Protesters have massed outside Mormon temples nationwide. For every donation to a fund to overturn Proposition 8, a postcard is sent to the president of the Mormon Church. Supporters of gay marriage have proposed a boycott of Utah businesses, and someone burned a Book of Mormon outside a temple near Denver.
“It’s disconcerting to Latter-day Saints that Mormonism is still the religious tradition that everybody loves to hate,” said Melissa Proctor, who teaches at Harvard Divinity School.
As an indication of how seriously the Mormon leadership takes the recent criticism, the council that runs the church — the First Presidency — released a statement Friday decrying what it portrayed as a campaign not just against Mormons but all religious people who voted their conscience.
“People of faith have been intimidated for simply exercising their democratic rights,” the statement said. “These are not actions that are worthy of the democratic ideals of our nation. The end of a free and fair election should not be the beginning of a hostile response in America.”
Jim Key, a spokesman for the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center, said barbs by gay marriage activists were directed at church leadership, not individual Mormons.
“We’re making a statement that no one’s religious beliefs should be used to deny fundamental rights to others,” he said.
Carefull. The article is a mouse trap and will not let you leave the LA times.
Is this action against the Mormons bigotry or not? I do hope the rest of the US is watching the liberal mind at work and judging what its liberality actually consists of.
See todays NYT, the article on California officially asking the state Supreme Court to review this ban. Since Gerry Brown will be acting for the state, clearly this is a move to nullify the vote. Larry
Not being familiar with California law, I am not sure it can be done, but don’t they have the recall vote? If Jerry Brown and the liberal Supreme Court there overturn this election, it should end up in Federal Court, but that would be the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the most liberal in the nation. Then it would have to go to the US Supreme Court. My question is, after voting in 2000 to change the law on marriage and then voting in 2008 to overturn the liberal activist judges and amend the constitution, where do Arnold, Jerry Brown or the Supreme Court of California get off with trying to overturn things. I thought we still lived in a Democracy and that the VOTERS were the ultimate authority. If this is overturned, and upheld in the US Supreme Court, it doesn’t bode well for Democracy or Christianity.
drummie writes:
I thought we still lived in a Democracy and that the VOTERS were the ultimate authority. If this is overturned, and upheld in the US Supreme Court, it doesn’t bode well for Democracy or Christianity.
We live in a demoracy that vests power in several places, not just in voting booth. The US Consitution established a “republican” form of government, not a direct democracy. It also separated powers and roles among the various branches of government. The duty of the judiciary is to interpret the law; the role of the legislature to remove decision-making from direct democracy and entrust that power with lawmakers who are more reflective. And, with special reference to protecting the rights of minorities, the legislature and Courts ensure that majorities do not trample on those rights. A referendum in which fundamental civil rights can be decided by a plurality of 50.01% is an anathma to our Constitutional system.
I’m alarmed by the liberal intolerance against this religious sect. I do want to note that when the California Supreme Court (and other state courts elsewhere) overturned the law and tradition and unilaterally amended the state constitution, we didn’t see the equivalent level of bigotry and violence by the supporters of marriage. I also note the silence of those who are quick to condemn laws in Nigeria and elsewhere which protect marriage – because of some perceived problem – where is their outrage at the bigotry and violence by the anti-marriage advocates?
Also, in response to drummie, #3, above who writes:
[blockquote] I thought we still lived in a Democracy and that the VOTERS were the ultimate authority. If this is overturned, and upheld in the US Supreme Court, it doesn’t bode well for Democracy or Christianity. [/blockquote]
I would direct you to the symposium published by First Things magazine a dozen years ago, [url=http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=3945]The End of Democracy? The Judicial Usurpation of Politics[/url] in response to the US Sup. Ct. overturning a state constitutional amendment in Romer v. Evans. Based on Romer, I can’t see Proposition 8 standing – you are right, we no longer live in a democratic republic.
We are just tenants at sufferance under the judges of the court.
Both African Americans and Hispanics voted strongly in favor of Prop 8. There has been some initial nasty backlash against them, but as they are both protected minorities, the anti-Prop 8 forces have quickly changed the target of their anger to those who are not protected.
Re #4
[blockquote]A referendum in which fundamental civil rights can be decided by a plurality of 50.01% is an anathma to our Constitutional system.[/blockquote]
True, but irrelevant to this case. The right to marry someone of the same gender didn’t exist until it was created by judicial fiat, which is itself anathema to our constitutional system.
We do have the right of recall in California, which means that the governor and the Supreme Court justices can……and might…..lose their jobs. Remember: We the people…..the majority voters…..amended the constitution. No legislation was passed, and therefore nothing can be overturned. It will take a Constitutional Convention to do that, and unless I’m mistaken, there are some legal hurdles in the way. I’m no lawyer, but that’s my take on the situation.
Mormons are an absurdly easy target. I didn’t read where Andrew Sullivan described the need to protest at black Baptist churches or Hispanic Catholic churches, without whose support Proposition 8 would not have passed.
APB, I have been noticing that as well. First of all, I think the anti Prop 8 forces should be targeting their political advisors. Who told them that Blacks and Hispanics were going to overwhelmingly support their cause???? Blacks and Hispanics as a whole are fairly conservative. Yes, they were going to vote for Obama and support mostly Democrats, but they don’t support gay “rights.â€
Also, I think the anti-Prop 8 forces are afraid to attack and/or protest Black and Hispanic houses of worship like they have done predominately Caucasian houses of worship. It’s not because those groups are “protected.†They know they will get “beat down†in the name of the Lord if they tried any of that nonsense with minority churches! I’m sure anti-Prop 8 forces have learned a thing or two from Fred Phelps. I’ve never heard of Phelps protesting a Black or Hispanic church or funeral.
Vincent
Matt [#12]: Surely it isn’t that simple. If the protesters took aim at black or hispanic church leaders or congregations, they would give themselves a memorable black eye.
Matt, history, dude, history. Google Martin Luther King for starters.
To overturn the marriage amendment under the state constitution, opponents must show that it constitutes a broad constitutional “revision” and not merely an amendment. They are rowing uphill and will not succeed.
#12 Matt,
The Hispanic Church, Black Church and White Church are the unbiblical result of the church in America sinful past with racial segregation and white supremacy. It appears to be a necessary evil until things change in America.
Vincent
[i] I’m alarmed by the liberal intolerance against this religious sect. [/i] —#5
C’mon! The anti-Mormon mobilization is hardly typical of liberals. One-sixth of American adults identify themselves as liberal. Equating these Americans with intolerant radicals is a smear suitable for redneck politicians.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
[i] When a church organization deliberately enters the political fray on behalf of a measure that would affect a tiny minority . . . . [/i] —#9
Even when gays outnumber Mormons?
Even when the opponents of the measure raise significantly more money than the proponents?
[i]the massive financial power of a big Church[/i]
Yes. That would explain the strong cultural bias towards polygamy in the US–the influence of the massive and enormously wealthy CLDS.
Black [i]Baptist[/i] and Hispanic [i]Catholic[/i], btw. Try to read before jerking that knee.
This has gone way beyond legitimate protest against Mormons. Numerous churches have been desecrated, individual Mormon members have been physically assaulted, and Mormons have been forced out of their jobs by the homosexual lobby, which is amazingly powerful in California.
There is a heavy air of religious persecution in California right now. What embarrasses me is that evangelical Christians have been largely silent, I think because they are afraid. They know that if they open their mouths, they will be attacked like the Mormons are being attacked. They are scared about keeping their businesses and their jobs. No government officials will open their mouths, because they are also frightened of the consequences from the homosexual lobby. The words of Martin Niemoeller come to mind.
The homosexuals have not attacked black churches because they know it would bring back the specter of church burnings in the south, but Mormons are fair game.
The homosexual activists have published a number of blacklists of people and companies they are going after and trying to drive out of California. If you live in California, I would suggest you patronize these people and give t
You act as if the Mormons were the only organization to put money into the prop 8 battle. You only have to look as the list of contributors to know that this is simply false. But why have the Mormons been selected? Because they are so easy to attack and will not sttrike back in any serious way. Mormons continue to be outsiders in many respects, and therefore subject to hate attacks.
Are the mobs an earmark of the liberal mind? This is actually rather obvious. We have seen again and again that the liberal mind set favors tolerance and diversity as long as it covers those elements they approve of. When it does not, then the name calling starts: Bigot ! Homophobe! And this is what we are hearing now. The liberals have show themselves very illiberal to all dissent from their chosen agenda. (Somehow, TEC comes to mind here.) The mobs attack on the Mormons is bigotry, pure and simple, and it is a reflection of liberal bigotry, which has grown and grown as it has increasingly succeeded. The more power you have, the more you will do to protect it. Is this news?
We hear this now steadily all the time here in Maine: When a church group denies the “right” to ssm marriage, the paper blossoms with letters to the ed., rich in name calling and what in another group would be called hate mail. Is ewquating these groups with the liberal majority worthy of a red neck? And interesting observation, which Irenaeus may put to the test by writing a letter to the Boston Globe vigorously protesting ssm in Mass. Or write the same letter to the Harvard Crimson ( or any Ivy League school). Try it, Irenaeus, and see the liberal result. Liberals hold a variety in elements in their common agenda, and ssm is one of them. These protests are the tip of the liberal iceberg. Larry
Gay activists have every right to criticize Mormon support for the California marriage amendment—just as Mormons had every right to voice support for the amendment.
But do the anti-Mormon protests have an element of intimidation—as if to deter Mormons and others from opposing a gay agenda? If so, that too is a fair target for criticism.
Perhaps it’s too soon to tell. We should not assume that thuggish protesters—such as those who drowned out the elderly woman in Palm Springs or mobbed the evangelists in San Francisco’s Castro District—typify this round of protests.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
But the animosity aimed at the Castro evangelists was chilling. The catcalls telling them they should never, ever return reminded me of [url=http://members.gaponline.de/alois.schwarzmueller/ns_zeit_1936_olympiade_vortrag_bilder/vortrag_4_juden_kurort_1.jpg]this[/url].
[i]The homosexuals have not attacked black churches because they know it would bring back the specter of church burnings in the south, but Mormons are fair game.[/i]
Well Jim, homosexuals don’t know their way around “those” neighborhoods either. I’d wager further that the response to any such actions by homosexuals would be more militant than that of the suburban middle class Mormons. And it would be a response I would cheer. This giant hissy fit by a 2-5% pathological minority needs to end.
Speaking of endgames, how exactly do California homosexuals propose to get the demographic advantage over Hispanics in California? My advice to them is to enjoy the “gay marriage” indulgence while it lasts in elite enclaves in Connecticut, Vermont and Massachusets, because it is going the way of the dodo.
Larry [#25]: I agree that Mormons have been chosen as an easy target. I do not agree that PC-intimidation tactics typify 40 million American liberals.
[i]A demographic advantage may not yet exist among Hispanics per se, but it is being resoundingly won among the young, among whom you are likely to find a great many Hispanics. The die has already been cast.[/i]
Yes, you’re doing great among white upper middle class college students, whose fecundity is only slightly better than yours.
#24–I did have some links in my original #23, but for some reason they were cut off when I posted which is why my message drops off. For example, you can google the attack on Christians in San Francisco on Friday night (KTVU had a report and there were also a number of other sites that had it, it’s also over at Stand Firm). If you Google Mormon/Gay/Prop 8 or some combination similar, you will get a number of articles on vandalism and attacks on Mormon churches and how they are now having to hire security to protect their members. Other examples are the long-time Mormon theater director in Sacramento who was hounded out of his job last week, and the owner of the restaurant in Southern California who was chased out of her restaurant that gays are going after. There are also a number of blacklists published of people and businesses being targeted by the gay movement.
[i] Irenaeus [29], how can you say,
“I agree that Mormons have been chosen as an easy target”
… but fail to acknowledge the possibility that they are a target because of the large, if not majority proportion of the funding they provided to support Prop 8? [/i] —Matt Thompson [#31]
If Orthodox Jews had played a similar role in opposing Proposition 8, would we be seeing nationwide gay protests outside Orthodox synagogues? You bet we wouldn’t.
If black and hispanic congregations had played a more conspicuous role in mobilizing their members to vote for Prop 8, would we be seeing nationwide (or even statewide) gay protests outside church buildings used by predominantly black and hispanic congregations? You bet we wouldn’t.
Mormons’ role in supporting Prop 8 explains why gay activists would [i] want [/i] to protest them. It does not suffice to explain why activists chose to target Mormons but not others.
Matt,
The data is pretty clear: as people get older and start families of their own, the pretty little lies about gay marriage fall by the wayside, and California is going to be filling up with an awful lot of 30-something Mexican Catholics real soon.
I repeat, enjoy this East Coast, upper class indulgence while it lasts.
Then why are they not also targeting Orthodox Jewish synagogues, Catholic churches, black churches, Hispanic churches? Only because Mormons, along with evangelical Christians, are one of the few groups in America that you can still get away with bigotry against and not have any public consequences. There would be a little more credibillity if the protestors started protesting black supporters of traditional marriage, but you and I know that will never happen because it is politically incorrect.
[i]because of their especially high political and financial clout[/i]
That would explain the large numbers of Mormons in high office and heading public companies.
Admit it: you find the prospect of going into a Hispanic or black neighborhood to yell at churchgoers rather daunting.
It is unfortunate that the homosexuals have defined opposition to their behavior as hatred of them personaly. And let’s make no mistake, a sexual behavior is involved, not mere skin color.
What is involved is affirmation of a sexual lifestyle.
#17. Irenaeus writes:
[blockquote] [i]I’m alarmed by the liberal intolerance against this religious sect. —#5[/i]
C’mon! The anti-Mormon mobilization is hardly typical of liberals. One-sixth of American adults identify themselves as liberal. Equating these Americans with intolerant radicals is a smear suitable for redneck politicians. [/blockquote]
“redneck politicians…” cute use of irony, there Ire.
Sorry, to trouble you, but that’s one of the things that is separating me from my politically liberal associates – there is a rising level of intolerance I’m seeing in my liberal friends. It’s not just this action against the Mormons, but also the hatred being directed toward blacks and Hispanics. I understand your hesitation to paint with a broad brush, but I’m seeing a greater degree of intolerance and a fear of speaking out – anyone who does gets labeled something like “homophobe” or “redneck politician.” I think if more liberals make clear that we disagree with this type of thing, we can reclaim the high ground.
We liberals like to say that dissent is the highest form of patriotism, but if you dissent from whatever the prevailing liberal fad is, you are a heretic, a McCarthyite, a redneck, etc.
43, those of us on the conservative side have noticed that for a long time. But that is the nature of politics.
[blockquote]All told, some $20 million out of the $35.8 million to be raised for the Yes on 8 campaign are estimated to have come from Mormon contributors, in and out of state. [/blockquote]
Estimated…by whom? I wasn’t aware that there was a requirement to register one’s religious affiliation when one contributed to a political campaign. Are things different in Kollivornia?
The gays are mau-mauing the Mormons for one reason and one reason only: They are an easy target.
Comment deleted – Elf
Please would commenters be careful how you express yourselves and keep to the topic.
William Sulik [#43]: Pretending that democratic liberals—people like Hubert Humphrey, Martin Luther King, Peter Rodino, Walter Mondale, and Paul Sarbanes—are Communists or radical extremists is an old McCarthyite trick with many more recent emulators (e.g., Saxby Chambliss branding Max Cleland a terrorist-fancy traitor for disagreeing with Bush about the Iraq War). The left-wing analogue would be pretending that principled conservatives are white supremacists.
In #49, the parenthetical should read:
“(e.g., Saxby Chambliss branding Max Cleland a terrorist-FANCYING traitor for disagreeing with Bush about the Iraq War).”
The protesters here have been described as fringe radicals – implying that the bulk of them were homosexuals or lesbians of a marginal sort. But this is not at all what I have been reading, that the protesters are in numbers and kind far beyond anything the homosexual community could have mustered. That they are a “radical fringe” is by no means proven.
Is my description of the American liberal cartoonish. I suggest you look at again. The attitudes expressed in Cal and surrounding area are the very attitudes expressed over and over through out the country. We have heard this again and again; have you NOT been listening to TEC? Moreover, you may read these very same sentiments in the letters to the ed in many newspapers. Cartoonish?
Don’t you wish.
We hear of the individual, each so unlike all others and so original, we forget how much alike people are. If this were not so, statistics would be unable to handle them – patently NOT the case.
Marketing succeeds precisely because people are so much like sheep. This is not not Rep. vs. Dems, because these agendas vary widely over time. But conservative and liberal are fundamental mindsets, a consistent and surprisingly uniform way of looking at the world. For a liberal, the pass word is not “freedom,” but “emancipation,” a desire to treat the past as a set of shackles which must be broken if the social being is to progress. This posture is quite uniform in the world in general because being an idealist, a standard of the liberal world view, requires the dissolution of our ties to the past. The civil rights battle is an obvious case in point, and I remind you how uniform the liberal attitude was here, country wide. The witch hunt over Sarah Palin is another obvious case in point. We might as easily cite Gandhi all those years ago. Cartoonish? You really need to find a more accurate name to call.
Larry
Confirming Irenaeus’ #15, see my #26 at http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/17867/#comments
Matt’s coments about Mormon support need support or they must be regarded as pure speculation. In CA political contributions require personal and eployment information, but there is no designation of religious affiliation. So it is impossible to know how much support came from each denomination.
There is an interesting aspect of black support that has not been discussed. While overall black support was a substantial 70%, I have seen no breakout of the support level of black Christians, which, presumably was even higher.
And Matt is also incorrect about the level of Catholic support. It was express at the clergy level and very substantial.
“Many of those protesting are not gay. However, I think you are mixing up the protests that have involved over-the-top tactics with the mass of peaceful protests that occurred all across the country. I could be wrong.”
Matt, I can prove nothing here clearly. However, what I have seen on TV shows a mix, the simple protesters and the thugs, all mixed togetheer, and I have to believe, from what I have seen of mobs and protests, that the over-the-top people are simply those whose self-restraint has fallen apart – as opposed to those who hunger and thirst after radical trouble. I have watched people, little different from myself, get so worked up that they do what they would, in calm moments, NEVER do. That these crowds are all quite properly called liberal – well, the evidence over the past suggests that they cannot be called otherwise, because what they are protesting FOR, is nationwide. (Alas poor Maine which is sinking under a blanket of blue.) LM