe  |  November 18, 2010 at 8:24 am

    Thanks, Fiona, appreciate the links. So, while there may be no checks from the church itself, evidence seems pretty condemning.

    Haven't read everything yet, we just got our internet fixed, it had been sporadic, needed a new modem.

    Sheryl, Mormon Mother

  • 118. fiona64  |  November 17, 2010 at 7:25 am

    PS: The same link I just provided has copies of letters between LDS leadership talking very blatantly of their involvement in the "Hawaiian Families Today" project beginning in 1995.


  • 119. Mark M (Seattle)  |  November 17, 2010 at 6:33 am

    Neither Brian Brown nor Maggie Gallagher are LDS…they are both Catholic

  • 120. fiona64  |  November 17, 2010 at 7:24 am

    The other four founders of the group are LDS.


  • 121. the bloom is off the  |  November 16, 2010 at 7:44 pm

    this is OT, but a reply above brought to mind:
    some rightwing orgs (astroturf or not) have recently been name-swapping their names. i wonder if their donations have indicated deteriorating public perception?
    Americans for Prosperity
    Operation Save America (the orgy of nationalistic and shallowly righteous weasel words is the last refuge of scoundrels)
    other orgs?

    i'm sure they know that there's a "bubble" of rightwanking sh(l)ocktalk jocks, sh(l)ockbooks, sh(l)ockgroups, … all wearing their shocktroops too thin… they sense the bubble will soon burst. (pflafffff)

  • 122. Sagesse  |  November 16, 2010 at 11:06 pm

    Read the comments. They're supportive.

    Levin open to dropping 'don't ask' from defense bill

  • 123. Sagesse  |  November 16, 2010 at 11:08 pm

    I haven't watched this yet.

  • 124. Sagesse  |  November 16, 2010 at 11:09 pm

    I should never try to embed video.

    The future of 'don't ask, don't tell' (video)

  • 125. anonygrl  |  November 17, 2010 at 2:17 am


    OK… so what the Mormons are saying is "We WERE evil bastards, it is true. We supported Prop 8 with a LOT of money and instructions to our members on how to vote. BUT… we were not the ONLY ones, so why are you picking on us?"

    Excuse me? Are you SIX years old and trying to implicate your older sister so that Mommy won't just punish you?

    We are not picking, in the first place. We are merely pointing out. And why you? BECAUSE YOU ARE THE *SELF PROFESSED* EVIL BASTARDS WHO SUPPORTED PROP 8 WITH A LOT OF MONEY AND INSTRUCTIONS TO YOUR MEMBERS ON HOW TO VOTE! It makes no difference what anyone else did. YOU were bad, YOU deserve a spanking.

    And Mommy will deal with what your older sister did. Now go to your room and actually THINK about what you have done.


  • 126. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 17, 2010 at 2:21 am

    anonygrl has arrived! good morning 😀

  • 127. elliom  |  November 17, 2010 at 2:37 am

    Now, anonygrl, tell us how you REALLY feel… :>

  • 128. anonygrl  |  November 17, 2010 at 4:08 am

    Good morning!

    And I REALLY feel pretty good today. The sun is shining around the grey clouds, a cold front JUST blew a heavy rainstorm through and dropped the temp about 20 degrees from where it was when I came to work, the wind is whistling around the building (literally, whistling… it is pretty cool) and I HAVE NEW GLASSES TODAY SO I CAN SEE AGAIN! (Just got them last night… new glasses are always a good thing). The cafeteria had turkey for lunch, and I have a slice of pumpkin pie to take home (and the cook makes GREAT pie).

    So all in all, I am doing well, and the Mormons (the ones who support Prop 8)are still on a time out as far as I am concerned, because they have not really thought about what they did wrong, and are not really sorry.


  • 129. elliom  |  November 17, 2010 at 4:14 am

    And they shall stand in the corner until you say otherwise! :p

  • 130. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 17, 2010 at 4:32 am

    Like Blair Witch Project?

  • 131. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 17, 2010 at 4:31 am

    Congratulations on new glasses : ) Me too. I decided to try progressive (all distance) ones….very "trippy" to get used to. after 3 weeks starting to get the hang of it and no longer experience vertigo.

  • 132. fiona64  |  November 17, 2010 at 7:26 am

    I still hate my progressive lenses, even though I've had them for nearly two years and am used to them. I am not getting them next time.


  • 133. Lesbians Love Boies  |  November 17, 2010 at 7:34 am

    Try the occupational lenses…they rock and are much more forgiving than progressive.

  • 134. anonygrl  |  November 17, 2010 at 7:41 am

    I tried progressives for about 3 weeks. After spending 3 weeks completely nauseous (including actually throwing up from time to time) and tripping over curbs, stairs, and pieces of paper on the floor… my doctor and I decided it was not worth the effort, and now I take my glasses off for reading, switch to readers for computer work, wear the distance glasses the rest of the time and am completely ok with that.

  • 135. Mark M (Seattle)  |  November 17, 2010 at 10:23 am

    Make sure you get a frame that is large enough to allow for all three areas…. most of my patient's chose the fashionable small frames and theer is just no room in them for the full trifocal.
    Dist / midrange / near

  • 136. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 17, 2010 at 1:10 pm

    Thank you for all the tips and chiming in fiona, anonygrl, Mark and Alan. I am fairly new to glasses and still figuring out what I like….so perplexing! I see perfectly clear at distance without glasses , but quite blurry up close. Works ok though as hubby has opposite vision. If both caught w/out glasses out and about He reads the text on phone to me and can read the time… and I do the driving or read fast food menu boards : )

    I just added up time. been with progressives for 4 weeks and this is the very first week I've felt like keeping them on all the time (ditto on the throwing up and stumbling anonygrl!) Anyone with experience with multi-focal contacts?

    Mark: are you an Ophthalmologist?!

  • 137. Sheryl, Mormon Mothe  |  November 18, 2010 at 8:31 am

    I did not like regular tri-focals, too many lines. I've had progressive lens for years, still sometimes forget to move my eyes up or down. Tried going back to regular lenses, but quickly found that was worse.

    Mark, I second Gregory's question, are you an opthamologist? Your comment about frames was interesting, I like the bigger frames and have a difficult time getting them, trend seems to be for those smaller frames. The ones I'm using really need replaced (once I have insurance) and I hope large ones are available.

    Sheryl, Mormon Mother

  • 138. Alan E.  |  November 17, 2010 at 5:18 am

    I love a new prescription. It feels so nice to see more clearly, and I never knew it was so bad (relatively speaking). It's tough to try and look through old glasses when I need a backup. They work in a pinch, but they just aren't the same as a fresh prescription.

  • 139. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 17, 2010 at 6:25 am

    : )

  • 140. anonygrl  |  November 17, 2010 at 7:42 am

    I KNOW! I realized I was squinting WHILE wearing my glasses, and then realized it was because everything was fuzzy… so it was time for new ones.

  • 141. elliom  |  November 17, 2010 at 3:38 am

    Here's what I find so offensive with this, and sadly, often with other so-called evangelical, fundamentalist, conservative religious persons, regardless of "flavor."

    These ppl use their religion like a shield, and take it like a drug. A shield, because the use it to hide behind, protecting them socially, intellectually, and emotionally from the ramifications of their actions. A drug, because of the feeling of euphoria that comes from their so-called beliefs, as well as their incessent need for more.

    People like this distort their religion, turning it into something no more than a shell, a hollow thing with no substance. Thus, they taint all matters of spirituallity and faith. They turn religion into this ugly, nasty, dirty thing.

    This really bothers me. Not because I espouse their faith. I don't. I spent a very long journey to come to a belief set "custom taylored to my satisfaction … guaranteed!" Along that road, I've looked at, talked about, studied, and experienced many different ideas and beliefs. Faith, of whatever sort, is a wonderful, beautiful, and glorious thing. Even an athiest or agnostic, who, through well-reasoned thought, experience, and understanding, develops those ideas and creates a life model through them, shares in that beauty.

    By FAR, most ppl of faith I've met, whatever faith that happens to be, have been kind, generous, caring, loving, wonderful ppl. They do themselves, their communities, and their faiths credit, and the world is a better place for all of them.

    The damage that the sort of revisionist, religion-as-shield/drug, thinking does to other ppl of faith, those that are true, good ppl, is both unseen, and incalculable.

  • 142. Bob  |  November 17, 2010 at 3:38 am

    any word on Dan Choi and the group that was hauled off to jail:?????????????

  • 143. Ronnie  |  November 17, 2010 at 4:18 am

    They were all released & 7 of them went right back to protesting at the White House's 'Common Purpose' meeting along with 5 others who did not handcuff themselves to the White House gates…<3…Ronnie:


  • 144. Ronnie  |  November 17, 2010 at 4:21 am

    correction, they were joined by 6 others from GetEQUAL……<3…Ronnie

  • 145. Bob  |  November 17, 2010 at 4:48 am

    thanks Ronnie, good to hear they're conitnuing to act up

  • 146. anonygrl  |  November 17, 2010 at 4:34 am

    I may have missed a turn somewhere. Didn't Dan Choi re-enlist? Whatever happened with that?

  • 147. Kathleen  |  November 17, 2010 at 4:38 am

    I think his re-enlistment application was rejected when DADT went back into effect.

  • 148. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 17, 2010 at 6:29 am

    : ( I was proud it took FIVE security persons to drag him away!

  • 149. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 17, 2010 at 6:31 am

    frown for re-enlistment app turned down : (

  • 150. Michael Ejercito  |  November 17, 2010 at 3:51 am

    Perhaps one should look at the history of the LDS Church circa 1849 to 1890.

    They had this practice of taking more than one wife at a time. Congress intervened, and passed laws prohibiting that practice in the territories. A major political party referred to polygamy as a "relic of barbarism". And Congress did more than simply deny them marriage licenses; the anti-bigamy laws (the Morrill Act, the Edmunds Act, and the Edmunds-Tucker Act) imposed criminal penalties on Mormons for practicing their own form of marriage.

    The Mormons went to court to defend their purpoted right to marry the person that they love. And the Supreme Court rejected all of their arguments unanimously, instead siding with the government that infringed on their purpoted rights. From Reynolds v. United States

    Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.

    Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people. At common law, the second marriage was always void, and from the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an offence against society….

    An exceptional colony of polygamists under an exceptional leadership may sometimes exist for a time without appearing to disturb the social condition of the people who surround it; but there cannot be a doubt that, unless restricted by some form of constitution, it is within the legitimate scope of the power of every civil government to determine whether polygamy or monogamy shall be the law of social life under its dominion.

    From Davis v. Beason

    Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries. They are crimes by the laws of the United States, and they are crimes by the laws of Idaho. They tend to destroy the purity of the marriage relation, to disturb the peace of families, to degrade woman, and to debase man. Few crimes are more pernicious to the best interests of society, and receive more general or more deserved punishment. To extend exemption from punishment for such crimes would be to shock the moral judgment of the community.

    From Murphy v. Ramsey

    Certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate states of the union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement. And to this end, no means are more directly and immediately suitable than those provided by this act, which endeavors to withdraw all political influence from those who are practically hostile to its attainment.

    Today, we have homosexuals arguing that the 5th and 14th Amendment, which the Supreme Court had ruled did not give Mormons the right to take multiple wives, gives them the right to marry someone of the same sex, even going so far is to argue that a prior Supreme Court case on this issue was wrongly decided. In effect, they are arguing that homosexuals have more rights than Mormons.

    And some people can not understand why Mormons might take offense at the idea that the U.S. Constitution protects a right to marry someone of the same sex?

  • 151. Ronnie  |  November 17, 2010 at 4:12 am

    STFU you benighted un-American neanderthal….you are a moron who is fundamentally incapable of comprehending a god-damn thing you posted….because you copied & pasted it from the usual homophobic autocratic & theocratic un-American talking points….

    "we have homosexuals arguing"

    correction to your delusional little ignorance….Heterosexuals are arguing along with us…<3…Ronnie

  • 152. Michael Ejercito  |  November 17, 2010 at 4:21 am

    So how is it that constitutional provisions which were insufficient to protect Mormons' privileges to marry those that they love is somehow sufficient to protect homosexuals' privileges to marry those that they love?

  • 153. Ronnie  |  November 17, 2010 at 4:32 am

    So are you saying that every single woman that married the man (because that how it works…there is no one woman marrying multiple men) were also in love with each other & married each other….get an education dipshite…those marriages were always one sided & were multiple marriages…not one marriage…it wasn't about love, moron….like I said, you are benighted un-American neanderthal who is fundamentally incapable of comprehending a god-damn thing he posted….because you copied & pasted it from the usual homophobic autocratic & theocratic un-American talking points….

    nice try though simpleton….<3…Ronnie

  • 154. Michael Ejercito  |  November 17, 2010 at 4:37 am

    So are you saying that every single woman that married the man (because that how it works…there is no one woman marrying multiple men) were also in love with each other & married each other

    One can only imagine what goes on behind closed doors.

    because you copied & pasted it from the usual homophobic autocratic & theocratic un-American talking points….

    I perfectly understand.

    The U.S. government jailed Mormons for practicing their own form of marriage, the Mormons subsequently challenged their convictions as unconstitutional, and the United States Supreme Court rejected their challenges.

  • 155. Ronnie  |  November 17, 2010 at 4:49 am

    Are you really that stupid?…maybe you didn't get the part about one sided….No woman marrying multiple men…& I still stand by the FACT that you don't understand a god-damn thing you posted….now go play with your ugly gray cat, Mr. un-American realtor pretending to be a lawyer…& maybe a 33yo single straight man touting traditional Christo-fascist heterosexual elitism should spend less time on the internet pretending to be a lawyer so that he can find some female who is just as pathetic as he is & settles for a fascist pig who clearly would treat her as a possession rather than I life long companion since you obviously believe that marriage has nothing to do with love & is only about what you can control…. . ; ) …Ronnie

  • 156. Michael Ejercito  |  November 17, 2010 at 4:51 am

    Are you really that stupid?…maybe you didn’t get the part about one sided….No woman marrying multiple men…

    That is irrelevant.

  • 157. Ronnie  |  November 17, 2010 at 4:58 am

    No, not really…. ; ) …Ronnie

  • 158. Ronnie  |  November 17, 2010 at 5:43 am

    I do want to apologize for one thing…I shouldn't have called your cat ugly..after looking at the photo closely…he is adorable…there is no reason to bring innocent pets into this…so for that I apologize….have a nice day….<3…Ronnie

  • 159. John  |  November 17, 2010 at 6:25 am


    Okay, I bite. I'll regret it, I'm sure.

    I would 100% support the Mormons and any other group if they decided that the government should have absolutely no role in registering "marriage". It clearly *is* a religious issue (my religion allows loving adults to marry, yours [whatever it is] does not), not a civil one. I'd love to see government get out of the marriage business completely and simply let people assign the civil benefits of marriage to the person of their choice. But if we are going to do civil marriage, then it should be secular, not religious.

    That's the elephant in the room – this is a religious issue. There's no sane, secular reason to prohibit same-sex marriage (read the trial transcripts – that was a key point). That leaves the insane or religious reasons. Some people want to create a theocracy in the US, and somehow think that if we recreated the Holy Roman Empire, God would be pleased (hint: he won't be).

    But so long as there is an idea of civil marriage, LGBT people should have that human right too. And you don't need to worry about polygamy – until the laws are written to deal with things like "who inherits" (today, typically the spouse) and "who makes end of life decisions" (today, typically the spouse) in a mutli-party relationship, I don't think we'll have to deal with it.

  • 160. Rhie  |  November 17, 2010 at 7:10 am

    John –

    I agree. One of the issues with the center Right is that religious marriage vs civil marriage are completely intertwined in this country. For the religious who believe that marriage – all marriage – is a sacrament, this can be a real issue.

    I think there is a moderate center who object to gay marriage because they object to the state being involved in marriage at all. They answer yes to protect traditional marriage/family values. But they don't care if a gay couple gets a civil marriage, and don't see that as a threat.

    To make matters even more confusing, there are those who purposely lie and say that what LGBT people want is to shut down all churches that refuse to marry LGBT couples. That's of course ridiculous.

    I would completely support something like the following:

    Any couple who wants the legal benefits and rights of marriage sign a legal document and/or get married by a JP. This is open to anyone and the state is not allowed to refuse anyone.

    Then, if they want to have a religious ceremony they can go to a church or synagogue or mosque. Those places can choose to marry a couple or not.

    The problem is the language. What do we call this? Marriage has connotations that civil union doesn't.

  • 161. fiona64  |  November 17, 2010 at 7:31 am

    Ronnie, thank you for apologizing to Michael's cat.

    An owner's ugliness (spiritual ugliness shows in peoples' faces, if you ask me) is no cause to talk smack about their pets … who are innocent.

    I feel sorry for Michael, who seems to think he is owed
    "a girl pretty enough to have sex with," whatever the hell that means. She doesn't need a mind or a personality; just a yonni and a nice face. It must be horrible to be so shallow as our little Mikey.

  • 162. John  |  November 17, 2010 at 7:33 am


    Agreed – language *IS* important – that's the whole point of the Prop 8 trial, and why – in a State sense (ignoring all the federal benefits and responsibilities of marriage) civil unions for same sex couples but marriage for heterosexual couples is bogus. That creates two categories.

    If you had "civil union" for everyone (so, legally, my wife would be my "civil union partner" or whatever, but of course I'd still say we were "married" in casual conversation [as would a same sex couple] even if "married" meant nothing legally; but perhaps my tax form would ask me for my "civil union partner"), that would be fine, so long as everyone could say they were "married" if they wanted, when they were explaining their relationship. But the terminology is important, as are the benefits. There can be no difference in either based on sex of the participants, if it is to be respectful of civil rights.

  • 163. Leo  |  November 17, 2010 at 7:52 am

    <cite>That’s the elephant in the room – this is a religious issue. There’s no sane, secular reason to prohibit same-sex marriage</cite>

    Depending on what you mean by "sane," I think this is an exaggeration. For example, take a look at…. You could claim that the communist regimes' reasons are insane, but then so are the religious reasons.

    I have no doubt that a significant percentage of people in the US who oppose same-sex marriage now would not be against it if they hadn't been brought up to believe that homosexuality was a sin. But I also have no doubt that a significant percentage would have simply found other pretexts.

  • 164. Michael Ejercito  |  November 17, 2010 at 11:55 am

    But the terminology is important, as are the benefits.

    How is the terminology important?

  • 165. Ronnie  |  November 17, 2010 at 12:03 pm

    If you have to ask that question, then that proves point that has been made over & over again……go away… ; ) …Ronnie

  • 166. Steve  |  November 18, 2010 at 3:43 am

    This is why the terminology is important:


  • 167. Rhie  |  November 21, 2010 at 6:41 pm

    John —

    I think we are exactly on the same page. It has to be equal. Equal rights, equal language, equal connotations. Maybe the churches etc should think of another word since they want their sacrament to be special?

    The church I grew up in did that. It called their marriages Covenant Marriages.

  • 168. Sheryl, Mormon Mothe  |  November 17, 2010 at 7:13 am

    Let me jump in here. I don't think today's Mormons are concerned about legalizing polygamy, at least I don't know any who are. Not aware of that area being one of the reasons the Mormon Church opposed Prop8 (and the other measures in other states). Just has to do with the view that the act of homosexuality is a sin (at least we've progressed to the point where being a homosexual is not a sin, just acting upon that orientation0. Will be happy when my church accepts that the act of homosexuality is no more a sin than the act of heterosexuality, as long as it is within the confines of marriage, and, of course, as long as marriage is not available to homosexuals (to the one they love), then their acting upon that homosexuality will remain a sin in the eyes of the church.

    I get really, really annoyed at the corner my church has put homosexuals into — be celebate with no hope of a partner or be a sinner. Not right at all.

    Polygamy in the early days of the church was one way for widows and unmarried women to be taken care of (I'm sure lust was involved in some cases, after all, Mormons are human). They way we know polygamy being practiced in the fundamentalist LDS church(s) today is not the way it was practiced in the early days of LDS history (young girls were not, to my knowledge, made to marry old me). Sometimes the leaders told men whom to marry (the case in my maternal gr. gr. grandfather's life, his third wife was a relative of his 2nd wife who needed a home). Sometimes the wives shared the home and duties, other times the wives would have different homes (gr. gr. grandfather's 1st wife had a cabin away from wives 2 and 3). On my paternal grandfather's side, his mother was the only wife with children and so when the decision had to be made, my grandfather's mother was chosen as the legal wife. My grandfather was 10 at the time and liked to "shock" people by telling them that he remembered when his parents got married (nothing in todays society but back in the 50s and 60s being told by a man in his 70s or 80s!!

    Anyway, I think Michael does have a point; However, since polygamy is not being asked for, not sure how relevant it is. Don't think the fact that women had more than one husband is relevant either. Think what is relevant is that a marriage is between only 2 people and it should matter the sex of the 2 people.

    Sheryl, Mormon Mother (who apologizes for the rambling of this post)

  • 169. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 17, 2010 at 1:19 pm

    Hi Sheryl – made my head spin with this part (though amazingly I understood it all and reminds me why I do not care for organized religion):

    "Will be happy when my church accepts that the act of homosexuality is no more a sin than the act of heterosexuality, as long as it is within the confines of marriage, and, of course, as long as marriage is not available to homosexuals (to the one they love), then their acting upon that homosexuality will remain a sin in the eyes of the church."

    DITTO @ NOT FAIR to relegate persons like me to a life of celibacy. I'm pretty sure cuddling and holding hands with gay partner would be frowned on by the church too. Its all too dogmatic for me.

    I don't mind your ramblings…we are all trying to work out the meaning of life : )

  • 170. Sheryl, Mormon Mothe  |  November 18, 2010 at 6:22 am

    Glad someone understood that. I'm not always the best with words.

    And, of course, anything remotely resembling anything more than friendship would be cause for disciplinary action. So unfair to ask a person to live a life of loneliness without any hope of sharing that life with another individual of choice. And, asking the homosexual to share their life with a member of the opposite sex is, in my opinion, unfair to both parties.

    Sheryl, Mormon Mother

  • 171. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 18, 2010 at 11:56 pm


    "And, asking the homosexual to share their life with a member of the opposite sex is, in my opinion, unfair to both parties."

    …the stories at Emily's Wildflower website are heartbreaking : |

  • 172. Sheryl, Mormon Mothe  |  November 18, 2010 at 6:15 am

    Man, 2 major typos which totally change what I was saying. I so need an edit button.

    First typo: "….women had more than one husband" should have been "…..women did not have more than one husband."

    Second: "….and it should matter the sex of the 2 people." should have been "….and the sex of the 2 people should not matter.

    Think in that last I really should have said: and the sex of the 2 should not matter as long as they are both consenting adults.

    Sheryl, Mormon Mother

  • 173. anonygrl  |  November 17, 2010 at 6:38 am


    You seem to be saying that the Mormons are trying to equate their one sided version of multiple marriage which discriminated against women to gay marriage where two partners are given equal treatment under the law, and finding that since they couldn't have theirs, we shouldn't get ours?

    Yet you've been on the side of equal interracial marriage and equal same sex marriage not being related at all?


    Well, ok. To answer your objections, first off, I don't think that Mormons object to same sex marriage out of some sort of petty 120 year old grudge. To begin with, the issue of same sex marriage was not even in play at the point where their version of polygamy was in question. For another thing, it seems MUCH more sound a strategy (if they are looking to get polygamy back) to be WITH us, not against us. The whole slippery slope thing would only work in their favor at that point. Since they are not, it seems that polygamy has little to do with their current aims.

    And frankly, if polygamy had ANYTHING to do with the argument, how do you figure that Mormons and Catholics end up on the same side of the issue?

    So no, they are not anti-homosexual because they were refused the right to treat women and girls as property over 100 years ago. They are anti-homosexual because their leadership somewhere along the way decided that they were going to slavishly follow that tiny biblical bit that some interpret to be about homosexuality.

  • 174. Trish  |  November 17, 2010 at 6:50 am

    It seems to me that they're anti-homosexual because it undermines their patriarchy. If a man is the head of a household in all cases, and two men can form a household, then their perfect little box doesn't fit. If two women form a household, then the women are more than just a helpmeet and men can't claim head of household status simply because of their gender. Of course, if you have roughly the same amount of female births as male births then polygamy is eventually going to create a large number of bachelor men. Hmm… whatever are those bachelor men going to do to keep themselves from getting lonely?

  • 175. Trish  |  November 17, 2010 at 6:44 am

    I don't have a lot of time to go into how oversimplified your argument is, but I can tell you that it comes down to the difference between those who engage in polygamy and those who engage in same-sex marriage. More specifically, the outcome of the case depends upon whether the individuals claiming discrimination are members of a protected class. Walker determined that G&L are members of a protected class.

    Moreover, even binding precedent contains language that is nothing more than dicta, meaning non-binding upon lower courts. The rule of law from each of those cases you cite is that individuals do not have the legal right to marry more than one person at a time. That rule of law is one hundred percent inapplicable to the question of whether that one person may be of the same gender.

    All of your posts oversimplify the rule of law, which seems to indicate to me that you have no understanding of how our legal system works. And I know you are not admitted to practice in the State of California, so maybe you should just tell us the truth: you have an opinion that you're trying to back up with citations that you think make you sound smart but you lack the basic education and understanding necessary to make a proper legal argument?

  • 176. Michael Ejercito  |  November 17, 2010 at 11:57 am

    The rule of law from each of those cases you cite is that individuals do not have the legal right to marry more than one person at a time.

    One of the reasons cited by the Supreme Court for upholding the Edmunds Act against any constitutional objection was preserving the (Western civilizational) traditional definition of marriage.

  • 177. Ronnie  |  November 17, 2010 at 11:59 am

    no not really…. ; ) …Ronnie

  • 178. fiona64  |  November 18, 2010 at 2:29 am

    And we already know your idea of "traditional marriage," which you claim comes from the KJV. This includes the right of a husband to rape and beat his wife, control all of her property, and deny her the right to contraception.

    Sucks to be you, Michael.

  • 179. fiona64  |  November 17, 2010 at 7:29 am

    Um, no. Congress did not "intervene." Utah was denied statehood because of the large polygamous Mormon population.

    BTW, polygamy in "celestial marriage" is still part of the LDS beliefs.

    With that, Michael, why don't you just go continue your quest for "a girl pretty enough to have sex with" (your words) and leave the people here alone? OTOH, you could wonder why no girl that you consider "pretty enough to have sex with" wants anything to do with you … and learn something from the introspection.

  • 180. elliom  |  November 17, 2010 at 5:06 am

    Does anyone know if Word Press has a plug-in that allows end-users (ie: me) to self-censor which responses display?

    I'd like to edit out certain ppl at times, because I find their conversations disruptive, unproductive, and, quite frankly, offensive. I'd like to not subject myself to them, if that's possible, out of a sense of self-respect. I'm thinking something like a V-chip for my individual display. P8TT should continue it's policy of accepting all responses, but I'd like to not see those that I'm just so tired of.

    If the powers-that-be would consider that, and an edit button, please? Put a nice bow on it, would make a lovely xmas gift for our little community here. :>

  • 181. Lesbians Love Boies  |  November 17, 2010 at 7:21 am

    P8TT would have to convert the site to registered users for you to be able to ignore : )

  • 182. Rhie  |  November 17, 2010 at 7:28 am

    Depending on the browser you use, it may have a plug in that does that. I know in Firefox there is an extension called troll bridge that allows the user to ignore people's comments. I would assume that the other browsers have something similar

  • 183. elliom  |  November 18, 2010 at 2:35 am

    Was more of a retorical question, but thx for the info!

    I just get so tired of the trolls.

  • 184. Lynne @ No Junk. Jus  |  November 17, 2010 at 5:21 am

    Anyone who is surprised that there are ugly-hearted "Christians" in the world hasn't really read Jesus (or the rest of the Bible). One thing He and others in the Bible stressed over and over again was that most of the people claiming to be His representatives would, in fact, be (knowingly or unknowingly) working for the devil. The first (but not only) biggie was Matthew 7, where Jesus tells everyone to judge who belongs to Him and who does not based not on what they do, but on the results of what they do.

    In that case, the Mormons, evangelicals, catholics, et al who went out of their way to harm and bear false witness against Gays, Lesbians, and our families are proven false by their own Book.

  • 185. Alan E.  |  November 17, 2010 at 6:42 am

    Remember mega-church pastor Jim Swilley that recently came out? Well OneNewsNow had to give their spin on the courageous announcement. Who do you think they went to for quotes? Porno Pete LaBarbera of course!

    LaBarbera contends Swilley should step down from his ministerial position, stop preaching the Word of God, and repent of his sin and the advocacy of it. Swilly has shared that his congregation has been supportive of his coming out for the most part, but the AFTAH president is not surprised that some members of his church have left.

    "There's no doubt in the Bible about whether homosexual practice is a sin," the conservative advocate points out. "He says he knew he was — quote — 'gay' since he was a boy. Most boys don't think about sex, much less homosexuality, so we're wondering what happened in his early life. Obviously, he's a confused man."

    LaBarbera emphasizes that homosexuality it is not condoned in Christianity, so Swilley has "set about rationalizing his sin, which is very dangerous business." Swilley is the father of four children and is now divorced after a 20-year marriage. His former wife still works for the church.

    Try not to puke.

  • 186. Alan E.  |  November 17, 2010 at 6:44 am

    the "Try not to puke" was meant to be outside of the quote.

    Also, there is a poll. I chose "Loss of fear of God" since it seemed to be the most "reasonable."

  • 187. anonygrl  |  November 17, 2010 at 7:20 am

    There is not one unbiased answer there on that poll. Loss of the fear of God is just another "SEE that PROVES they are heathen!" answers, as far as the framers of the poll are concerned.

    How about "Because Jesus called on people to love their neighbors" or "The congregation realizes that any fears about homosexuality were related to a tiny, bronze aged tribe who were desperately afraid that any non-breeding member of their society meant that many less soldiers and farmers being born and put their survival at risk and and the congregation today knew that fear of homosexuality was no longer an issue"?

  • 188. anonygrl  |  November 17, 2010 at 7:09 am

    "most boys don't think about sex…"

    Really? I mean, REALLY? THAT'S the tack you want to take there, Peter? Good luck getting ANYONE to go with you on that.

  • 189. Sheryl, Mormon Mothe  |  November 18, 2010 at 8:36 am

    "most boys don't think about sex…"

    Wow, way more differences between the sexes than I was ever aware of. Either that or me and my girlfriends were pretty unusual.

    Sheryl, Mormon Mother

  • 190. Rhie  |  November 21, 2010 at 6:54 pm

    I just snorted out loud and scared the cat. Me, my friends and my boyfriends will join in the being unusual then. We all think about sex. A lot.

  • 191. Rhie  |  November 17, 2010 at 7:25 am

    *facepalm* Boys and girls, men and women all think about sex. It's perfectly natural. The more you try to tell a kid or an adult that they shouldn't think about sex the more they will.

  • 192. SoCal Dave  |  November 17, 2010 at 8:55 am

    First time posting, but this topic is irresistible. I am a gay former mormon.
    I think the mormon church is desperate to win the approval of other christian churches and saw Prop.8 as a way to show themselves as being leaders on the "right side." They had no idea what they were in for.

    Note to Sheryl: I admire you and love your posts, but suggest you check a little more into the old story that polygamy was a way to take care of widows and unmarried women. It's mormon folklore; the facts do not bear this out.

  • 193. Anonygrl  |  November 17, 2010 at 1:32 pm

    Welcome SoCal Dave! Thanks for posting, and here are your free cookies. Chocolate chip toll house cookies today, warm and gooey! And a glass of MILK. I'll leave the extras here on the counter if anybody else wants one.

    Your idea is an interesting one. Yes, it certainly does seem that this issue did let them play with the "big boys", putting them (dare I say it?) in bed with the Catholic Church. And since they have not been a big player in politics, it seems likely that the backlash could be catching them off guard.

  • 194. SoCal Dave  |  November 18, 2010 at 3:49 am

    Chocolate chip toll house? with milk? I now believe in love at first post. thanks to you, and to Gregory, for the welcome.

  • 195. elliom  |  November 18, 2010 at 3:56 am

    We're a very open and accepting community here, with a few exceptions that have been well earned.

    If you have time, it's well worth perusign the previous posts.

    Glad to have ya!

  • 196. SoCal Dave  |  November 18, 2010 at 5:21 am

    Thanks, elliom. I've actually been reading almost daily for many months. So much great information here from folks who are both brilliant and kind (and often very funny).

  • 197. Sheryl, Mormon Mothe  |  November 18, 2010 at 8:40 am

    I'll do some research. Wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong. However, that's the way the stories go in my family and some of my mother's friends. My paternal grandfather learned as an adult that the "aunt Sace" the family used to go visit was not an aunt but one of his father's wives (my maternal gr. gr. grandfather had passed away before the ending of polygamy).

    Sheryl, Mormon Mother

  • 198. Rhie  |  November 21, 2010 at 6:44 pm

    *waves hi* Welcome to the merry little band here! Welcome! Have some MILK and cookies 🙂

  • 199. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 17, 2010 at 1:23 pm

    Welcome SoCal Dave : ) thx for posting –

  • 200. Santa Barbara Mom  |  November 17, 2010 at 1:38 pm

    "Fiona, do you have citiations to show that the LDS Church (as opposed to members of the LDS church) fund NOM? And aren’t Catholics also involved with NOM (but again, as the church or as individuals). Really would like to see this. I know prominent members are involved but that does not make the church, as an organization, funders of NOM. I think that if it cold be shown that the LDS Church itself sends funds to NOM, that would concern a lot of members–we don’t do donations for them to go to outside political organizations — helping the needy around the world, yes, political organizations, no."


    Sheryl, Mormon Mother
    and Julie, SB Mom

  • 201. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 17, 2010 at 11:49 pm

    Hello SBM! hope your family is well : )

  • 202. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 18, 2010 at 12:23 am

    @ Santa Barbara Mom
    Fiona posted a link to this site…from there you can click on the various dates.

  • 203. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 18, 2010 at 12:40 am

    this site shows prop8 donors:

  • 204. Michael Ejercito  |  November 18, 2010 at 1:15 am

    Any site for Oklahoma Question 711 donors?

  • 205. anonygrl  |  November 18, 2010 at 3:15 am

    You come in, are rude to people, insult all of us repeatedly, and then want us to do your research for you?

    Not so much.

    Look it up yourself.

  • 206. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  November 18, 2010 at 5:04 am

    @ anonygrl

  • 207. Ronnie  |  November 18, 2010 at 5:42 am

    I like Slurpee's……..mmmmmmmmmmm…..<3…Ronnie

  • 208. fiona64  |  November 18, 2010 at 2:28 am

    Hi, SBMom. Gregory reposted the links that I provided in response to Sheryl's question earlier in the day.


Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!