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 5 6 7

Here are the laws in TX against civil unions.

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

Thanks for that info, jim.

I think we were talking at cross-purposes. I thought that Texas allowed civil unions and that despite that fact some judges were ruling against domestic partners in power of attorney cases. But I see that the state rejects civil unions as well. I’m surprised that a properly executed durable power of attorney was considered to be in violation of the state’s prohibition to civil unions. I’m not a lawyer, but I didn’t think that durable powers of attorney could be bestowed on any adult of sound mind that the primary party chose, not just a relative or a domestic partner. My hunch is a good lawyer could execute an agreement that would withstand the “civil unions” test.

In any event, in terms of California’s situation, I do not know what legal risks gay couples face that state recognition of same-sex marriages would obviate… that’s what I was keying in on. The opponents of Prop 8 never developed that argument to people, like me, who could have been persuaded. That’s probably why they lost.

Y-not on November 14, 2008 at 9:57 PM

I’m not a lawyer, but I didn’t think thought that durable powers of attorney could be bestowed on any adult of sound mind that the primary party chose, not just a relative or a domestic partner.

sorry – big typo

Y-not on November 14, 2008 at 9:58 PM

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

Age has a lot to do with the level of selfishness. A middle aged person with responsibilities who takes their own life is more at fault for selfishness than a teenager who may lack the skills, experience or confidence to see beyond the narrow rut of their dilemma. I doubt they realize the anguish they cause for their families that survive them. It seems impossible that a 15-year old could comprehend the staggering magnitude of loss and guilt that a parent would feel each day for the rest of their lives.

dedalus on November 14, 2008 at 9:59 PM

dedalus on November 14, 2008 at 9:59 PM

Agreed. They are children after all and it is unfair to expect them to behave any differently. But I want to make the point that a child/teen who kills him/herself because of being gay is no sadder than a child who does the same because they feel friendless or ugly or whatever no very good reason they come up with. Adult gays obviously will feel stronger about the gay youth due to empathy. They have been there and gone through that. I think the point for this whole thread, at least for me, is to point out that I don’t care about people’s orientation. There are few people I will be intimate enough with to require the information. And my opposition to Prop 8 is more about a political minority status and what will evolve from that than any desire to make any group or individual unhappy.

Cindy Munford on November 14, 2008 at 10:13 PM

Cindy Munford on November 14, 2008 at 10:13 PM
That is the second time I have done that, sorry, I don’t know how I manage.

Cindy Munford on November 14, 2008 at 10:14 PM

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

JetBoy on November 14, 2008 at 5:10 PM

It’s after 10 and you still haven’t:
1) Produced any difference in the rights, responsibilities and privileges between couples in CA who are married and those joined by civil union. Of course, I don’t expect you too since there really aren’t any.

2) Explained how and why a woman silently holding a cross is ‘taunting’ and ‘inciting’ people. Until you can establish that, then it can only be deduced that you find the cross ITSELF to be a symbol of hatred and intolerance and, as such, needs to be destroyed by any means necessary (like the homosexual terrorists did.)

Religious_Zealot on November 14, 2008 at 10:17 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

What stopped them from killing her?

Saltysam on November 14, 2008 at 10:26 PM

C’mon Jetboy.

What kept those spineless, bigoted, sissies from killing her?

Saltysam on November 14, 2008 at 10:37 PM

Saltysam on November 14, 2008 at 10:37 PM

I think Jetboy bailed a while ago. I guess he felt he was getting through to the HotAir folks.

Cindy Munford on November 14, 2008 at 11:02 PM

Cindy Munford on November 14, 2008 at 10:13 PM

I agree that teen suicide is no less-sad for any family, and I wasn’t referring to gay teens specifically in most of my posts, though initially I was responding to the effect of social scorn that is directed at some gay teens.

You are right that teens can feel alienated and abandoned for all manner of reasons. My concern, especially as a parent, would be toward institutional pressures on teens–whether it is excessive materialism, weight/appearance issues for girls, pressure to get into the right college, etc. Teen years are tough enough but when institutional pressures are telling some teens that they are inadequate, for a very small percentage the results can be devastating.

dedalus on November 14, 2008 at 11:06 PM

All I am seeing on this thread is hate, hate, hate. I bet most of you are church-going, “good” Christians. Did I miss that part in the New Testament when Jesus said to “love your neighbor as yourself…unless they gay or in any way different from you”. Jesus instructed us to follow his lead of forgiveness, tolerance, and love for one another. Really not seeing this here …

Bracing for the attack ……………

Karen_VA on November 14, 2008 at 8:54 AM

You started your post with an attack (hate, hate, hate), so don’t be surprised if you get what you consider attacks in response.

You quote only as much of Jesus as suits your purpose. He also said that marriage was from the beginning, which means it came before even the first government, and that it has always been between a man and a woman. And that divorce is not really acceptable to God, even though He allowed it in the Old Testament.

And if I can climb on to my soapbox, “Love thy neighbor” was not the Great Commandment of Jesus. It was the second greatest. The greatest was to love God. The call to love one another is second to the call to love and obey God.

theregoestheneighborhood on November 14, 2008 at 11:26 PM

Huh. Then on what basis would you oppose three people marrying, Ed? Brother and sister? Mohammed & Aisha?

I guess from now on when you’re right about something we’ll have to wonder why.

Akzed on November 14, 2008 at 8:58 AM

——
Ahh, another mental giant making the claim that if one supports gay marriage, one must obviously support polygamy.

HOW FU*KING MORONIC

Dave Rywall on November 14, 2008 at 9:05 AM

If it doesn’t make sense to you, it’s probably because it requires following a logical argument.

theregoestheneighborhood on November 14, 2008 at 11:28 PM

dedalus on November 14, 2008 at 11:06 PM

I am not sure I agree. I think we have gone a little overboard with the self esteem gambit. My personal experience is that kids now are so much nicer than when I was growing up. I have had really positive experiences with young people and how they interact with each other. I think they see and appreciate differences. As long as we, the parent, see and appreciate differences.

Cindy Munford on November 14, 2008 at 11:28 PM

Jesus instructed us to follow his lead of forgiveness, tolerance, and love for one another. Really not seeing this here …

Bracing for the attack ……………

Karen_VA on November 14, 2008 at 8:54 AM

In all the other hubbub, I missed this little gem.

Newsflash, Karen – Jesus was/is NOT tolerant (that whole final judgment thing is SO intolerant of people’s individual choices for their behavior).

Religious_Zealot on November 14, 2008 at 11:37 PM

I think Jetboy bailed a while ago. I guess he felt he was getting through to the HotAir folks.

Cindy Munford on November 14, 2008 at 11:02 PM

If he thought that he must have been drinking heavily.

Religious_Zealot on November 14, 2008 at 11:50 PM

Religious_Zealot on November 14, 2008 at 11:50 PM

Sorry, I meant NOT getting through to the HotAir folks. I have been doing this too much today.

Cindy Munford on November 14, 2008 at 11:59 PM

Ahh, another mental giant making the claim that if one supports gay marriage, one must obviously support polygamy.

HOW XXXXXXX MORONIC

Dave Rywall on November 14, 2008 at 9:05 AM

Now, this is a great example of how losing control of one’s emotions cripples the ability to think critically.

Saltysam on November 15, 2008 at 12:04 AM

Salty,
I have deep reservations about whether drywall EVER had the ability to think critically.

If he did, he would never have chosen to grow up to be an internet troll.

Religious_Zealot on November 15, 2008 at 12:11 AM

As for Ed supporting homsexual marriage. . . the answer is that he’s Catholic. He does what his priest says. If his priest would deny him communion for supporting homosexual marriage, he would be against it. Catholics do very little thinking on moral issues on their own. Their opinions are based on what the priest tells them without question.

ThackerAgency on November 14, 2008 at 9:11 AM

So, are you Episcopalian or Unitarian Universalist?

Does your Pastor support gay marriage?

How does he feel about the Ressurrection of Jesus? Fact or Fiction?

I forget what you are Thacker. You see, there are so many Protestants who claim to be Christians but inevitably they end up believing all sorts of crazy things.

Puh-lease. Preotestants lecturing on moral clarity and resoluteness? Why don’t you go ask your council of ministers if wearing pink is sacreligious. I’m sure there’s a congregation out there for you Thacker… hey, why don’t you just break off and start your own! Other Protestants have done it about 30,000 times!

BKennedy on November 14, 2008 at 10:04 AM

You responded to a bad comment and made a much worse one. Congratulations.

theregoestheneighborhood on November 15, 2008 at 12:12 AM

I think we have gone a little overboard with the self esteem gambit. My personal experience is that kids now are so much nicer than when I was growing up. I have had really positive experiences with young people and how they interact with each other. I think they see and appreciate differences. As long as we, the parent, see and appreciate differences.

Cindy Munford on November 14, 2008 at 11:28 PM

Glad to hear that your experiences with young people has been positive. My recollections of teen years are from 30 years ago and my children are now only toddlers, so my observations about teens are mostly just from what I read or see in pop culture.

Kids are more affluent today than when I was young–or at least they buy more consumer goods. The competitiveness and consciousness over social status seems as prevalent as ever, but with a raised ante.

Appreciating differences and supporting parents, as you say, is very helpful. I’d imagine though some gay teens may face challenges in that regard.

dedalus on November 15, 2008 at 12:20 AM

You might want to brush up on what our Founders thought about democracy and why they structured the US NOT to be a democracy.

progressoverpeace on November 14, 2008 at 10:43 AM

A Constitutional Republic (which is what we are) is a form of democracy.

It isn’t direct democracy, which is probably what our Founders meant when they used the word, but we are still a democracy.

Esthier on November 14, 2008 at 10:52 AM

I believe that’s completely backwards. What we are is a Constitutional Republic, which is not at all the same thing as a democracy. It’s a structured form of government where everyone, even the majority of voters, is bound by their role defined in the Constitution.

People confuse it with a democracy because some positions are determined by democratic elections. But that is wrong, because many roles in the government are NOT democratically elected. Democratic elections select the Senate and House now, but originally the Senators were appointed by the states, not elected. Supreme Court justices are appointed by the president, then confirmed by the Senate. Positions in the executive branch are appointed entirely by the president.

No matter how popular a president is, his democratic election does not entitle him to make laws, and any thing he wants to do has to be funded by the Congress, with the funding bills originating in the House.

Of course, there are a lot more rules, and I’m sure you’re well acquainted with many of them. But all these structures, all these checks and balances, were put in place specifically to distinguish us from just a democracy, direct or indirect.

So, no, we are not a democracy.

That said, people have been getting it wrong for many years, and that includes a lot of government officials who should know better.

theregoestheneighborhood on November 15, 2008 at 12:35 AM

dedalus on November 15, 2008 at 12:20 AM

I am a person of faith and my children are grown, it may be easy to say this since it hasn’t come up but I would not be estranged from them because they were gay. And I haven’t discounted the possibility that I just may not know. I think it is easy to say what you think about something until it becomes obvious that you may have to confront it. I don’t think being gay is statistically normal but I don’t believe it is a choice either. I am from a time or should have been from a time where sexual orientation is private. I have always encourage my children to stand up for people being picked and different is only different, not worse or better.

Cindy Munford on November 15, 2008 at 12:36 AM

theregoestheneighborhood on November 15, 2008 at 12:12 AM

I started to defend Ed even though he doesn’t need my help but he informed everyone that Thacker is an anti-Catholic bigot. But your right, BKennedy is equally unhelpful.

Cindy Munford on November 15, 2008 at 12:40 AM

I have always encourage my children to stand up for people being picked and different is only different, not worse or better.

Cindy Munford on November 15, 2008 at 12:36 AM

Wise and compassionate words.

dedalus on November 15, 2008 at 12:40 AM

dedalus on November 15, 2008 at 12:40 AM

Being a parent is the best thing ever. I am an Erma Bombeck devotee, you just have to be able to laugh. And the poor first born, the experimental child, in whatever misbehavior you visualize a future bank robber. My wise father said it is important to be a child and enjoy relative carefree times because you are an adult a long long time, you need to have the chance to be both.

Cindy Munford on November 15, 2008 at 1:07 AM

Cindy Munford on November 15, 2008 at 1:07 AM

LOL. You seem to know what you are talking about. I’m a novice, and my boys who are 2 & 4 have to deal with me learning on the job. But, in the end, they seem to run the show anyway.

I agree that being a parent is the best thing ever. It seems overwhelming at times but to see a child progress and learn makes other accomplishments seem minor in comparison.

dedalus on November 15, 2008 at 1:18 AM

Ed,

You are poorly researched. The Netherlands, when granting the right to polygamy, specifically used gay marriage as the legal precedent.

TTheoLogan on November 15, 2008 at 1:20 AM

dedalus on November 15, 2008 at 1:18 AM

You’ll be great. Common sense. If you don’t want them talking to you like Bart Simpson talks to Homer, don’t let them watch it until they are out of the parrot stage. And the first time they tell you a joke that is actually funny and laughed out loud, prepare to be inundated with the dumbest things you have ever heard in your life so they can make you laugh again. It’s been great talking to you, have fun and raise responsible citizens, we can’t have enough.

Cindy Munford on November 15, 2008 at 1:25 AM

As I asked on another related thread, I do so here again. Why do some feel the government should be in the business of promoting that which is detrimental to society?

anuts on November 15, 2008 at 2:14 AM

I have no problem with gay marriage, as long as the recognition comes through legitimate political means.

I’m not against you, Ed. I’m for you. I wanna see you saved and in heaven, okay. I’m praying for you. I pray for both you, and AP. That said, somehow you have missed the boat on this one. This matter was settled loooooong ago. Y’know, “I now pronounce you man and wife?” Ring a bell?? Marriage was ordained by God as one of His first acts after creating the world, animals, and mankind. God gave us very specific instructions on marriage and the arrangment of the family. I am amazed that Christians, when asked to comment on the matter, have the audacity to utter the words “I have no problem with gay marriage.” Homosexuality is clearly condemned by the Bible. God created Adam and then made a woman. This is the way God intended it and it is what is right. You don’t get to make up your own rules on what He has already been decided on, Ed. Gay marriage is wrong and it is a sin to dishonor the God-ordained covenant agreement of marriage. I pray you will be obedient to our Lord on the sanctity of marriage and His order for the family.

apacalyps on November 15, 2008 at 2:20 AM

You bible-thumpers are on the wrong side of history here. The Courts and time will expose you for the bigots you are, as they did for your brethren who opposed interracial marriage back in the day.

Noneya on November 15, 2008 at 2:26 AM

You bible-thumpers are on the wrong side of history here. The Courts and time will expose you for the bigots you are

Noneya on November 15, 2008 at 2:26 AM

Click this link.

apacalyps on November 15, 2008 at 2:28 AM

I don’t think being gay is statistically normal but I don’t believe it is a choice either. I am from a time or should have been from a time where sexual orientation is private.

Cindy Munford on November 15, 2008 at 12:36 AM

I am inclined to agree. As with all behaviors, I think sexual preference is something that exists on a spectrum. Some of us are just more gay than straight and vice versa. So while it might be perfectly natural to engage in homosexual behavior, it would be difficult to argue that it’s “normal,” if we define normal as what is simply more common.

That said, I do wonder why the gay community deems this all so vital? Is it just a matter of principle (i.e., just another brick in the road to total equality) or do they just want to be married and enjoy the same legal protections granted to traditional married couples? It would seem to me that’s something that could be accomplished just as easily with more substantial domestic partnership laws. Perhaps the gay marriage activists would do better to start there first — ya gotta crawl before you can walk. Obviously the people of California have made their wishes known — twice now. It’s rather ironic that the anti-8 crowd is so outraged at the intolerance and injustice they perceive being aimed at them and their response is to intimidate and persecute those who don’t agree with them for their beliefs. I guess tolerance is a one-way street in Liberalville.

Oh and here’s my Exit Question (and forgive me if this has been discussed already upthread — I am late joining this party): How is that the MSM has declared this a slim victory for Prop 8 when the measure passed by the EXACT same percentage that Obama won HIS race, which was purportedly a landslide? As our hosts here might say: Nuance.

NoLeftTurn on November 15, 2008 at 3:14 AM

Let the Homosexual Lobby come to Louisiana and try to intimidate US. ;)

HondaV65 on November 15, 2008 at 4:55 AM

Noneya on November 15, 2008 at 2:26 AM

LoL. I love the fact that No on 8ers call Christians bigots. Did you miss the whole impetus for this thread? Did you miss the whole gay-terrorism, vandalism news? Have you considered the merits of the no on 8 argument? It doesn’t make a lot of sense to say gays have a right to the word marriage. Do you realize that all these protests are just sour grapes? They can’t undo time, they want to punish people for voting the way they did? How moronic, wait for the next election and then support your position through rallies and whatnot. It is completely illogical and asinine to do what they are doing now, but that was the SC of CA’s reasoning that started this whole mess. Calling Yes on 8 bigots doesn’t do anything for your argument and it invalidates any opinions you have or may have in the future. Let it be known:
Noneya will never again have a valid opinion

Iceman on November 15, 2008 at 6:07 AM

PS The writer of Twilight is a Mormon and a very devout one at that… BYU grad and the like. Is she going to be boycotted?

Iceman on November 15, 2008 at 6:10 AM

Gay Gestapo

RobCon on November 15, 2008 at 7:53 AM

Salty,
I have deep reservations about whether drywall EVER had the ability to think critically.

If he did, he would never have chosen to grow up to be an internet troll.

Religious_Zealot on November 15, 2008 at 12:11 AM

RZ, your hatred and intolerance is disgusting.

One doesn’t “choose” to be an internet troll. You are born that way and you can’t help yourself. Those who claim they are reformed trolls are fooling themselves (it’s just sad how much anguish they put themselves through). Jesus said to love one another, so he may have been “trollish” himself.

If only you people would be tolerant and realize internet trolls aren’t bad people. Your own child may be a troll and needs your love anyway.

STOP THE HATE!!!!

Squiggy on November 15, 2008 at 7:57 AM

NoLeftTurn on November 15, 2008 at 3:14 AM

Then there is the obvious, procreation. Normal that. Cue the screams of old, unable, blah blah. I’m not talking fun, I am talking biology.

Cindy Munford on November 15, 2008 at 8:23 AM

Squiggy on November 15, 2008 at 7:57 AM

First laugh of the morning.

Cindy Munford on November 15, 2008 at 8:26 AM

Marriage was instituted by God Himself. Neither the Church nor the State nor the people have the right to redefine it.

Hypothetically speaking, if the State were to recognize baptism under the law, it would not, then, have the authority to redefine it.

Either the State recognizes marriage or it does not recognize it. One or the other. It has no authority to redefine it.

gocatholic on November 15, 2008 at 8:30 AM

Either the State recognizes marriage or it does not recognize it. One or the other. It has no authority to redefine it.

gocatholic on November 15, 2008 at 8:30 AM

Axiomatic.

Saltysam on November 15, 2008 at 8:43 AM

Squiggy on November 15, 2008 at 7:57 AM

+ 1 for the laughs.

Anna on November 15, 2008 at 8:47 AM

I’m sure that Sarah Palin is completely confused by this whole issue.

Vernon Hardapple on November 15, 2008 at 9:37 AM

Because we have attached rights to marriage like health care, property rights, ownership and other things…
.
Guess what? That’s because marriages also produce children, and there’s a societal benefit to supporting a two-parent family in raising, educating and passing inheritances to said offspring.
.
Some small fraction of gays, for whatever reason, declare that their adoptions or artificial inseminations of children should make them equally entitled to those same benefits. Maybe. They’ll have to turn a cold shoulder to their gay colleagues who sneer so tolerantly against ‘breeders’ – while demanding the same benefits for themselves.

Insufficiently Sensitive on November 15, 2008 at 10:39 AM

Squiggy on November 15, 2008 at 7:57 AM

Tee hee!

baldilocks on November 15, 2008 at 11:11 AM

To me what it all boils down to is people looking to the goverment to justify their moral or lack of moral values. This is the New Foregiveness. But, we all get judged in the end, somehow I dought we will have any lawyers defending us when our own time is up. Just a thought………….

jims on November 15, 2008 at 11:33 AM

jims on November 15, 2008 at 11:33 AM

Thank goodness, a world without lawyers would be heaven indeed.

Cindy Munford on November 15, 2008 at 11:36 AM

Some small fraction of gays, for whatever reason, declare that their adoptions or artificial inseminations of children should make them equally entitled to those same benefits. Maybe. They’ll have to turn a cold shoulder to their gay colleagues who sneer so tolerantly against ‘breeders’ – while demanding the same benefits for themselves.

Insufficiently Sensitive on November 15, 2008 at 10:39 AM

Maybe it shows that different gay people have different goals in life. I’ve know a lot of straight women who in their 20′s thought they’d never want to have children since it would slow down their career, only to change their minds in their 30′s.

Gay women have the ability to have children with the same methods that some straight women use. Given that they can legally do so and that they currently do so recognizing their commitment to their spouse seems reasonable.

dedalus on November 15, 2008 at 11:52 AM

Homosexuals are inmorals that should not be able to marry; soon people will ask to be married to their dogs. Drugs, atheism, sex, inmorality is what is destroying the country

tocoloro on November 15, 2008 at 11:53 AM

The Homosexual Christian??

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/HopkoHomosexuality.shtml

SaintOlaf on November 15, 2008 at 12:06 PM

I find it telling that some of the folks who are most vitriolic in their attacks on people who supported Prop 8 are unable to follow the logical extension of marriage “rights” to people who practice polygamy. It seems to me that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment provides ample justification for polygamy. But since the folks bashing Yes on 8 proponents have revealed themselves to be religious bigots, I guess it makes sense that they can ignore the First Amendment but find “rights” for homosexuals that aren’t in the Constitution.

Y-not on November 15, 2008 at 1:56 PM

Open season on morons! Yay!!!! Oh…

labrat on November 15, 2008 at 3:27 PM

It always has been, even though you are being sarcastic. The truth in a joke!

Bambi on November 15, 2008 at 5:02 PM

I can only imagine how the anti-8 people freaked over the results….

“B-b-b-b-but…this is California! We are all enlightened, cosmopolitan people, aren’t we? How could this happen? It had to be Cheney/Rove getting thier final revenge!”

Black Adam on November 15, 2008 at 6:05 PM

Black Adam on November 15, 2008 at 6:05 PM

They need to leave the coastal areas and talk to the folks WITHOUT iPhones and Tony Lamas.

sulla on November 15, 2008 at 6:30 PM

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a reasoned argument (see above) regarding preserving marriage as between a man and a woman for the benefit of the future generation. As I see more ‘sampling’ of same sex behavior (especially by teenaged girls, modeling behavior seen in the media) I find it hard to believe the ‘born that way’ argument. Aren’t there statistics stating that more gay men had been sexually abused by men than are found in the general population? I was born selfish and prideful; but I hope that I don’t use that excuse to stay that way.

spudmom on November 15, 2008 at 6:47 PM

“As I see more ’sampling’ of same sex behavior (especially by teenaged girls, modeling behavior seen in the media) I find it hard to believe the ‘born that way’ argument. Aren’t there statistics stating that more gay men had been sexually abused by men than are found in the general population? I was born selfish and prideful; but I hope that I don’t use that excuse to stay that way.” – spudman

That some women in the media are speaking up and disclosing that they are lesbian, some in their teens, is just matter of life. Jodie Foster won’t use the L word but everyone knows that she is. To my knowledge Great Garbo never publicly “came out”. I am a gay man. I was never sexually abused. And, I tried to pray the gay away for far too long. Before I finally came out, I tried to commit suicide after a bout of major depression. As the professionals in the mental health field say, sexual orientation is fixed at an early age, perhaps in the womb or before. We just don’t know why or how.

Please let me state once again that I think that these marches protesting the success of Prop 8 to be a political mistake of the first order.

SC.Charlie on November 16, 2008 at 6:45 AM

This was a letter in the Deseret News this morning. We have been targeted before and often. And of course we saw what the msm and al did to Romney when he ran.

Matthew Smith of San Francisco obviously hasn’t been to Salt Lake City during the LDS General Conference weekends. Every six months, Evangelicals and others from different faiths come just to protest Mormons outside of Temple Square. They have been doing this for years. They stomp on our religious books, they drag our religious clothing on the ground and have even been known to spit on our brides as they come out of the temple. And you know what? Most of our people have responded to our leaders’ request to walk on by and not say or do anything. Having the gay community jump on the bandwagon is nothing new. We’ll overcome their persecution too.

Lauren Payne

Riverton

Bambi on November 16, 2008 at 10:39 AM

Bambi on November 16, 2008 at 10:39 AM

Good Lord, that’s disgusting.

Cindy Munford on November 16, 2008 at 10:53 AM

Good Lord, that’s disgusting.

Cindy Munford on November 16, 2008 at 10:53 AM

I agree. But it lacks credibility imo. Maybe just an omission of information. Just curious.

What is the significance of “every six months”? Are these organized and planned in advance protests by “different faiths” and “Evangelicals”? If these claimed actions are true, why hasn’t anyone taken pics. or videos of them? Certainly they would be at least covered in religiously supportive publications. Call me skeptical, but I didn’t buy into “The O’s” claims either.

Itchee Dryback on November 16, 2008 at 12:05 PM

Yes, it is and I’ve witnessed it. Right beside them is an aclu attorney hoping that someone will take offense and deck them.

Bambi on November 16, 2008 at 12:05 PM

Bambi on November 16, 2008 at 12:05 PM

What was the occasion and the circumstances? Having a aclu lawyer at their side implies planning and scheduling.

Itchee Dryback on November 16, 2008 at 12:08 PM

itchee dryback: There have been many pictures of them. Maybe you aren’t looking in the right papers. Every six months the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS have a conference in our conference center in Salt Lake. They all know when (in October and April) and they come. We have even had some other faiths come and stand and sing in order to try and block their bull horns. Not only do they spit on our brides there is a pond where the brides and grooms like to have their picture taken with the reflection of the Temple in the water. They refuse to move and shout and scream that they are “whores”. They spoil many a wedding day for these young couples. A mother pleaded with them at one wedding to move so that pictures can be taken – they refused.
It’s not a secret. Everyone knows that they will be there.
They also appear in Nauvoo, Ill when we have a pageant, but so far they are not abusive with language, and in Palmyra, NY also at a pageant, but there they are more abusive.
I have watched a man drag a Book of Mormon in the gutter and dare anyone to grab it. We have been asked by our President to pass on by and not to confront them. It takes a whole lot of discipline to pass by. Most are families and so it is even harder to walk past. One Hispanic man, just couldn’t stand it, grabbed the our underwear from around a man’s neck and spent the night in jail. Great!
If you want some more proof I think you can look in the Deseret News past issues and you can find it.

Bambi on November 16, 2008 at 12:18 PM

Bambi..I just figured out you were talking about a twice a year event. Sorry. That being said, the claims of “spitting on our brides” at these events and the other claimed actions of stomping on religious book and dragging undergarments on the ground, just doesn’t sound like actions of any representative group of other faiths. Sounds like fringe group activities to me. Just my opinion.

Itchee Dryback on November 16, 2008 at 12:20 PM

I think I have explained what the circumstances are. Of course it is planned. They are hoping that we will react and then the aclu lawyer will be there to witness it.
They want publicity. I’ll see if I can find an article for you and link to it.

Bambi on November 16, 2008 at 12:21 PM

Bambi on November 16, 2008 at 12:18 PM

I haven’t looked in any papers, as this is the first I’ve heard of it.

Still it sounds like actions of fringe groups or special interest activists and agitators like the Phelps crowd.

I’ll google the Desert News. Thanks for the suggestion.

Itchee Dryback on November 16, 2008 at 12:25 PM

Sorry, the brides are not at the conference. But they come at other times as well. But the conferences will give them a great chance to try and get the max publicity.
If you don’t know how some (some) of the evangelicals feel about Mormons you haven’t been reading many of the blogs when Mitt was running. So I’m not sure they’re fringe groups. I would hope so but no big evangelical group denounces it.
I know we are posting over each other and so we are not getting the answers.

Bambi on November 16, 2008 at 12:25 PM

Bambi on November 16, 2008 at 12:25 PM

Thanks for the info Bambi, and would like a link to an article if you find it, but I think we’ve highjacked the thread, or at least pointing it to another issue.

Itchee Dryback on November 16, 2008 at 12:36 PM

Well, in one way, yes. However, it is about our Temples being targeted, so it has happened before and is on an ongoing basis.
By the way, they (the evangelicals) are not protesting because of our stand on gay issues.

Bambi on November 16, 2008 at 1:39 PM

I’m sure that Sarah Palin is completely confused by this whole issue.

Vernon Hardapple on November 15, 2008 at 9:37 AM

And that is how non sequitur is done!

theregoestheneighborhood on November 16, 2008 at 1:51 PM

OK, I know they are about to end this thread, but here is one link
http://www.lds.net/forums/general-discussion/14694-conference-protest.html
I’ve got to get ready for church, but if this is still on, I will look up some others for you.
Thanks for asking.

Bambi on November 16, 2008 at 1:51 PM

Not mocking, progressoverpeace; just saying there’s some weird stuff in it.
——————————-
jim m on November 14, 2008 at 3:42 PM

What you see as weird are things that are outside of your normal experience.

Let me explain some of this to you.

First, the Old Testament set up a theocracy. A theocracy will of necessity blend moral and political laws. Part of the theocracy was the enforcement of the worship of God according to the Old Testament scriptures. Therefore, you can expect to see laws prescribing punishment for those who abandon the faith. You can also see commands to war against other nations, including the command to utterly destroy the Amalekites. You can also see commands to not intermarry with people of other nations, that might encourage Israelites to abandon their own religion.

How applicable are these things to today, where there is no theocracy? Someone who pulls out the Old Testament prohibitions against marrying someone from another nation as an argument against interracial marriage would be foolish. In much the same way, those who quote laws relating to the theocracy of Israel to call the Old Testament “weird” are being foolish.

Having said that, let’s look at these details.

Exodus 20:5

5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.

Punishment for those who abandon the worship of God. Theocracy, as mentioned above

Exodus 21
1 “These are the laws you are to set before them:

17 “Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.

“Curseth his father, or his mother” goes a little bit further than using bad words. Given the context, it’s clearly aimed at rebellious children. The nation of Israel was not a modern nation. In spite of the laws of Moses, it was really organized along tribal lines. Parents were not just incidental to government, they were the government. Even grown children were expected to be obedient to their parents, which was the same as being obedient to society. And parents were considered to have the obligation to demand their children live uprightly. In fact, Eli the priest was condemned because he had two sons who abused their position of priesthood, and he “restrained them not.”

So cursing father and mother was not a family problem, but a government and society problem.

Exodus 22

2 “If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; 3 but if it happens [a] after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed.

Context: stealing is wrong, and murder is wrong, but self-defense is justifiable.

A thief breaks into someone’s house to steal, and the owner kills him. Our law says that the owner is presumed innocent, because his house was invaded. The Old Testament law said that that was only true if the thief broke into the house at night. That is, the homeowner had more leeway in his self defense if the attack came in the night. Of course, this was in the days before guns, when self-defense was not so much presumed to be lethal.

18 “Do not allow a sorceress to live.

Witchcraft was contrary to the religion of Israel. See theocracy.

20 “Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the LORD must be destroyed. [d]

Same comment.

22 “Do not take advantage of a widow or an orphan. 23 If you do and they cry out to me, I will certainly hear their cry. 24 My anger will be aroused, and I will kill you with the sword; your wives will become widows and your children fatherless.

You reap what you sow. Note that in this, as in many other laws, the enforcement of the law is not done by the government. God says He Himself will enforce the law.

Leviticus 11

1 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, 2 “Say to the Israelites: ‘Of all the animals that live on land, these are the ones you may eat: 3 You may eat any animal that has a split hoof completely divided and that chews the cud.
4 The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you. 7 And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. 21 There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. 22 Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. 23 But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest.

Dietary laws. Science more or less confirms many of these restrictions to lead to healthier living. Note also God’s promise that if the Israelites would follow these laws, they would have none of the diseases that were notorious in Egypt.

That was fairly significant, since Egypt was presumed to be the place to find the best doctors. But they apparently knew nothing of hygiene.

Leviticus 13

1 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, 2 “When anyone has a swelling or a rash or a bright spot on his skin that may become an infectious skin disease, [a] he must be brought to Aaron the priest or to one of his sons [b] who is a priest. 3 The priest is to examine the sore on his skin, and if the hair in the sore has turned white and the sore appears to be more than skin deep, [c] it is an infectious skin disease. When the priest examines him, he shall pronounce him ceremonially unclean. 8 The priest is to examine him, and if the rash has spread in the skin, he shall pronounce him unclean; it is an infectious disease.

45 “The person with such an infectious disease must wear torn clothes, let his hair be unkempt, [d] cover the lower part of his face and cry out, ‘Unclean! Unclean!’ 46 As long as he has the infection he remains unclean. He must live alone; he must live outside the camp.

Not sure which translation reads, “infectious disease.” The disease under discussion here was leprosy, as the Authorized Version makes clear, and the excerpts you’ve quoted cover how the priests were to examine those who were thought to have leprosy, and quarantine them from the population. This was to prevent the disease from being spread.

Note also that there are many variants of leprosy. Some forms were very infectious, others were not.

Leviticus 19

1 The LORD said to Moses,

9 ” ‘When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest.

One of the first welfare programs. Some of the crops grown were to be left in the field, and the poor were to be allowed to go “glean” these crops for themselves. See the book of Ruth for an example of a woman who subsisted on gleanings for a time.

19 ” ‘Keep my decrees.
” ‘Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
” ‘Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

No mixing of seed, no mixing of fabrics. God rather obviously does not see these as moral issues per se, so it’s far more likely they were ceremonial principles meant to teach purity.

26 ” ‘Do not eat any meat with the blood still in it.

Eating blood is generally considered unhealthy, so this was partly a dietary law. But the principle of respecting blood, and of the life being in the blood, was always taught in the Scripture. Christians would point to this as a foreshadowing of the blood atonement of the death of Jesus.

27 ” ‘Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.

28 ” ‘Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD.

These were pagan practices of common religions in Canaan. See theocracy, above.

theregoestheneighborhood on November 16, 2008 at 2:34 PM

Huh?

Bambi on November 16, 2008 at 2:57 PM

Bambi on November 16, 2008 at 1:51 PM

From your link, and the senior poster “Finnian”‘s observation, it does in fact seem like the protesters are Fred Phelps “God Hates_____ (fill in the blank)”..wacko family members and fringe nut balls.
Did you notice any of the “God Hates” this or that telltale signs of them?

Itchee Dryback on November 16, 2008 at 2:58 PM

Holy Balls!…I was post 666! I knew it..I knew it, that arrow pointed tail of mine was not a genetic blip like Mom said.

Itchee Dryback on November 16, 2008 at 3:44 PM

Funny! (666 that is)
Did you look at any of the pix they referred to? You could maybe see if you recognize any of them.
I don’t think they belong to that one church who protests at soldier’s funerals if that’s the Fred Phelps group. Phelps group did come to a funeral in SL but they aren’t the ones who come to the conference.
It’s just that you get more bees from honey than from screaming etc. They even had pictures of aborted babies, and so that tells me that they know nothing about Mormons, since Mormons don’t believe in abortion.

Bambi on November 16, 2008 at 5:00 PM

If anyone is still alive out there, here is a site with pix which show the signs and don’t seem to be the phelp’s group.

http://www.fairlds.org/Anti-Mormons/2002_October_General_Conference.html

Bambi on November 17, 2008 at 12:21 AM

This doesn’t seem like a giant protest. Looks to me like just one of the Mormons (say the boy about twelve) could smack-em-up and make them go away. Wouldn’t whoever did that be able to get forgiveness? It would solve so many of your problems.

Having said that, Christians believe LDS is a cult (since it completely changes what Christ says in our Bible), and that’s not going to change. You can gripe and complain till the cows learn to read Shakespeare, but that’s the way that is going to be.

I’d say your biggest PR problem is that so many of your beliefs have become public knowledge. (Now that we know all about that Xenu guy, oh wait, that’s not you people, that’s the cult of Scientology). Oh, yes. You Mormons get to be your own god with your own planet. And the revelations about this came out of a hat. This is just way too complicated for us simple folk. We always figured pulling a rabbit (or a religion) out of hat was a trick.

One other thing, you people have changed, calling yourself “Christians”. I don’t know how old you are, but I remember in the early seventies being approached by some proselytizing Mormons (you people used to do that, like the Jehovah’s witnesses do), and being told in no uncertain terms “WE ARE NOT CHRISTIANS! WE ARE MORMONS!” I don’t know when that changed, but I’ve heard it was when your elders decided blacks could go to Heaven too. I don’t understand how your core beliefs could change. Or am I just misinformed? (again)

Squiggy on November 17, 2008 at 5:50 AM

Bambi on November 17, 2008 at 12:21 AM

Thanks for the link to the pics…you’re right, it doesn’t at all look like the Phelps crowd, just another group of pathetic whack jobs, imo. Honestly…what is it these drama junkies hope to accomplish???

Go home people and mind your own business.

Itchee Dryback on November 17, 2008 at 7:16 AM

Squiggy: You are wayyyyyyy misinformed. And I guess you don’t know that we do share the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I don’t know what hat your talking about, but I think that is the first time I’ve heard that little gem. My grandson just left for a mission to Monte Video, Uruguay. He will be in a training center in Argentina for 2 months to learn Spanish and then will be one of the army of white shirted young men who will be trying to share it, politely. His parents pay for the entire 2 years. He will be living in austere circumstances and he is a wonderful 19 year old.
Gotta go to work, would be happy to write you later, squiggy.

Bambi on November 17, 2008 at 9:40 AM

Having said that, Christians believe LDS is a cult (since it completely changes what Christ says in our Bible), and that’s not going to change.

Catholics are Christians. We do not consider LDS a cult.

Y-not on November 17, 2008 at 11:17 AM

Thanks to both of you. Didn’t know I could access at work.

Itchee Dryback on November 17, 2008 at 7:16 AM

Y-not on November 17, 2008 at 11:17 AM

Bambi on November 17, 2008 at 11:22 AM

Bambi on November 17, 2008 at 11:22 AM

You’re welcome.

Catholics and Mormons need to stick together on Hot Air.

Have a great day.

Y-not on November 17, 2008 at 11:32 AM

You know it was a Catholic Bishop in San Fran (formerly in SL) who called the President of our Church and asked for help in passing prop 8.
And you’re right. We don’t know what is coming and we need to be brothers in arms instead of this rediculous calling each other out.

Thanks Y-not.

Bambi on November 17, 2008 at 11:50 AM

Bambi on November 17, 2008 at 11:50 AM

You’re right. All this back-biting is counter-productive.

Despite the rigidity of Catholic teaching, we really don’t spend time as a group critiquing other people’s religions. Individual priests may counsel individual parishioners who might be considering leaving the Church for another religion, but I have never heard a priest speak from the pulpit in a way that is critical of other religions. Unfortunately, that seems to be something other churches do. Weird.

In my experience, the Christians on HA threads who speak so virulently against Mormons usually have it in for Catholics as well, so I think we’re natural allies.

Cheers.

Y-not on November 17, 2008 at 12:41 PM

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7