8: The Mormon Propositon

Cafe Society
61

Not true, not true at all. Recall, the Proponents are actually Defendent-Intervenors. Defendants chose to offer no defense, and they choose not to appeal.

There was an AZ case that had a similar situation, I forget the name right now. State did not defend, D-I lost the case, State chose not to appeal, case died for lack of standing.

For the same reasons Judge Walker offered.

There is next to no chance that Proponents, as D-I, will be found to have been allowed to act improperly at trial. If it is, it will be kicked back to Judge Walker, there will be no D-I, State refuses to defend, and there will be a summary judgment of Plaintiff or something like that, and then no appeal.

But that is not going to happen, so the next wet dream of the proponents won’t either - that all that will take time and a Republican will be elected to either Governor or State’s Attorney office and will choose to act on behalf of the state.

And even if that happens, before it can all be settled, there will be a new referendum to repeal Prop 8 in California. Which makes the case moot, and leaves CA with SSM and no wider ruling, same result as below.

That is the general consensus here in California on all sides. Word is there is at least some consideration being given to letting CA go in the case, and containing what is perceived as the damage of a loss to CA, and living to fight another day. Probably won’t happen, but the trial balloon has been floated already in the press, so if that side needed to come back and spin it to their supporters as a tactic still in keeping with the broader strategy, I am sure they could pull it off.

62

This (although “resounding” is an exaggeration).

The LA Times recently completed a study (article here) on what happened. In the last six weeks of the campaign, 687,000 voters switched from opposing to supporting Proposition 8. The proposition passed by about 600,000 votes. Of the voters who switched, more than 500,000 were parents with children under 18 living at home. The last six weeks of the campaign were marked by by an intense (and dishonest) media campaign targeted at parents.

And I don’t think it’s at all bizarre to reserve the bulk of one’s hatred for those who spent the most time, effort, and money in order to pass an unjust law. If the DA suborns perjury in a murder trial of an innocent man, should we direct our anger at the jury?

63

Actually, it’s very easy to launch much-deserved hate at the Mormons, the majority of the voters, and the black churches’ leadership, because all of those people are evil for supporting this law. It’s not like moral condemnation is a finite resource. Why pick and choose? All those morons can rot.

64

That sounds like moral relativism to me.

One quarter of the total funding was raised from less than two percent of the population …

No, it is not. That nasty judgemental phrase fell out of favor many years ago, and even in those days was considered much less polite than ‘without benefit of clergy’.
Living together without being married is now most commonly referred to as:
‘living together’

Yankees suck.

65

Actually for many years in Utah it was known as either “living the Principle” or “unlawful cohabitation”, depending on if you were hiding out or holding the warrant.

66

I just watched the commercialsfor prop 8 and they seemed well within the bounds of political truth telling. The Romanists were forced out of the adoption business in Massuchesetts, a second grade class was taken to a gay wedding in San Fransisco, a court case in Massuchesetts said it was okay to read a story to second graders about two princes marrying, and california law does religous objections can not be taken into account when teaching sex education. These are all facts. Whether these facts are germane to gay marriage is up to the judgement of the voters. They apparently judged these facts relevant and are the ones to blame for the passing of prop 8. But as was mentioned upthread, hate is a renewable resource. You don’t have to confine your hate to religions and people who hate, hating families with children is just as rewarding. You may have experience in hating your own parents, hating other people’s is not such a huge leap.

67

More than one party can be at fault in any given situation.

68

For certain values of “truth”, sure. Like when your version of truth is defined primarily by “politics” as yours is.

Aside form the ridiculous term “Romanists”, which exposes your hate and unwilligness to participate in reasoned discourse, no one was forced out of a business. They chose not to be in a business where their beliefs conflicted with the law. The law can’t change because of the First Amendment. No one is forcing them to do something their faith doesn’t allow, and the State doesn’t bend in order to make its decisions to make fit one set of faith views. Welcome to America!

So what?

So what?

That is because of the First Amendment. Do you think we have outgrown the usefulness of the First Amendment. Parents are free to teach their kids on their own, or in private school, or to supplement public education with actual parenting. The vast majority of parents in California do one or more of these. It has always been that way here, and wherever I have lived. Is it different where you live?

So they did. Fortunately, our political system has long been set up precisely to prevent Tyranny of the Majority. I guess we have to go through this exercise periodically to renew our understanding of how to do it and why it is that way, but it sucks that we do.

The end result is always the same though - rights expand to those who were lacking them, no one has fewer rights as a result, and bigots get over it, or die as bigots. Either way, they go away.

69

Let’s clear something up, here. There’s quite a bit of difference between holding the Mormon church, as a distinct religious institute, responsible for spreading bigotry, and hating Mormons as a group. Calling the Mormon church homophobic is not “hating” Mormons. On the other hand, calling the Mormon church “an evil cult,” as you did earlier in this thread, is extremely hateful. Referring to the Catholic church as “Romanist” is pretty borderline, too, although “Romanist” is a sufficiently obscure and archaic term that it’s difficult to understand exactly what you intent is behind that particular epithet. All in all, I find it remarkable that you are so capable at finding the motes in our eyes, when your vision is so badly obscured by the beam in yours.

70

Romanist… living in sin… hmm. Are you one of those people who says “Some of my best friends are free-thinking Negro suffragettes”?.

71

on the other side of the tracks in Suffragette City!

72

It’s a short enough drive by motor car.

73

IANAL, but I don’t think that would work. There’s a 90 time limit to file an appeal and that limit expires in a fortnight. Even if Republicans win both offices it’ll be January before they take office. To late to file an appeal.

If it’s the same wedding I’m thinking of one of the brides was their teacher and the parents arranged for the kids to go to her wedding.

74

I wonder if my own feelings on the LDS church would stay the same or would actually increase the levels of contempt and disgust that were prompted by my reading of Jon Krakauer’s Under the Banner of Heaven several years ago? At any rate, I think that I shall check this doco out.

75

Well that SUCKS.

I never got to go to MY teachers weddings. :frowning: I feel robbed.
On a more serious note, I’ve been to a lesbian wedding and it was no different than a heterosexual wedding, except that there were two dresses, no tuxes and they went with all bridesmaids (myself included) since they each picked their two closest friends and all 4 happened to be female. (2 straight, two lesbian) There were plenty of kids there and none of their heads exploded, nor did they magically become gay/lesbian by the end of the evening. :rolleyes: I cannot believe anyone would be outraged by kids attending a wedding. Well, except maybe the kids themselves. What kid wants to dress up in a scratchy outfit and hang out with grown ups for 4 hours?!

76

In fairness, the polygamists are to modern Mormons what the Branch Davidians were to Seventh Day Adventists.

77

I went to a straight wedding once where both bride and groom wore matching tuxedos, which I thought was kind of cool. When I read Alison Arngrim’s recent memoir (she played Nellie on Little House on the Prairie and her memoir is a great read not just as show biz but GenX in general) there’s a picture of her wedding and she did the same thing (Pic). To date both marriages have lasted and are happy.

78

Having watched the documentary now I think that LDS should stand for ‘Lying Douchebag Shitheads’. The biggest revelation (as opposed to Revelator [worst super villain name ever]) was that the Mormon church actually started and was wholly responsible for Prop 8 ever being on the ballot in the first place- the whole thing was not only their “spirit baby” but they deliberately kicked sand over their tracks to hide the fact it was, just as they did with the millions and millions of dollars that kept it alive.

I still think it’s the voters who bare ultimate responsility for being such sheeple and prone to propaganda that’s ridiculously easy to dispel, but the Mormon Church is responsible for its passage for having introduced and funded it in the first place. If I were the judge they’d both be in the dock and I will gladly support any initiative to strip them of their tax exempt status.

How millions of people can so blindly follow any organization is a mystery of mythic proportions to me. The family who cashed out the college funds of their 5 kids to send $50,000 to Prop 8… just… no words. If even part of the stuff said about the BYU ex-gay program is true then there should be arrests for kidnapping and torture. I suppose that’s the nice thing about being able to swing the vote in a state.

79

Pardon me, but can someone explain to me why they think that a church ought to lose their tax-exempt status for advocating for a political position, which is specifically permitted? After all, didn’t many churches (and churchmen) push for the adoption of civil rights laws some time back?

Should they have lost their tax-exempt status for doing so?

Now, certainly, the endorsement of particular candidates or parties would have been a violation of the tax code - but that’s not what happened, right?

Also, apropos to the topic at hand - 70% of black voters and 53% of Hispanic voters also voted for Prop 8. Did the anti-8 forces ever look into this very closely, or would that have been just too uncomfortable?

80

Heh. While you were watching the film, I was at a used bookstore that had two versions of teh LDS-issued “Teachings of Presidents of the Church” by Joseph Smith.

On the cover of one, Smith is drawn as a young man, on the other as a distinguished man with a long white beard.

It occurred to me that he was said to have played fast and loose with his teachings, I have heard it said that he would say whatever it took to persuade someone.

So I thought, hmm, I wonder if the teachings changed between the two editions.

In the intro, I noted that there is biographical timeline in each, although they are wildly divergent. Hard to tell they are talking about the same guy at first glance.

I imagine the rest of the books are equally fluid and not related much to each other. I bought them to have as evidence against the local Mormon gang of anti-Civil-Righters, who refer to some church books from time to time in public.

Increasingly, I wonder what is the difference between LDS and Scientology in some regards. For one thing, I wonder if L. Ron Hubbard was inspired by the success of the Mormons when he founded his church, and if so how?