# Prop 8 (CA) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 5, 2008, 9:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250 "2008-11-05T09:48:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 22
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2008, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/421 "2008-11-08T16:59:57Z")
[Former Catholic Bishop condemns backlash on LDS](http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Former-Catholic-Bishop-Salt-Lake/story.aspx?guid=%7BBE149180-C54A-41B7-B3DC-14EAC89B5D6E%7D) > [@Bishop William Weigand](#): > > "Bigoted attacks on Mormons for the part they played in our coalition are shameful and ignore the reality that Mormon voters were only a small part of the groundswell that supported Proposition 8. > "As the former bishop of the Diocese of Salt Lake City, I can attest to the fact that followers of the Mormon faith are a good and generous people with a long history of commitment to family and giving to community causes. > "I personally decry the bigotry recently exhibited towards the members of the Church of the Latter Day Saints–coming from the opponents of Proposition 8, who ironically, have called those of us supporting traditional marriage intolerant. > “I call upon the supporters of same-sex marriage to live by their own words–and to refrain from discrimination against religion and to exercise tolerance for those who differ from them. I call upon them to accept the will of the people of California in the passage of Proposition 8.” ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2008, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/422 "2008-11-08T17:34:43Z")
Didn’t the Mormons overstep themselves as a tax-exempt religious group by using their influence to lobby for a political cause? I love it how Bishop Weigand decries negative sentiment against the LDS church for behavior we find disgusting, but is A-OK for them to campaign to pass laws enshrining their bigotry against people they find disgusting. There’s nobody like the religious types for being vile hypocrites propagating double standards. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2008, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/423 "2008-11-08T19:03:31Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > Didn’t the Mormons overstep themselves as a tax-exempt religious group by using their influence to lobby for a political cause? No. They can lobby for causes, but not for or against candidates. ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2008, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/424 "2008-11-08T19:14:05Z")
Am I alone in thinking it reasonable that alterations to the constitution should be included in the same separation of church and state as applies to candidates? ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2008, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/425 "2008-11-08T19:17:05Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > No. They can lobby for causes, but not for or against candidates. What do you think of [this](http://lds501c3.wordpress.com/)? ETA: I see there is a GD thread on this, but it’s still not clear to me why what they did is not in violation. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2008, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/426 "2008-11-08T19:31:30Z")
> [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > Am I alone in thinking it reasonable that alterations to the constitution should be included in the same separation of church and state as applies to candidates? No, you’re not. ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2008, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/427 "2008-11-08T19:41:42Z")
The city of Santa Cruz may be entering the legal fray against Prop 8. We hope to head to the gathering being held there tonight at 7pm. [http://www.mercurynews.com/centralcoast/ci\_10934458](http://www.mercurynews.com/centralcoast/ci_10934458) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2008, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/428 "2008-11-08T19:58:17Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > What do you think of [this](http://lds501c3.wordpress.com/)? I think that sounds like sour grapes. How much money actually came from the Church itself, as opposed to individual members of the Church? Still, I think the IRS rules are that a Church can use up to $1M of its own funds before it becomes “substantial”. That is the upper limit, and it can be a smaller amount for smaller Churches, but I’d guess that the LDS is large enough that the upper limit would apply. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2008, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/429 "2008-11-08T20:14:27Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I think that sounds like sour grapes. I think it goes well beyond mere sour grapes all the way into righteous outrage. ---
**Author:** ![outlierrn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/outlierrn/32/3005_2.png) [@outlierrn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/outlierrn)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2008, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/430 "2008-11-08T20:15:19Z")
> [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](#): > > [Former Catholic Bishop condemns backlash on LDS](http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Former-Catholic-Bishop-Salt-Lake/story.aspx?guid=%7BBE149180-C54A-41B7-B3DC-14EAC89B5D6E%7D) 52% achieved with out of state funds that allows you to outspend your opponent by what, 3:1, 5:1 constitues a groundswell??? Not on my home planet ---
**Author:** ![outlierrn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/outlierrn/32/3005_2.png) [@outlierrn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/outlierrn)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2008, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/431 "2008-11-08T20:18:14Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I think that sounds like sour grapes. How much money actually came from the Church itself, as opposed to individual members of the Church? Still, I think the IRS rules are that a Church can use up to $1M of its own funds before it becomes “substantial”. That is the upper limit, and it can be a smaller amount for smaller Churches, but I’d guess that the LDS is large enough that the upper limit would apply. I suspect that the churchs, all of them, know exactly where the lines are drawn by the law, what they can and can’t defend in court. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2008, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/432 "2008-11-09T00:01:46Z")
Yeek. It seems some gays activist are [blaming African-American voters for this](http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=8077) (although, as the blog entry points out, there are other facts besides race that affected a “yes” vote a LOT more). I hope these are only a few bad/angry actors and that this doesn’t cause any sort of rift between gays and African-Americans. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2008, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/433 "2008-11-09T00:12:54Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > Yeek. It seems some gays activist are [blaming African-American voters for this](http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=8077) (although, as the blog entry points out, there are other facts besides race that affected a “yes” vote a LOT more). I hope these are only a few bad/angry actors and that this doesn’t cause any sort of rift between gays and African-Americans. Gays are perfectly right to hold African American culture responsible. But don’t get excited. Gays are perfectly aware some of their own are black and a couple people feeling really angry and venting is hardly going to turn into a race war or Rodney King riots. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2008, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/434 "2008-11-09T23:45:43Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > That’s bullshit, and you know it. “In our history” means women as chattel. If you want something meaningful think “family” and “village.” Gays have always been an inseparable part of that and we continue to create our own families today. The first sentence has no bearing on the discussion. Just because we have a history that assumes marriage to be between a man and a woman, and there are other things in our past that we now view as wrong, doe not mean that all past thinking was wrong. I think you know this. Your last sentence is plainly untrue. If you’d like to stand by it I’ll have to ask you for a cite. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2008, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/435 "2008-11-09T23:49:28Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > Whatever. There’s no point in reasoning with you then. Huh? You offer a cite bringing forth a tired, old argument, which I chose to ignore. You asked me to comment on it. I then did so, politely, even though I felt it insulting. And I shared that fact in the process. Yet you say…well, whatever that sentence is supposed to mean.:rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2008, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/436 "2008-11-09T23:54:49Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > **magellan01** , this appears to be a question you completely forgot to answer: > > Wouldn’t it be more effective, in the effort to preserve marriage as the natural childraising ideal you believe it to be, to outlaw divorce and adultery than to outlaw same-sex marriage? Where’s your vote on an initiative to make adultery a felony? How about an initiative to remove no-fault divorce and bring grounds for divorce back to their early 20th-century form? I did comment on it. But again, just because one might work to reach a desirable outcome does not mean that one should institute draconian measures. Especially when the laws will be ineffective and cruel. Do you really want to keep a woman locked in a marriage that is abusive? One of the reasons I’m pro-choice on abortion is that the laws will not stop abortions. And in the process it places the state in a very undesirable position in having to stop a woman who they hear is going to get an abortion. And then that leads to stopping women who are causing their child harm because of what they eat and drink, for fear that they’d be doing it intentionally. For an easier example, look to prohibition. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/437 "2008-11-10T00:01:01Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > The first sentence has no bearing on the discussion. Just because we have a history that assumes marriage to be between a man and a woman, and there are other things in our past that we now view as wrong, doe not mean that all past thinking was wrong. I think you know this. > > Your last sentence is plainly untrue. If you’d like to stand by it I’ll have to ask you for a cite. Don’t be ridiculous. Anyone familiar with the term “sexual reproduction” can tell you making babies has something to do with men and women, not necessarily marriage. Anyone with the reading ability to grasp “sexual reproduction” could also tell you humans are tribal and form family groups. This might be a stretch for you, but evolution didn’t create homosexuality and spread the gene throughout humanity starting around 1960, or whenever you think it originated. I’m simply _not_ going to provide you cite that gays create their own families. You’re being ludicrous. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/438 "2008-11-10T00:08:41Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > It certainly has moved away from that definition, this whole idea of “natural.” But anyway, you still haven’t addressed my question: what real, concrete, material harm would be done to you or to society by gays being allowed to marry? And do you truly believe that harm, if you can indeed articulate what it is, outweighs the harm being done to gays by denying them equal rights and protections under the law? I think that children benefit from growing up with clear guidelines in place, guard rails, if you will. I’ve had talks with my liberal friends here in SF, some of them gay. I ask them a question: while you will love your child equally whether they are gay or straight, would you prefer them to be straight or gay? Most agree that they would prefer they be straight. And this is not just because they will have an easier time in life, not being discriminated against, it is because that a straight person is able to enjoy a fuller human experience, maybe the most fundamental one: procreation. Given that, it behooves society to have signals up to children, especially as they’re sexuality develops, that here is the usual road over here. There are other roads, as well, and you’re free to take them—and should—if you are so inclined. But understand that it is a deviation for the norm. > [@Rubystreak](#): > > You say you’re not bigoted against gays. OK. But you do realize that, by voting YES on Prop 8, you are aligning yourself with bigots of the most blatant and destructive stripe, all based on your semantic objections to the use of the word “marriage”? It would seem to me that, in order to be true to the spirit of your principles, you’d have to compromise on the letter of it, let your meaning of that word go, and support equal rights for gays. I don’t find the accidental alignment you mention personally troubling. If a group I find repulsive also likes The Shield or Entourage or Twizzlers, why should that effect me? And again, and I think this is fundamental to our disagreement. I have a narrower view of what constitutes a protected “right” than you do. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/439 "2008-11-10T00:12:08Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > Don’t be ridiculous. Anyone familiar with the term “sexual reproduction” can tell you making babies has something to do with men and women, not necessarily marriage. Anyone with the reading ability to grasp “sexual reproduction” could also tell you humans are tribal and form family groups. This might be a stretch for you, but evolution didn’t create homosexuality and spread the gene throughout humanity starting around 1960, or whenever you think it originated. I’m simply _not_ going to provide you cite that gays create their own families. You’re being ludicrous. Not quite. Here was your claim for which I requested a cite: > [@](#): > > Gays have always been an inseparable part of that and we continue to create our own families today. So feel free to provide a cite, particularly for the first part. If you cannot, we’ll just have to ignore it. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2008, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250/440 "2008-11-10T00:15:57Z")
> [@pedescribe](#): > > You keep saying that a hetero environment is ideal for children, while a homo environmnet is reasonable, but not ideal. You act like there’s such a significant difference between the two, but there isn’t. There are natural variations between people, and I posit that: > > A hetero couple where one person is chronically lazy and messy > A hetero couple where both parents work long hours > A hetero couple who believe in corporeal punishment > etc. etc. ad infinitum > > would be worse than a loving gay couple. Would you disagree? Then why is is it so critical to discourage a gay couple, while not constantly discouraging any of the above. If we constantly accept only the ideal couple, there would be no more babies. You’re arguing gay adoption, which I favor. I have no doubt, partially from first-hand experience, that a gay couple can offer a child a healthy, loving and nurturing environment. But even at its best, it will fall short of the ideal, which offers all those things plus that which a child gets from a mother and a father, the female and the male. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250.md?page=21) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-ca/471250.md?page=23)