Open season on Mormons in California?

posted at 8:15 am on November 14, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Mormons have been under attack in California since the passage of Proposition 8.  The LDS church backed the winning measure that restored the “one man, one woman” definition of marriage to the state constitution after the state Supreme Court overturned it as a statute.  From profane billboards to violent protests, the anti-8 demonstrators have focused their ire on Mormons, and now two envelopes of white powder have turned up in the mail at the Mormon Temples in Los Angeles and Salt Lake City:

The FBI says a letter containing a suspicious white powder sent to a Mormon temple in the Westwood area of Los Angeles was not hazardous.

The temple was evacuated Thursday while a hazardous materials crew tested the substance and determined it was non-toxic.

A temple in downtown Salt Lake City received a similar envelope containing a white powder that spilled onto a clerk’s hand. The room was decontaminated and the envelope taken by the FBI for testing. A spokesman for the Salt Lake City Fire Department says the clerk showed no signs of illness, but the scare shut down a building at Temple Square for more than an hour.

It was depressingly predictable that the fringe of the protestors would eventually move towards terrorism.  They’ve assaulted old ladies and threatened more violence, all because they lost on a ballot proposition.  In fact, they lost by over 500,000 votes and almost five percentage points, 52.2% to 47.7%. Of California’s 58 counties, only 16 of them carried a majority of voters opposing it. It wasn’t just the old ladies and Mormons who opposed Proposition 8.

I have no problem with gay marriage, as long as the recognition comes through legitimate political means — either through referendum or legislative action.  California voters have now twice stated by referendum that they do not want to grant government recognition of marriage to same-sex couples.  That’s a pretty clear message that the people of California do not want a public policy that gives official recognition to same-sex couples, outside of partnership contracts.

This fortnight-long temper tantrum certainly won’t help the anti-8 cause when the inevitable referendum appears to reverse the constitutional amendment Californians added in this election.  I’d expect to see that on the ballot every two years from now on, but if its backers keep acting like lunatics, they can expect to lose by greater margins in the future.

Update: I should address a few points in the comments.  First, the reason I support the legitimate process of referendum or legislative action is because they won’t produce nutty results like polygamy or “interspecies marriage”, as someone accuses me of tacitly endorsing.  How many people would vote to allow polygamy or adult incest?  5%?   Judicial fiat, on the other hand, can produce some very strange results.

Also, recognition of marriage is already public policy.  No one has proposed any laws barring two consenting non-related adults from cohabitating, nor should they.  This isn’t a federal question, but a question of what types of relationships will get state recognition, and that’s an issue legitimately resting with the electorate.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7

Morrissey said:

I have no problem with gay marriage, as long as the recognition comes through legitimate political means — either through referendum or legislative action.

I thought you were Catholic Morrissey. If you are an actual Catholic then you must have a problem with gay marriage that goes beyond legalizing or recognizing it “through legitimate political means”.

This is very very sad. Does Morrissey value “democracy” over absolute morality? My impression is yes.

TheMightyQuinn on November 14, 2008 at 3:48 PM

“Is there a heterosexual lifestyle day?” – Cindy Munford

It is called every day, Cindy. Just turn on your TV and radio.

SC.Charlie on November 14, 2008 at 3:48 PM

Well, there are rhetorical positions plucked from the air, and there are empirical facts about the human condition.

thuja on November 14, 2008 at 3:30 PM

Which is again something people would say of the comment you made about homosexuals.

Esthier on November 14, 2008 at 3:49 PM

jim m on November 14, 2008 at 3:45 PM

Before you can make that determination I think you will have to find a case. Disgruntled family members can try anything but that doesn’t mean they can succeed. If there is a family dynamic that would go to court to “out” another member I’d be willing to bet it would be wide open to lying also.

Cindy Munford on November 14, 2008 at 3:51 PM

jim m on November 14, 2008 at 3:42 PM

So you proved that you can take quotes out of context…every non-Christian can do that…

right2bright on November 14, 2008 at 3:51 PM

Yeah, but Y-not, in Texas they can automatically invalidate it if they’re gay and if it’s considered to be equivalent to civil union rights.

In hetrosexual situations, it takes grounds which are usually more difficult to prove.

jim m on November 14, 2008 at 3:45 PM

Do you have a link? I’m not familiar with the laws in Texas.

I guess my point is that bad legal judgments are not really an argument for gay marriage.

Y-not on November 14, 2008 at 3:53 PM

Does Morrissey value “democracy” over absolute morality? -TheMightyQuinn

May I ask just what is the “absolute morality”?

SC.Charlie on November 14, 2008 at 3:54 PM

jim m on November 14, 2008 at 3:42 PM

I retract my ‘mocking’ assessment, but I don’t find anything weird in the parts you cited.

progressoverpeace on November 14, 2008 at 3:55 PM

Here are the laws in TX against civil unions.

——————————-

CONSTITUTION

(a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman

(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or simlar to marriage.

(Texas Constitution Art. 1, Section 32)

STATUTE

Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage or Civil Union

(a) In this section, “civil union” means any relationship status other than marriage that:

(1) is intended as an alternative to marriage or applies primarily to cohabitating persons; and

(2) grants to the parties of the relationship legal protections, benefits, or responsibilities granted to the spouses of a marriage.

(b) A marriage between persons of the same sex or a civil union is contrary to the public policy of this state and is void in this state.

(c) The state or an agency or political subdivision of the state may not give effect to a:

(1) public act, record, or judicial proceeding that creates, recognizes, or validates a marriage between persons of the same sex or a civil union in this state or in any other jurisdiction; or

(2) right or claim to any legal protection, benefit, or responsibility asserted as a result of a marriage between persons of the same sex or a civil union in this state or in any other jurisdiction.

jim m on November 14, 2008 at 3:55 PM

A prohibition against wearing clothes with two types of materials? And being allowed to eat grasshoppers and not crabs? And killing someone who curse his/her parents?

jim m on November 14, 2008 at 3:57 PM

SC.Charlie on November 14, 2008 at 3:48 PM

I think both sides are pretty well represented in the media. Please stop thinking that anyone wants to stop you from being you. You don’t need discriminated minority status, you just need to be a grown up leading you life.

Cindy Munford on November 14, 2008 at 4:02 PM

A prohibition against wearing clothes with two types of materials?

So what? You find that weird? I find it bordering on inconsequential.

And being allowed to eat grasshoppers and not crabs?

Again, why is this ‘weird’ to you? There were dietary laws established. For most people, that was progress, big time. It served Jews well and might have contributed to Jews being less devastated by the black plague (due to laws of cleanliness that come along with the dietary rules).

And killing someone who curse his/her parents?

jim m on November 14, 2008 at 3:57 PM

It was a harsh existence and cohesiveness in the society was absolutely necessary. The proof of the efficacy of these laws is evident in the continued existence and thriving of those who lived under them.

I’m not sure how you rate ‘weird’, but I have a feeling that just about any old document would fall within that characterization for you.

progressoverpeace on November 14, 2008 at 4:04 PM

There are a lot of hateful people in Ca.
sheebe on November 14, 2008 at 12:52 PM

Unfortunately, I have to agree with you 100%. And unfortunately, the intolerance and hate of these people is disguised as “Peace, Love and Tolerance.” As a native of the SF area, I can say that there is no room to express an opinion different from theirs. As they like to say, “Free speech for me, but not for thee.”

dglenn on November 14, 2008 at 4:05 PM

A prohibition against wearing clothes with two types of materials? And being allowed to eat grasshoppers and not crabs? And killing someone who curse his/her parents?

jim m on November 14, 2008 at 3:57 PM

If you are interested in this you should read my post at 3:02. By the way, the part about killing someone who curses his parents is the one mitzvot that even the most extreme Orthodox Jews will state that they will not follow. Thus, there exists no one willing to accept all these rules. (There is a sect of Jews called Karaites who are viewed as heretics by all other Jews. Perhaps they would be crazy enough to stone their own children, but I don’t know and would tend to doubt it.)

thuja on November 14, 2008 at 4:09 PM

“You don’t need discriminated minority status, you just need to be a grown up leading you life.” – Cindy Munford

I agree. However, I know full well that their a lot of organizations whose primary purpose is to turn the clock back a mere fifty years.

SC.Charlie on November 14, 2008 at 4:12 PM

Perhaps the Mormons should declare “open season” on all the Californian libtards who are currently Californicating the intermountain west including Utah. Run them off back to California where they belong and let them clean up the mess they made of that state. It really is quite easy to do. Every time they open their mouths about something just tell them that you don’t give a damn about how they did things in California and if they miss it that much then perhaps they should go back. Then talk of gun pr0n with your coworkers/neighbors, that scares them silly.

Nahanni on November 14, 2008 at 4:14 PM

But to answer your question, that woman was not just innocently standing around with a homemade cross…she purposefully used that cross to incite with. And that, my friend, was wrong.

JetBoy on November 14, 2008 at 2:03 PM

-heh-

How, EXACTLY, is silently holding a cross “purposefully inciting” them?

You keep evading this simple question.

Religious_Zealot on November 14, 2008 at 4:17 PM

Oh its ok. Nobody has the same rights as Obama does.
Seems someone sneezes his name and they get investigated. What happened to the rights of everyone else?
Excuse me, but the rest of us, Mormons not excluded, are all Americans too.

johnnyU on November 14, 2008 at 4:19 PM

If I ever go out to dinner with you, progressoverpeace, remind me to watch what I wear and eat.

jim m on November 14, 2008 at 4:20 PM

It’s simple: enemies of the One who died and rose again consider the cross to be incitement to violence.

baldilocks on November 14, 2008 at 4:21 PM

If all of those idiots think that their threats against members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints have us all quaking in our boots, think again. People better than them have had their turns at us for over 150 years, and we’re still here, and growing. They’d do well to watch themselves in Utah, if they want to threaten and cause trouble…..

jehowe2nd on November 14, 2008 at 4:23 PM

How, EXACTLY, is silently holding a cross “purposefully inciting” them?

You keep evading this simple question.

Religious_Zealot on November 14, 2008 at 4:17 PM

the very existence of christians is an affront to them

right4life on November 14, 2008 at 4:23 PM

BTW – anyone who doesn’t think that the gay lobby wants to persecute religious organizations and outlaw anyone/anything that states/believes that homosexuality is wrong/sinful…

…needs to just take a peek at JetBoy who equates silently holding a cross as a valid reason to assault someone.

Note, please, that the woman didn’t say anything or do anything other than hold a cross.

The cross ITSELF has thus been reduced to a symbol of hateful oppression and its VERY PRESENCE is enough to invoke ‘excusable’ violent behavior.

Religious_Zealot on November 14, 2008 at 4:24 PM

jim m on November 14, 2008 at 4:20 PM

Heh.

Not to worry, though, jim. Those laws only apply to Jews. Others fall under the much broader “Laws of Noah”, and those judgments are left to G-d to assess, according to The Torah, at least.

I understand how any look at life from thousands of years ago can seem odd, from today’s point of view, but there were very good reasons for all the rules that were laid down and many of them addressed far deeper issues than just the details of the specific acts.

It is fine for someone to think that they have a better way, but they need to explain why it is better and why many will benefit from it, along with addressing the questions that are raised regarding ancillary consequences and negative effects.

progressoverpeace on November 14, 2008 at 4:31 PM

The Mormon church can handle anything that’s thrown at it (not that that’s an excuse for vandalism or terrorist threats, obviously).

The really disturbing thing about this whole episode is that individual Mormons (and members of other faiths) who supported Proposition 8 through financial contributions are now having their livelihoods put in jeopardy.

As was reported as some blogs in the last couple of days, the Musical Director of the California Musical Theatre (who is a Mormon) was forced to resign after boycott threats. I also spoke to a friend of mine whose brother runs the LA Film Festival and has been “blacklisted” because of his contribution in support of Proposition 8.

It’s one thing to target a wealthy church. It’s a far lower level of sleaziness to try and destroy people’s careers.

PasqualeEsposito on November 14, 2008 at 4:34 PM

SC.Charlie on November 14, 2008 at 4:12 PM

Darlin, they are a small few and I think you would be amazed at the number and the “type” of people who will stand up for you. Fifty years ago was long time, don’t forget back then insurance companies where paying for “treatment” because homosexuality was considered a mental disorder.

Cindy Munford on November 14, 2008 at 4:35 PM

I think we need a little axelrod astroturfing!! Swarm the websites that are promoting this kind of intimidation…

I’m a concerned gay person and I don’t think I would support this kind of intimidation :)

jawbone on November 14, 2008 at 4:36 PM

Today it’s the Mormons that are targeted, tomorrow any faith that speaks out on moral issues will be fair game. Either religion conforms to the “new morality” being taught in our society or it will be branded an outdated and bigoted fairytale.

I hope that all faiths, regardless of their views on Mormon doctrines, will stand with and support the LDS Church during this disaster. We cannot stand by and let these thugs of “tolerance” suppress our democracy and our right to teach our children Christian morality out of intimidation and fear.

SRL23 on November 14, 2008 at 4:37 PM

I get your point progressoverpeace, but I still think that having laws that regulate the types of fabric in your clothes is overdoing it a bit… No offense taken, and I hope you feel the same to me.

BTW, I have no idea whether the following is true or not, but if it is, it strikes me as wrong behavior by the anti-gay marriage side (link to: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/11/14/6239)

Employee Fired By LDS-Owned Firm for Opposing Prop 102
Jim Burroway
November 14th, 2008
I received this email earlier this morning. Portions are reprinted here with permission:

I worked for a Mormon-owned CPA firm… I was fired from my job after admitting that I had voted NO on prop 102.

I was discussing the election on Wednesday with some co workers (who don’t vote) and I asked if you would have voted, what would you have voted on 102? She told me she would have voted no, so I said well at least I’m not the only one on the office that was against it. Then she said wait, what was a no vote for? So I explained 102 to her. She got extremely angry and started saying it was an abomination. So I told her that I had a cousin who was gay that was murdered in a hate crime because he was gay. So I supported it because it was just an equal rights issue. So I just dropped it and didn’t discuss it anymore.

The next day she had a meeting with the owner, and when I came in on Friday they told me that I was being let go. When I asked if it was because of my work performance, the owner said “Let’s just call it a management decision.” I had spoken to the owner just weeks before about the upcoming year and he was telling me he wanted to give me a raise. He had booked me for a tax seminar for the second week of Dec., so I know he was planning on me being employed with him for awhile until this.

jim m on November 14, 2008 at 4:38 PM

“The cross ITSELF has thus been reduced to a symbol of hateful oppression and its VERY PRESENCE is enough to invoke ‘excusable’ violent behavior.” – Religious_Zealot

Has there been any interview with the woman involved in the encounter?

SC.Charlie on November 14, 2008 at 4:39 PM

A prohibition against wearing clothes with two types of materials? And being allowed to eat grasshoppers and not crabs? And killing someone who curse his/her parents?

jim m on November 14, 2008 at 3:57 PM

Wow, that comparison was so relevant. It all makes sense to me now.

hawkdriver on November 14, 2008 at 4:40 PM

You had to have been there, hawkdriver. At this point, my advice is to move along because there’s nothing left to see.

jim m on November 14, 2008 at 4:43 PM

Update: the reason I support the legitimate process of referendum or legislative action is because they won’t produce nutty results like polygamy or “interspecies marriage”

How far into the past would you have to travel to hear that same statement about gay marriage?

DFCtomm on November 14, 2008 at 4:44 PM

I still want to know why I have to be privy to ANYONE’S sexual orientation. How can I discriminate against gays if I don’t know they are gay? Make whatever legal contracts you need to make to be financially and institutionally bound to protect each other, it’s fine. This is not about discrimination it is about setting the gay community up as a beleaguered political minority thereby being given special treatment that will escalate into more “thought” control laws. No one wants to hurt gays, but they won’t be happy until we are not only forced to accept but glorify their life and I shouldn’t even know about their lives. Gays or straight, what happened to manners and privacy?

Cindy Munford on November 14, 2008 at 2:26 PM

The only fault I can find here
Is that this does not rhyme anywhere
Other than that it rationally sums it all up
And should win a prize cup

PercyB on November 14, 2008 at 4:45 PM

Has there been any interview with the woman involved in the encounter?

SC.Charlie on November 14, 2008 at 4:39 PM

I’m not sure, but in this context it is irrelevant.

People like JetBoy have already made it crystal clear that the cross is a symbol of hate and oppression and must be stamped out by ANY means necessary.

Religious_Zealot on November 14, 2008 at 4:46 PM

Just for the record, the one GLBT center in the midlands of South Carolina had to be moved near a police substation.

SC.Charlie on November 14, 2008 at 4:46 PM

thuja on November 14, 2008 at 4:09 PM

I’ve always interpreted the curse in killing your kid for cursing you to be more than a simple temper tantrum. I think it falls under the the law, thou shalt honor thy mother and father.
It could also be argued that the child becomes dead to the parent, which is the same as stoning them, without actually killing them.

Jetboy, on the old grandma provoking rudeness and such, I am old school. Where I am from you never treat a lady, much less an old lady like that, no matter what. And I am also of the opinion when a woman wears a short skirt, she isn’t asking to be raped either. When you say she was asking for trouble, you condone the behavior.

Conservative Voice on November 14, 2008 at 4:49 PM

jim m on November 14, 2008 at 4:38 PM

Let me just end by saying that I am a smoker. I enjoy smoking, especially with a meal. No one has been banned from more work, or thrown out of more places, had their private property rights violated (building wide smoking bans in CONDOS!) or made more to feel like a pariah (I don’t feel that way, but they certainly try) than I – and that is something that a full 20% of society does and most of society did for centuries. I don’t spend my time complaining about all this, although it is extremely impactful on my life (especially the taxes!) and has changed everything, so I have very little sympathy for the complaints of others.

progressoverpeace on November 14, 2008 at 4:57 PM

SC.Charlie on November 14, 2008 at 4:46 PM

Ignorance alert!! What is a GLBT center?

Cindy Munford on November 14, 2008 at 4:58 PM

progressoverpeace on November 14, 2008 at 4:57 PM

I miss the smoking sections in restaurants in Florida. I don’t smoke but it was a great place to sit away from screaming little people. I like your analogy. I have never smoked and I guess it would be safe to say both my parents died of smoking related illnesses but it is legal adult behavior so I wish you the best.

Cindy Munford on November 14, 2008 at 5:02 PM

Everywhere I look now I see little signs of crystalnacht.

CloneTrooper on November 14, 2008 at 5:04 PM

Whoever suggested that gays indoctrinate kids into their lifestyle, that’s hilarious. I was raised by and surrounded by gays/lesbians, and I’m straight. Knew I liked boys from the get-go.

Asking an honest question here: seriously, what’s wrong with polygamy? I mean, if marriage is to produce children, a man with 3 wives can have more children than one man with one wife. If a man can afford it (mentally and financially), why shouldn’t he? Or a woman, for that matter?

Anna on November 14, 2008 at 5:05 PM

jim m on November 14, 2008 at 4:38 PM

Don’t know if it is true, people can say whatever they want in an email. But lets say it is. The employer should be within his rights to hire and fire at will. Would I have fired someone who is a hard worker and has a political disagreement with me? No. But that doesn’t mean I want to take someone else’s right to run their business as they see fit.

Conservative Voice on November 14, 2008 at 5:05 PM

Asking an honest question here: seriously, what’s wrong with polygamy? I mean, if marriage is to produce children, a man with 3 wives can have more children than one man with one wife. If a man can afford it (mentally and financially), why shouldn’t he? Or a woman, for that matter?

Anna on November 14, 2008 at 5:05 PM

Aside from religious objections, I honestly have no idea.

The biggest argument I’ve heard is that the women in those relationships are exploited, but isn’t that also true of women in traditional marriages? Besides, polygamy doesn’t have to be one man and several women; it can be one woman and several men, or even several men and women.

Esthier on November 14, 2008 at 5:08 PM

I mean, if marriage is to produce children…

Anna on November 14, 2008 at 5:05 PM

Right there tells me you have a difficult time grasping the significance of marriage.

right2bright on November 14, 2008 at 5:09 PM

People like JetBoy have already made it crystal clear that the cross is a symbol of hate and oppression and must be stamped out by ANY means necessary.

Religious_Zealot on November 14, 2008 at 4:46 PM

Ummm….WHAT? Stop acting like a liberal and grow up.

JetBoy on November 14, 2008 at 5:10 PM

jim m on November 14, 2008 at 4:38 PM

If it happened I believe that would be a violation of labor laws and the guy can file a law suit.

However, it strikes me as being made up. It follows the standard internet hoax “I got this in an email from someone and I’m excerpting parts of it” format. It provides enough detail to seem fleshed out (Mormon-owned CPA firm, discussion Weds after election, she had a meeting with boss, boss fired him on Friday, mentions of previous reviews) but not enough detail to be able to identify the people and company involved.

From what I’ve seen on other sites that supported No on 8 (I’m not familiar with Box Turtle so I can’t speak of them directly) they were ready and eager to go after the people and businesses that supported Prop 8 so, if this guy had the actual name of the business and proof it happened, I don’t see why he’d hold that back.

The guy sounded like a long-time employee (he mentioned a review with his boss saying he was planning on giving him a raise next year) so it seems unlikely that he’d be completely unaware of a company culture that would fire someone simply for voting no on the proposition. If they were that severe about it he probably would have heard people talking about it and gotten the sense that it was a hostile topic long before the Weds after the election. Also, I’m not so sure a woman that didn’t bother to vote on it would have been so fired up as to run straight to the boss and orchestrate getting a good employee fired.

Finally, and this is just a personal thing, I don’t think I’ve ever heard a Mormon say something is an abomination unless they are reading a scripture that has the word in it. It’s just not one of our terms. It’s entirely possible an LDS person would use it, but not likely….it seems more like what someone would write if their impression of “church folk” were the “God Hates Fags” morons that need a few swift kicks to the head.

Like I said, if true, he should definitely sue. However, this story seems as fishy as a backwards B on a campaign worker’s face.

JadeNYU on November 14, 2008 at 5:10 PM

Besides, polygamy doesn’t have to be one man and several women; it can be one woman and several men, or even several men and women.

Actually, if it were ever legalized it would have to be. Allowing a man to have several wives, while only allowing a woman to have one husband would be sex discrimination.

Bobbertsan on November 14, 2008 at 5:12 PM

Right there tells me you have a difficult time grasping the significance of marriage.

right2bright on November 14, 2008 at 5:09 PM

I was being tongue-in-cheek. Sorry if it wasn’t clear.

Esthier – I can see the exploited argument, but I would think at least in this country, women have more choice in the matter. The more I think about it, the less it bothers me… but it might also be because I just read a book in which polgamy was common, and it didn’t squee me out. I just wonder why polygamy is worse than gay marriage, in that at least polygamy is still hetero.

Anna on November 14, 2008 at 5:13 PM

Cindy Munford on November 14, 2008 at 5:02 PM

Everybody trades years for some sort of enjoyment. I don’t ride motorcycles, so I figure I’ve got that going for me :)

But, yes, whenever I hear people complain about how they are treated badly .. they have no idea. Against the smokers, it wasn’t enough to just wall us off, they had to just ban us from everything.

I believe that employers should be allowed to not hire, or fire, smokers if they want. I have no problem with that, since I think that employers should be allowed to hire and fire who they want, for whatever reason. But anti-smokers would never offer me the same rights. The left has been attacking our system from both sides – with unconstitutional bans on legitmate behavior and unconstitutional findings of normalcy on deviant behavior. Next they’ll rule that all manufacturers must produce equal amounts of left-handed and right-handed pieces and stores always stock one left-handed version for each right-handed version, so left-handers don’t feel ‘different’. We are headed that way, as stupid as it sounds.

progressoverpeace on November 14, 2008 at 5:14 PM

It’s simple: enemies of the One who died and rose again consider the cross to be incitement to violence.

baldilocks

+1
Repeating the pattern, “we are so intelligent” to replicate tragedy again and again so perfectly predictably. Abuse is a sad tradition.

maverick muse on November 14, 2008 at 5:15 PM

Anna on November 14, 2008 at 5:05 PM

Why get married at all? Plenty of folks with a child or children with no spouse. Before welfare reform it was a pretty good living. I’ve been married 33 years, let me try to imagine adding a few more folks in the mix………not goofing on my images.

Cindy Munford on November 14, 2008 at 5:15 PM

Anna on November 14, 2008 at 5:05 PM

Actually I don’t have a problem with polygamy, as traditionally understood…1 man multiple wives. The other way around seems a bit odd. It has biblical roots, and its role is to create a lot of kids in a stable environment.

As far as indoctrination is concerned, we are all born with various weaknesses…my temptations aren’t necessarily a temptations for others. But that doesn’t change the morality. Just because you are around people who call themselves gay, doesn’t mean it will “rub off” on you…but it does have influence on you.

Conservative Voice on November 14, 2008 at 5:15 PM

Utah unemployment 3.5%
California unemployment 7.7%

Utah sales tax 4.75%
California sales tax 7.25% and climbing

Utah income tax 5.35% flat rate
California income tax 9.3% for incomes above 44K

Utah cancer mortality rate 150deaths/100,000
California cancer mortality rate 195deaths/100,000

jawbone on November 14, 2008 at 5:18 PM

MoveOn.org is rallying their membership behind the gays…I think those Obama supporters who don’t support gay marriage…and there are many…need to know what their favorite little group is up to…

DCJeff on November 14, 2008 at 5:19 PM

Utah AIDS rate per 100,000 2.2
California AIDS rate per 100,000 10.9

jawbone on November 14, 2008 at 5:20 PM

progressoverpeace on November 14, 2008 at 5:14 PM

Not as stupid as you think, just to expand on that subject for a minute. One of my kids indicated very early on that he might be left handed and my husband was ridiculous. He wanted me to “train” him to be right handed. Whew!!! Crisis averted. People are ridiculous. I wonder what the true percentage of smokers’ deaths can be attributed to smoking? My dad died of lung cancer but for goodness sakes he was 80 years old and a paraplegic, he beat the odds-makers big time. But to get back to smoking I believe you are correct, I think they are the most reviled among us, with chunky folks soon to get their’s.

Cindy Munford on November 14, 2008 at 5:23 PM

Anna on November 14, 2008 at 5:05 PM

A good chunk of folks in this society already condone polygamous behavior. People have sexual relationships with multiple people at the same time. Men have babies with different women born a few months apart.

We only seem to be disgusted by it as a society when people want to be responsible in those relationships and actually support all the families they create.

Esthier on November 14, 2008 at 5:08 PM

A lot of what I’ve read about polygamy makes it seem like it’s not as exploitative of women as some might think. In our society, a man gets tired of his middle-aged wife and divorces her so he can marry a younger model. In a polygamous society, he (in theory, it, of course, doesn’t always work like this) can marry the younger woman but he’s still responsible for the support and care of his first wife.

Also, there is roughly a 50/50 split of women to men in this country. I’m sure plenty of women would rather have a 50% (or even 25%) share of a nice, decent billionaire like Bill Gates than a 100% share of Joe the town drunk. Far from being unfair to women, polygamy is unfair to beta males!

JadeNYU on November 14, 2008 at 5:26 PM

jawbone on November 14, 2008 at 5:20 PM

California…20% of the Nations GNP
Utah….where is it again?

right2bright on November 14, 2008 at 5:27 PM

Esthier – I can see the exploited argument, but I would think at least in this country, women have more choice in the matter. The more I think about it, the less it bothers me… but it might also be because I just read a book in which polgamy was common, and it didn’t squee me out. I just wonder why polygamy is worse than gay marriage, in that at least polygamy is still hetero.

Anna on November 14, 2008 at 5:13 PM

Polygamy was actually the norm for many cultures in the past. And while the Bible speaks of one man and one woman, there are an inordinate amount of stories about men with several wives, including people like King David and King Solomon who were considered among the best.

I think our perceptions changed because we became more individual focused. Once we started with the idea that an individual’s happiness is more important for marriage than anything else, it was easy to then assume that women who have to share their husbands are exploited and really don’t know what they’re doing.

Highly publicized cases of “cultish” (for lack of a better word) LDS groups being rounded up by the police due to allegations of sexual abuse of minors don’t help much to dissuade that idea either.

Esthier on November 14, 2008 at 5:27 PM

Cindy Munford on November 14, 2008 at 5:15 PM

Not sure I follow. Do you mean legally get married, or married in the eyes of the Church/etc? I think of them as two separate things, perhaps because I did them separately myself.

Why should people get married? Good question. I got married to my husband, not only because I love him, but so that our employer at the time (US Navy) would keep us co-located. We’re married, I suppose, for the benefits – I’m under his insurance and on his Page 2, and I guess there are tax issues to consider. All of this we accomplished through a JoP. We did the church thing for his parents. And, well, I wanted to wear a pretty dress.

Look, I’m about to say something very controversial: I don’t think that every woman that gets pregnant out of wedlock should marry that man just because she’s pregnant. If I had done that, I never would have met the perfect man for me (my current husband). I would have married a man that didn’t love me, that would have neglected my daughter and I, and I might not have been here today. I made a bad choice in him, but I learned – and many women do. I don’t know why people should get married, but I can think of a few reasons why they should not. The example above is one of them.

The world is not perfect, and while I think the rampent divorce and single parenthood is less than ideal, I also don’t believe that people should lock themselves into unhappy marriages in the first place. Perhaps making it harder to get married in the first place is a solution.

Oh, and I can totally another person or two in our marriage. I know what it’s like to love two people fiercely at the same time.

Anna on November 14, 2008 at 5:28 PM

Conservative Voice on November 14, 2008 at 5:15 PM

I can just imagine divorce court…four wives.
Each with an arm and a leg…make a wish…

right2bright on November 14, 2008 at 5:29 PM

The really disturbing thing about this whole episode is that individual Mormons (and members of other faiths) who supported Proposition 8 through financial contributions are now having their livelihoods put in jeopardy. It’s one thing to target a wealthy church. It’s a far lower level of sleaziness to try and destroy people’s careers.

PasqualeEsposito

ABSOLUTELY. That rule applies with all concerned. Driving people into poverty because of a disagreement in ideology is one of the worst crimes of a selfishly empowered society or culture of bastard parasites.

And in a larger context, Socialism produces the same effect: 666 Bankrupting all opposition simply to overpower an entire population and remove them from competition/existence. With Gays, you see it up close and personal before Obama leads the overwhelming permeation of tax spend cap & trade to secure his authoritarian rule and “0″ legacy, trumping our Constitutionally balanced government with Socialized revisionism.

maverick muse on November 14, 2008 at 5:29 PM

Just out of interest sake: Just how many supported gay marriage even 20 or 30 years ago?

It doesn’t take long to change people’s minds. We all tend to behave like sheep… that scripture in Isaiah isn’t far off of how we tend to see our world and behave in it. You do this, and then the groups will work for recognition in the same blue print, so please don’t pretend it goes there.

On the subject of it being impossible that clergy will have to marry people that they do agree with marrying… explain that to the Catholics that will shut down health care rather than be forced to give abortion services.. it happens just like that. Slowly, insidiously, and one step at a time. If you think the eventual goal isn’t that Gays will enter those buildings sacred to LDS by forcing it by court action as they have everyting else.. think again.

Noelie on November 14, 2008 at 5:30 PM

Just because you are around people who call themselves gay, doesn’t mean it will “rub off” on you…but it does have influence on you.

Conservative Voice on November 14, 2008 at 5:15 PM

Oh, it is very influential, both positively and negatively, at least for me. On the point before the comma, my mom doesn’t just call herself gay. She’s the poster child for butchness. I love her, but sometimes, I think if she wasn’t my mom, I’d be scared of her.

Also, there is roughly a 50/50 split of women to men in this country. I’m sure plenty of women would rather have a 50% (or even 25%) share of a nice, decent billionaire like Bill Gates than a 100% share of Joe the town drunk. Far from being unfair to women, polygamy is unfair to beta males!

JadeNYU on November 14, 2008 at 5:26 PM

No offense to my husband who might read this, but yeah, I wouldn’t mind a 25% share of Bill Gates. Then again, my husband is no beta!

Anna on November 14, 2008 at 5:33 PM

A lot of what I’ve read about polygamy makes it seem like it’s not as exploitative of women as some might think. In our society, a man gets tired of his middle-aged wife and divorces her so he can marry a younger model. In a polygamous society, he (in theory, it, of course, doesn’t always work like this) can marry the younger woman but he’s still responsible for the support and care of his first wife.

JadeNYU on November 14, 2008 at 5:26 PM

I’ve read the same as well. Many will talk about having another wife in the family for years and then only get one when the first wife has approved.

Some women seem to be perfectly happy with these arrangements. Personally, I know I wouldn’t be. If I’m going to be faithful to my husband, I expect the same from him, but many of these women seem to believe they get plenty in return for sharing their husbands. They get plenty of family support and help around the house, and they get companionship from those other wives.

Esthier on November 14, 2008 at 5:34 PM

To jawbone: In California and Utah 100% of the people die from something at least one time.

SC.Charlie on November 14, 2008 at 5:35 PM

right2bright on November 14, 2008 at 5:29 PM
ok, that made me laugh :)

Conservative Voice on November 14, 2008 at 5:36 PM

Jade, I can’t determine if Utah law protects employees for expressing political opinions. Some states do, but others don’t. For instance, it’s perfectly fine in some southern states to fire employees for voting for Obama.

———————————–

Total tax burden (per capita) (2004) by state
Rank States Amount (top to bottom)
#1 Hawaii: $3,050.03
#2 Wyoming: $2,973.87
#3 Connecticut: $2,941.21
#4 Minnesota: $2,890.90
#5 Delaware: $2,862.03
#6 Vermont: $2,844.96
#7 Massachusetts: $2,628.26
#8 New Jersey: $2,415.82
#9 California: $2,391.65
#10 Michigan: $2,381.34
#11 New York: $2,376.77
#12 Wisconsin: $2,296.20
#13 Washington: $2,238.66
#14 Rhode Island: $2,230.43
#15 Maryland: $2,214.49
#16 Maine: $2,202.86
#17 New Mexico: $2,102.88
#18 Nebraska: $2,082.27
#19 West Virginia: $2,067.85
#20 Pennsylvania: $2,045.09
#21 Kentucky: $2,043.31
#22 Alaska: $2,034.51
#23 Nevada: $2,031.24
#24 Arkansas: $2,029.34
#25 Illinois: $2,005.24
#26 North Carolina: $1,971.48
#27 Ohio: $1,962.93
#28 Kansas: $1,932.58
#29 North Dakota: $1,932.22
#30 Indiana: $1,920.26
#31 Virginia: $1,902.56
#32 Idaho: $1,898.06
#33 Oklahoma: $1,823.70
#34 Louisiana: $1,781.78
#35 Mississippi: $1,766.54
#36 Florida: $1,756.36
#37 Montana: $1,753.71
#38 Iowa: $1,741.66
#39 Utah: $1,733.15
#40 Oregon: $1,699.55
#41 Arizona: $1,673.57
#42 Georgia: $1,633.84
#43 South Carolina: $1,620.67
#44 Tennessee: $1,617.03
#45 Missouri: $1,583.28
#46 Alabama: $1,550.99
#47 New Hampshire: $1,543.79
#48 Colorado: $1,532.26
#49 South Dakota: $1,378.37
#50 Texas: $1,368.45

Texas: ranked 2nd in both population and size.

jim m on November 14, 2008 at 5:37 PM

Some women seem to be perfectly happy with these arrangements. Personally, I know I wouldn’t be. If I’m going to be faithful to my husband, I expect the same from him, but many of these women seem to believe they get plenty in return for sharing their husbands. They get plenty of family support and help around the house, and they get companionship from those other wives.

Esthier on November 14, 2008 at 5:34 PM

Maybe that’s why I like it. I’m alone so often, having a co-wife would make things easier around here. But, in full disclosure, it’s not exactly as if I’m socially conservative. I’m not okay with cheating, but what goes on in our bedroom is our business.

I’m a little surprised at the not-negative response I got to my question. Not a bad thing.

Anna on November 14, 2008 at 5:38 PM

To jawbone: In California and Utah 100% of the people die from something at least one time.

SC.Charlie on November 14, 2008 at 5:35 PM

I’d like to see the stats of stuff that kills people more than once! : )

Anna on November 14, 2008 at 5:39 PM

Esthier on November 14, 2008 at 5:34 PM

Yeah…I don’t think it’d work for me either. I’m not an incredibly jealous (my guy can have female friends and boy’s only events) person but I am possessive. Regardless of what’s available, we’d be just a 1man/1woman marriage.

Unless, of course, he finds someone that loves to cook and clean….then, I might reconsider. ;)

JadeNYU on November 14, 2008 at 5:41 PM

And all the liberal thugs in our government are quitely cheering them under the table. A storm is on the horizon and when it hits, it will not be healthy to be a liberal.

stm on November 14, 2008 at 5:43 PM

My point was that liberal policies fail and conservative policies benefit the whole.

And I think its GDP not GNP.

jawbone on November 14, 2008 at 5:47 PM

Well, thank you all for indulging my curiosity. I have to go lay down now, so I won’t be back for some time.

Esthier – I know you had responded to me in a couple threads, and I never got the chance to reply. I wanted to apologize for that. I’ve been having some problems regulating a health problem, and I haven’t had time to lurk like usual. I hate leaving things unanswered, though, hence the I’m sorry.

Anna on November 14, 2008 at 5:48 PM

jim m on November 14, 2008 at 5:37 PM

I think it’s Arizona (102 was an AZ thing). I couldn’t find anything specific about their labor laws either – just generic stuff about having to follow the anti-discrimination laws in your state which wasn’t helpful at all.

Personally, I think an employer should be able to fire an employee for any reason at any time as long as they don’t violate contracts entered into between the employee and the employer. It is the employer’s job – they should be able to choose anyone they want for the position. Companies that are foolish enough to fire good employees over philosophical differences (or racial, sexual, religious prejudices) are going to hamstring themselves and the competition will win.

That said, there are definitely laws on the book right now and if the employer did indeed violate them, he should be penalized.

JadeNYU on November 14, 2008 at 5:48 PM

SC.Charlie on November 14, 2008 at 4:46 PM
Ignorance alert!! What is a GLBT center?

Cindy Munford on November 14, 2008 at 4:58 PM

I had to look it up too. It stands for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transexual center. In other words, a den of iniquity and depravity.

stm on November 14, 2008 at 5:48 PM

Martindale Hubbell has a summary of state and country laws. I’ll try to get into it this weekend, Jade. My guess is that Utah doesn’t protect political speech by employees.

Everyone, have a good weekend.

jim m on November 14, 2008 at 5:50 PM

I’m not okay with cheating, but what goes on in our bedroom is our business.

Anna on November 14, 2008 at 5:38 PM

As it should be. Unless you’re out for drinks late into the night with some very close friends.

Yeah…I don’t think it’d work for me either. I’m not an incredibly jealous (my guy can have female friends and boy’s only events) person but I am possessive. Regardless of what’s available, we’d be just a 1man/1woman marriage.

Unless, of course, he finds someone that loves to cook and clean….then, I might reconsider. ;)

JadeNYU on November 14, 2008 at 5:41 PM

I’d love to have a wife for cooking and cleaning. My husband and I are both horrible at it. It’s embarrassing sometimes.

But I’m completely with you on the first part. I don’t care if my husband has girls who are friends, though he doesn’t like women much in general. They kinda annoy him. That’s probably why we get along so well though, because I’m not girlie. I’m not manly either and can clean up nicely in a dress if I have to, but I’m not overly concerned about those types of things.

Still, I love it that we have things that only we share and wouldn’t be able to take letting another women share those things with him, even the nonsexual things like hugs that last longer than they need to or the stupid games we play.

Esthier on November 14, 2008 at 5:50 PM

Anna on November 14, 2008 at 5:28 PM

My statement was mostly about children. Polygamy life style is like the homosexual life style, why do I need to know? Will they become a specific political minority requiring everyone to embrace their lifestyle? The number of people who have more than one partner, for the lack of a better term, in this country now would probably be staggering. I am too old to contemplate it as anything else but unnecessary baggage in my life.

Cindy Munford on November 14, 2008 at 5:53 PM

stm on November 14, 2008 at 5:48 PM

Thank you.

Cindy Munford on November 14, 2008 at 5:56 PM

I can just imagine divorce court…four wives.
Each with an arm and a leg…make a wish…

right2bright on November 14, 2008 at 5:29 PM

I made you ROTFL earlier. Thanks for returning the favor. :D

baldilocks on November 14, 2008 at 6:07 PM

Jetboy

Conservative Voice on November 14, 2008 at 6:08 PM

How many people would vote to allow polygamy or adult incest? 5%?

It depends… how many Hollywood movies would glorify polygamy and incest? How many television shows would feature a “hilariously likable polygamist” character? How many reports would be produced by the CDC saying “incestophobes” were worse for public health than incest itself? How many school teachers would invite polygamists and the incestuous into classrooms for show-and-tell?

If our society accepts murder as “choice,” I have no doubt a large percentage of Californians would accept polygamy and incest after engaging in a homosexual-style jihad, at least in the “in your own bedroom” capacity. I’m sure if it was their goal, “Brokeback Sister-Wives” would win the Oscar for sure.

TMK on November 14, 2008 at 6:23 PM

“I had to look it up too. It stands for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transexual center. In other words, a den of iniquity and depravity.” – stm

Yep, all 1,800 square feet…….have you ever seen a gay teen who is thinking about suicide?

SC.Charlie on November 14, 2008 at 6:47 PM

SC.Charlie on November 14, 2008 at 6:47 PM

Not that I know of but I use to work at a public “alternative” middle school, lots of sadness and self destruction. I think if you look at suicide you will find that teens are the vast majority. Since you empathize with these specific youngsters it is more painful for you but if you knew some of the other reasons teens consider suicide you would be baffled. And teens do other bizarre things, like murder a friend because they are no longer speaking, which happened in Florida this week. Teens are a huge vat of conflicts. I happen to like the age group myself but many flee. Sorry if this sounds mean but gays haven’t cornered the market on confusion, despair or any other element of life. I hope that the police substation are nice neighbors and I hope they keep you and your friends safe from even the most benign idiots who would make a “statement” at your expense.

Cindy Munford on November 14, 2008 at 7:04 PM

….have you ever seen a gay teen who is thinking about suicide?

SC.Charlie on November 14, 2008 at 6:47 PM

How do they differ from anyone else in the throes of suicidal thoughts?

Itchee Dryback on November 14, 2008 at 7:18 PM

I have to go………….I pulled the trigger on a revolver hoping that the pin would land on the right cylinder. It is personal with me.

SC.Charlie on November 14, 2008 at 7:25 PM

How do they differ from anyone else in the throes of suicidal thoughts?

Itchee Dryback on November 14, 2008 at 7:18 PM

Tolstoy has a famous line about all happy families being similar but each unhappy families being unhappy in its own way. There are unique circumstances for each suicide and friends and family are left to ponder for the rest of their lives what they contributed individually to the young person’s despair.

Teen years are difficult for straight kids with hormones more powerful than their judgment. For gay kids it must be much more difficult considering that they have all of the awkwardness and insecurity of adolescent post-puberty along with the realization that their sexual desires are considered abnormal or are condemned by those around them.

dedalus on November 14, 2008 at 7:29 PM

SC.Charlie on November 14, 2008 at 7:25 PM

And it did, because you are here. Come back anytime.

Cindy Munford on November 14, 2008 at 7:29 PM

dedalus on November 14, 2008 at 7:29 PM

But people capable of taking their own lives don’t see that they are not considered abnormal or condemned by most around them. Yet they will obsess about the few that do. It’s the nature of those willing to take that step.

Cindy Munford on November 14, 2008 at 7:35 PM

Teen years are difficult for straight kids with hormones more powerful than their judgment. For gay kids it must be much more difficult considering that they have all of the awkwardness and insecurity of adolescent post-puberty along with the realization that their sexual desires are considered abnormal or are condemned by those around them.

dedalus on November 14, 2008 at 7:29 PM

It almost 2009. Many gay kids now grow up in gay supportive environments. Of course, some do not, but let’s not make it out like gay people are oppressed in any Western nation today.

thuja on November 14, 2008 at 7:36 PM

It almost 2009. Many gay kids now grow up in gay supportive environments. Of course, some do not, but let’s not make it out like gay people are oppressed in any Western nation today.

thuja on November 14, 2008 at 7:36 PM

Many, if not most, parents would be uncomfortable with the idea that one of their children might be gay. For children in religious communities that teach that homosexual actions lead to eternal damnation, there is added anxiety for gay teens beyond what straight teens experience regarding their sexual desires.

dedalus on November 14, 2008 at 7:43 PM

That’s what the Left does. They divide people through identity politics.

This is the fault of the LDS…in California, no less.

A majority of Californians feel that redefining the legal definition of marriage is not an option.

Blacks, Hispanics, Whites, Asians, Native Americans, Women, Men….all Californians, every one of them, are walking zombies under the spell of the LDS church.

What a bunch of idiotic losers.

Saltysam on November 14, 2008 at 7:59 PM

I have no problem with gay marriage,

Right. And, as I recall, you similarly have “no problem” with open homosexuals serving in our military (that would include the Infantry — i am sure you have no real clue what the Infantry life is like, or I suspect that you would not say what you said).

With “friends” like Ed Morrissey, we don’t need enemies, though we have them aplenty nonetheless.

sanantonian on November 14, 2008 at 9:02 PM

This isn’t a federal question, but a question of what types of relationships will get state recognition, and that’s an issue legitimately resting with the electorate.

Yes that’s right, the government should be telling people what is good living and what it won’t recognize as good living.

Check one for social conservatives, keeping the government in your lives 24/7.

The question used to be what gender will get the right to vote, or get paid more, or have equal access to education. Before that it was what color of skin could vote, or work, or live peaceably.

At any point in our Nation’s history, when persons have wanted rights that do no harm to themselves (i.e. right to die = arguable) there has been this majority waiting there to stop them. Today is no different.

PresidenToor on November 14, 2008 at 9:17 PM

But people capable of taking their own lives don’t see that they are not considered abnormal or condemned by most around them. Yet they will obsess about the few that do. It’s the nature of those willing to take that step.

Cindy Munford on November 14, 2008 at 7:35 PM

Some may only have a few people in their lives. If those people reject or abandon the adolescent in some cases it may seem like the rest of the world is without hope. Probably most people are capable of taking their own lives, although extraordinary circumstances are required (e.g., Custer’s last stand scenario).

dedalus on November 14, 2008 at 9:39 PM

dedalus on November 14, 2008 at 9:39 PM

Sorry but my experience with suicides, and I have known several, are that these people are so totally wrapped up in their pain that they either don’t see those reaching out to them or don’t believe the outreach is real. It is really a selfish act. And I am not saying they can help it because obviously even a fractionally rational person will seek help, as many do. It is very disconcerting to be around someone who has made this decision, so often it is like a weight has been lifted from them and they become so carefree. It’s too bad they can capture that euphoria and channel it back into what would probably be a life that would benefit all.

Cindy Munford on November 14, 2008 at 9:48 PM

Update: I should address a few points in the comments. First, the reason I support the legitimate process of referendum or legislative action is because they won’t produce nutty results like polygamy or “interspecies marriage”, as someone accuses me of tacitly endorsing. How many people would vote to allow polygamy or adult incest? 5%? Judicial fiat, on the other hand, can produce some very strange results.
.
.
Really Ed, how many people would of proposed gay marriage just 20 to 30 years ago? Do you think that it will stop at gay marriage and everyone will just be happy then? Is this where you will put your foot down and say thats it? What world do you live in? After this there will be the next civil rights struggle. Care to guess what that may be? A door thats cracked is just crying to have someone open it all the way………

jims on November 14, 2008 at 9:49 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7