# Gays Lesbians Attack LDS L.A. Temple



## MA-Caver (Nov 10, 2008)

Please note it is not my intent to "start a fight" over this issue but to try and find a logical discussion from both sides. My own thoughts/feelings over this matter are probably biased because of my close friends/associations with members of the LDS church, but understand that I have equally close friends/associations with members of the gay communities as well. 
------------------------------------------------
I found this shocking for several reasons when an LDS friend sent the URL's to me via AOL/IM I had to google quite a bit to find headlines based on this story to confirm it's accuracy. 
It's shocking because it puts a hypocritical light on Gays and Lesbians and their desire to be equal when they mercilessly attack a religion which opposes Prop 8... they singled out the LDS church when they know that many other churches, including the Holy Roman Catholic Church (which has more members) are equally opposed to it. 
Granted Gays and Lesbians have a right to be upset/angry that their rights to marry have been taken away from them. They would have a right to peacefully protest, but IMO they do NOT have the right to vandalize or attack members of a particular faith/church. 


> http://www.sltrib.com/lds/ci_10918202
> *Prop 8 backlash: Gay marriage backers to protest outside Salt Lake LDS Temple *
> 
> By Jessica Ravitz
> ...


This article written by a L.A. police officer who also happens to be LDS for an online magazine for LDS people... http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081110hate.html


> During the Proposition 8 rally, as I stood with my wife and friends waving _Yes On 8 _ signs and waving to the passing rush hour traffic, I learned several things. I learned supporters of both _Yes On 8 _ and _No On 8 _ liked to honk their horns. I learned the way to tell the difference is the _No On 8 _ supporters usually accompanied their horn honking with an obscene gesture or a string of obscenities. *They also liked to swerve their cars toward the children on the curb. *


What was even more shocking was some of the officers were hateful enough to hope the activists would be successful in burning down the building


> In the Bureau command post there was a large screen television displaying scenes from the protest outside the Los Angeles temple. Imagine my surprise, when angry protestors began rushing the closed temple gates, and I heard an officer in the command post say, I hope they burn that place to the ground.
> 
> 
> ​ Imagine my even stronger surprise when another officer replied, They better hope they don't get through the gates, because the Mormons have an army in a bunker under the temple that will come out and kill them all.
> Really? My temple recommend must not be of a high enough clearance to get me into that part of the temple.


That last line was sarcasm at it's best... but I cannot believe that there was an officer who actually believed that the temple harbored an army waiting to defend to the death their temple... tell me that L.A. Police aren't that stupid to believe such utter tripe! 

A You Tube video created in response to the protests against the LDS church. 


> http://www.ldsmag.com/youtube/081110appall.html*Catholics Appalled at anti-Mormon Slur* ​  In this YouTube clip Michael Barber, professor at John Paul the Great Catholic University, says that the treatment received by the Latter-day Saints just before and after the passage of Prop 8 in California is appalling and stresses the fundamental importance of religious liberty.
> 
> Caution: may contain offensive religious messages
> 
> ...


The video shows clips from a Gay created anti-Mormon propaganda ad that was amazingly aired on television in the L.A. area. For one thing I can attest that the video/ad is radically incorrect in many areas. For one thing male missionaries are not allowed to "visit" women or enter their homes while proselytizing they have female missionaries for that. Another that they would not illegally search someone's home and bully people around. They just DO NOT do that. The video is a lie and I'm not even LDS and even I know they wouldn't do that. It is probably why the attack on the temple site was conducted. 
Question really is why if there is such a large population of Gays in the L.A. county area didn't they hold similar (if not simultaneous) protests in front of other churches/faiths? Why pick on the LDS in particular? Was it because of the propaganda video?  Or were they being systematic planning on protesting in front of a Catholic church next and moving on to the Baptists and other churches later? 
Either way, its shameful I think of the conduct chosen and I honestly don't see how it would help their cause acting this way. 

Like I said they have the right to be angry/upset and have the right to protest and call for a new bill but acting savagely (driving their cars towards children for example... what if they lost control and actually hit one of the kids?) doesn't put favor in my eyes anyway. 

From the other side of the fence... 


> http://insidesocal.com/outinhollywood/2008/11/prop-8-protesters-rally-outsid.html
> *Prop. 8 protesters rally outside Mormon temple in Westwood...[Update]*
> 
> By Greg Hernandez on November  7, 2008  7:05 AM   | Permalink | Comments (8)   | ShareThis
> ...


This article is from the LA Times... very good point about racism amongst gays... and the real import of Prop 8. 


> http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-cannick8-2008nov08,0,3295255.story
> *No-on-8's white bias*
> The right to marry does nothing to address the problems faced by both black gays and black straights.
> By Jasmyne A. Cannick
> ...


Hypocrisy anyway you slice it.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 10, 2008)

Some people sure hate any free speech but, their own...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 10, 2008)

See here:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=69226

Short version:  The LDS spent tens of millions of dollars in California, and sent in a large number of people from outside of California to push for Prop. 8.  They didn't put a tenth of the effort into any of the other states who were also deciding the matter of same sex marriage.  As a result, they are seen as the largest party in the anti-gay side, and are being targeted.  The Catholic Church also put some effort in, however it seems theirs was less "Official" in intent, and the LDS is now at risk of losing its tax exempt status.

Free Speech doesn't mean you can say anything you want without reprisal. 
Especially considering the Pro sides ads were full of lies and misinformation.


----------



## Blindside (Nov 10, 2008)

With regard to the "army bunker" and the church.  I'm not LDS, but in my time in Wyoming, I spent some time with some members of the church that were pretty serious about the protecting the church from its historical status as being a persecuted minority religion.  Lets just say they were armed a bit better than most of the Buddhists that I have known.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 10, 2008)

Also, "Attack"?

Seriously, what were the casulties?  

I mean I've only read of a handful of arrests, and nothing that I would classifiy as an "attack" (ie property damage, injuries, deaths, etc).

Though....considering the amount of information on the Prop. 8 supporters being posted around the web, they better hope the Anonymous hackers keep focusing on the Scientologists and don't join the battle...that fights already cost CoS millions.


----------



## Ray (Nov 10, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> and the LDS is now at risk of losing its tax exempt status.
> 
> Free Speech doesn't mean you can say anything you want without reprisal.


If the church should lose it's tax exempt status over this, then the legal decision that makes it so would be incorrect.  A church may not support a candidate, but it may speak to issues.  The members of the church as individuals and private citizens may support and campaign for a candidate; as well as campaign for/against initiatives.

It's easy to make the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints the boogy man since it is usually only the stereotypical mis-information about the church that most people know.

The Church and its members have survived the murder of their brethren, the confiscation of their property and the churches property.  they have survived being driven from every settlement in the US until they left the US and went to Utah.  The church will survive will also survive this effort.


----------



## Ray (Nov 10, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I mean I've only read of a handful of arrests, and nothing that I would classifiy as an "attack" (ie property damage, injuries, deaths, etc).


If a group of people want to change the result of a vote, there are legal means to do so; through a recall, or a court case. 


Bob Hubbard said:


> Though....considering the amount of information on the Prop. 8 supporters being posted around the web, they better hope the Anonymous hackers keep focusing on the Scientologists and don't join the battle...that fights already cost CoS millions.


So, what are you saying, if the members of the church excercise their legal right to vote in defiance of a vocal and possibly violent group of people, then they risk being hacked as well as attacked?  Doesn't sound much like a rule by law, more like a rule by vigilantism.


----------



## Ray (Nov 10, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Seriously, what were the casulties?
> 
> I mean I've only read of a handful of arrests, and nothing that I would classifiy as an "attack" (ie property damage, injuries, deaths, etc).


According to the article written in the Meridian Magazine, homes and cars were vandalized...that is property damage...that is something you would classify as an "attack."


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 11, 2008)

I didn't say I approved of such things.



> Gay members of the Mormon Church and their families learned last week of a letter from Thomas S. Monson, our prophet, to all the "saints" of the church in California. He and his two counselors, known as The First Presidency, who live in Salt Lake City, Utah, have asked that the letter be read in all the pulpits in California today.
> 
> California members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, numbering many hundreds of thousands, through this letter are requested to devote their means and time to assure that marriage is legally defined as between a man and a woman. As the Lord's Prophet, Monson is asking all Mormons to support a gay marriage ban on the premise that heterosexual marriage is ordained by God and children are "entitled to be born within this bond of marriage."


http://www.religiousleft.us/2008/06/lds-church-on-wrong-side-of-gay.html
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/119629

I think that might have crossed the line. In the end, it will be up to the IRS however to examine everything, and decide the matter.  

Of course, anyone who thinks that after spending tens of millions of dollars, putting out significant misinformation and causing fear, uncertainty and doubt, to ensure that a discriminatory measure is passed into law, and thinks that the next day it'll all be normal, is really really stupid.

Bottom line here is, it's none of their business, it doesn't hurt anyone it doesn't change what the religion allows, and it will go through sooner or later.

It'd be nice if this can go through without a few hundred people dying, which sadly looks to be the way it's going if things keep escalating.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 11, 2008)

Ray said:


> According to the article written in the Meridian Magazine, homes and cars were vandalized...that is property damage...that is something you would classify as an "attack."


If that's what's happening, I stand corrected.


----------



## Ray (Nov 11, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> If that's what's happening, I stand corrected.


What? You mean you didn't read the article that was referenced with a link in the thread-starter?


----------



## Ray (Nov 11, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Bottom line here is, it's none of their business, it doesn't hurt anyone it doesn't change what the religion allows, and it will go through sooner or later.


Next time there's a ballot, tell the Mormons and the Catholics that there not allowed to vote.  Maybe I should have refrained from casting my vote in the presidential election this year; after all, I am a Mormon.  If it's on the ballot, then it is the business of the Mormon citizens of the state.  And it is perfectly legal for a church to speak on the issues.  


Bob Hubbard said:


> It'd be nice if this can go through without a few hundred people dying, which sadly looks to be the way it's going if things keep escalating.


Sounds like a threat to me.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 11, 2008)

I'm looking for references from other sites before accepting one source.  I haven't had time to check all of the links yet.

Simply put, the LDS and ALL churches should stay out of politics.
Then again, I fully support taxing them like any other business.

But I don't agree with violent outbursts from either side.


----------



## Ray (Nov 11, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I'm looking for references from other sites before accepting one source. I haven't had time to check all of the links yet.
> 
> Simply put, the LDS and ALL churches should stay out of politics.
> Then again, I fully support taxing them like any other business.
> ...


Check the refs, by all means.  The citizens of the united states who happen to be Latter Day Saints happen to have a constitional right to vote.  Catholics who are citizens have the right to vote, Jews have the right to vote, and so on.  You cannot demand that people who have religious beliefs excuse themselves from voting; or maybe you're just suggesting they should have rights anyway, since they're obviously irrational by having irrational beliefs in the supernatural?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 11, 2008)

Ray said:


> Next time there's a ballot, tell the Mormons and the Catholics that there not allowed to vote.  Maybe I should have refrained from casting my vote in the presidential election this year; after all, I am a Mormon.  If it's on the ballot, then it is the business of the Mormon citizens of the state.  And it is perfectly legal for a church to speak on the issues.
> Sounds like a threat to me.


Uh Ray, take a step back and relax k?

I'm stating a simple fact, not making any threats here.
The people who are now being treated like second class citizens, who are being denied the same happiness you get by default, are rather upset about it.  I suspect a good number of Mormons were just as upset when poligamy was outlawed. Some folks still are pissed about that one.  Some resorted to violence then, and some now will resort to violence again, on both sides of the matter.

I *don't* condone it, and wish all parties would settle it peacefully.

But looking back at various other rights issues, they tend to get violent, and people tend to die, before things get settled.

If you read my statement which was based on a knowledge of history as a threat, then there's nothing I can do about that.

But, if anyone is going to play the "my religion was discriminated against 100 years ago, so that makes this ok" game, people of my faith are still discriminated against across the US, and are regularly murdered around the world by so called Christians, Muslems, and Jews with little repercussion.  

If I was in California, I'd be in one of those protests, standing up for my friends.
But I'm not, and neither are you, and the LDS is not based in California last I checked, and California law doesn't apply in Utah.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 11, 2008)

Ray said:


> Check the refs, by all means.  The citizens of the united states who happen to be Latter Day Saints happen to have a constitional right to vote.  Catholics who are citizens have the right to vote, Jews have the right to vote, and so on.  You cannot demand that people who have religious beliefs excuse themselves from voting; or maybe you're just suggesting they should have rights anyway, since they're obviously irrational by having irrational beliefs in the supernatural?


I'm saying that an organized action by any church is a violation of Federal Law, law that applies to the LDS, the Catholic Church, etc.  

I like it when the head of a church goes to the extra effort to encourage his flock to travel to another state and promote their agenda.  I think there's laws against that too.

But, let me know how much money the LDS spent on adverts and comercials in Florida and Arizona this year relating to the same-sex issues there.  Were the people encouraged to also go to those states, and contribute money to those fights, or, was it as it seems, pretty much a targeted out-of-state waged attack on the California homosexual community?

At no point am I saying that anyone shouldn't vote. I'm saying that the Church (any church) has no place in politics in this country.


----------



## Ray (Nov 11, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> LDS is not based in California last I checked, and California law doesn't apply in Utah.


There are 750,000 or so members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in California.  Or so I've read.  Those of legal age have a right to vote.  Just admit that they do and get over it.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 11, 2008)

When did I say they didn't have a right to vote?

While you're at it, answer the other questions please.


----------



## Ray (Nov 11, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> When did I say they didn't have a right to vote?
> 
> While you're at it, answer the other questions please.


Look up the answers yourself.  And be specific whether you are reporting the Church's official activities and expenditures versus the individual member's expenditures and activities.

And as you already know, churches have a right to speak on issues.


----------



## TimoS (Nov 11, 2008)

Ray said:


> There are 750,000 or so members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in California.  Or so I've read.  Those of legal age have a right to vote.  Just admit that they do and get over it.



If I've understood things correctly, you seem to be missing the point. At no point is Bob saying that members of the church cannot vote. What he is saying that the church shouldn't be allowed to tell people how to vote. To me there's a world of difference there: do the people decide themselves or is someone telling them how to vote.


----------



## Brian King (Nov 11, 2008)

Rant mode on*
This election cycle was a disaster for my positions. I ended up being in the minority on every single vote. My fellow citizens voted to change the relationship between medical professionals and patients now allowing and requiring medical professionals to prescribe and to fill lethal prescriptions. Times are hard and my fellow citizens voted an insane tax hikes to go to mass transit. The same system whos 1998 ten year plan is ten years behind and millions and millions of dollars over budget. I drive on our roads everyday for a living often stuck in traffic while the car pool lane is under utilized, yet my fellow citizens voted down the idea of opening up those carpool lanes during off peak hours. My selection for governor was again beat but at least this cycle the Democrats did not have to magically find hundreds of uncounted ballots during the third recount after losing the prior counts, winning by a whole 137 votes. This year the gap was larger so at least it did not take a bunch of court cases and weeks to find out that I once again lost. My vote for president and vice president also did not pan out with the selection of President elect Obama and Biden. 

So I wonder if I took to the streets, if like some did in Michigan I entered buildings to disrupt shock and bash those that were assembled legally, if I went out and confronted those that opposed my views with the intent of provoking physical violence would I be justified and supported by those now doing the screaming about rights.

I would have some more respect for these that feel that they must protest by confrontation if they confronted those that would challenge their courage and sincerity. Remember when the animal rights protestors would throw paint on the old ladies wearing their fur wraps, I wondered why those brave protestors never went to the rallies at Sturgis and threw paint on all the leather clad motorcycle enthusiasts. I see and read about these protestors (especially that Michigan church situation) and wonder if they will do the same to the local mosque? It is easy to scream, to throw a tantrum but they are doing more harm to their supposed cause than good. I guarantee that they are not convincing anyone that voted against their cause to reevaluate their vote. They are trying to suppress opposing views and in my opinion it stinks.

I now have yet one more thing to pray about. Living here in the Seattle area I now and then have to drive miles out of my way to avoid some illegal street protest. I believe in the right to burn the flag but at the same time do it in front of me and I may dot the eye of the burner and am willing take my lumps in court for doing so. Knowing this about my temperament I do everything I can to avoid these situations. Come to my church or home and confront in the hopes of provoking violence may well produce the desired results, I pray that I can be left in the peace that I am seeking and I pray that those doing the screaming find the peace that they demonstrate desperate need of. In the mean time I vote, and the screamers, those that protest to shock, to oppress opposing views and carry out cowardly confrontations only steel my resolve to combat them as long as I am able, LOL and I am very able. 

Rant mode off*

Warmest regards
Brian King


----------



## Ray (Nov 11, 2008)

TimoS said:


> If I've understood things correctly, you seem to be missing the point. At no point is Bob saying that members of the church cannot vote. What he is saying that the church shouldn't be allowed to tell people how to vote. To me there's a world of difference there: do the people decide themselves or is someone telling them how to vote.


I'm certain that you and Bob have read the letter sent by the first presidency of the church.  I'm certain that you understand that members of the church are always advised to prayfully consider issues and make their own choices.  Besides, Bob might be intentionally ignoring the fact that Churches have the legal right to speak out on issues; and he seems to intentionally not separating the activities of the individual members of the church and the official church activity *(which was what, a short letter, perhaps)


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 11, 2008)

Ray said:


> Look up the answers yourself.  And be specific whether you are reporting the Church's official activities and expenditures versus the individual member's expenditures and activities.
> 
> And as you already know, churches have a right to speak on issues.


Ray, I know the answers. 

At the urging of church President Thomas Monson, Mormons contributed more than $15 million to fund the deceitful advertising campaign that resulted in a small majority of Californians supporting Prop 8. In comparison, they spent peanuts on similar messures in other states. The people of California rightfully feel rather indignant.

1998: LDS Church donated $1.1 million to oppose gay marriage proposals in Hawaii and Alaska

1999: With the help of Mormons in the state, California passes Proposition 22, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman

Feb. 25, 2000 Stuart Matis, a homosexual LDS returned missionary, shoots himself on steps of LDS chapel in Los Altos, Calif, to symbolize the pain the church's efforts were causing its gay members 

In 2006, the LDS Church joined a national religious coalition to push an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would define marriage as between a man and a woman. LDS Apostle Russell M. Nelson was among 50 prominent Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox and Jewish leaders who signed a petition explaining why they see a need for such a constitutional amendment. 


Current California law deals only with civil marriage. *It does not affect religious rites or institutions. *



> In a statement to be read in California churches Sunday, LDS President Thomas S. Monson, with his counselors in the governing First Presidency, Henry B. Eyring and Dieter F. Uchtdorf, say Mormon teachings on the issue "are unequivocal."
> 
> "Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the Creator's plan for his children," the statement says.
> 
> ...



That last line sounds like an order.

As to why the LDS is the primary target, "The final tally shows that as much as 70 percent of Prop 8 funding from individuals came from Mormons."
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/10/25/mormons-have-donated-40-of-prop-8-funding/


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 11, 2008)

Ray said:


> I'm certain that you and Bob have read the letter sent by the first presidency of the church.  I'm certain that you understand that members of the church are always advised to prayfully consider issues and make their own choices.  Besides, Bob might be intentionally ignoring the fact that Churches have the legal right to speak out on issues; and he seems to intentionally not separating the activities of the individual members of the church and the official church activity *(which was what, a short letter, perhaps)



From http://www.mormonsstoleourrights.com/


> According to IRS law, Section                          501(c)(3) describes corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation,                          organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific,                          testing for public safety, literacy, or educational purposes, or to foster                          national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of                          its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or                          for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net                          earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or                          individual, *no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on                              propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as                              otherwise provided in section (h)), and which does not participate in, or                              intervene in (including the publishing or distribution of statements), any                              political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public                              office.*​From IRS Publication 1828 Page 5,                     Substantial Lobbying Activity
> *In general, no organization, including a church, may qualify for IRC                              section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting                              to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying).* An IRC                          section 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much                          lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status.
> ​*Was the letter of the law violated?*
> 
> ...


----------



## Ray (Nov 11, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Ray, I know the answers.
> 
> 
> 
> That last line sounds like an order.


Aha, I've got it, you quote the last line, which to you sounds like an order.  Of course, you didn't quote the last line, you only quoted part of the last line.  And if you only quote part of something, you could change the meaning of it.

Here is the last line:
"We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman"

Clearly a request.  I would not accuse you of slanting anything intentionally, because I assume you have integrity.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 11, 2008)

I haven't located a link to the full letter at this time, so what I bolded was what was in the bit I quoted.  I try to include links to the full articles when I can to allow fullk disclosure, while complying with Fair-Use policy.

Thank you for posting the full sentence.  If you have a link to the full letter, I'd like to read it in it's entirety if possible.


----------



## Ray (Nov 11, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> ... *no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in section (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distribution of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.* ...


Mr. Hubbard note these words: *any candidate for public office*


Bob Hubbard said:


> * if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation *


Mr. Hubbard note this word: *substantial.  *I can attest to the fact that there the substantial part of the activities of the Church of Jesus Christ rest in 3 areas:  1) Proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  2) Perfect the Saints.  3). Redeem the dead.


----------



## Ray (Nov 11, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I haven't located a link to the full letter at this time, so what I bolded was what was in the bit I quoted. I try to include links to the full articles when I can to allow fullk disclosure, while complying with Fair-Use policy.
> 
> Thank you for posting the full sentence. If you have a link to the full letter, I'd like to read it in it's entirety if possible.


Bob, try www.lds.org I've included the text of the letter (hopefully not a copyright infringement). 

The following letter was sent from the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to Church leaders in California to be read to all congregations on 29 June 2008: 

Preserving Traditional Marriage and Strengthening Families 
In March 2000 California voters overwhelmingly approved a state law providing that Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. The California Supreme Court recently reversed this vote of the people. On November 4, 2 008, Californians will vote on a proposed amendment to the California state constitution that will now restore the March 2000 definition of marriage approved by the voters.

The Churchs teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the Creators plan for His children. Children are entitled to be born within this bond of marriage. 

A broad-based coalition of churches and other organizations placed the proposed amendment on the ballot. The Church will participate with this coalition in seeking its passage. Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved in this important cause. 

We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage.


----------



## Brian King (Nov 11, 2008)

*TimoS wrote:*



> If I've understood things correctly, you seem to be missing the point. At no point is Bob saying that members of the church cannot vote. What he is saying that the church shouldn't be allowed to tell people how to vote. To me there's a world of difference there: do the people decide themselves or is someone telling them how to vote.


 
I am sorry Timo but I read Bobs posts and see the protests differently. California went for Obama and voted for him in a large majority. I was saddened to see that nationally Obama also received a majority (a slim majority but a majority none the less) from the Catholics and other organized religious faiths. In many churches the congregations were urged to support Obama and his campaign. Are these churches also being protested for getting involved in politics? Is the IRS going to investigate the good Reverend Wright and his church for example? Is any religious leader and group that opinioned on any of the politics up for scrutiny and physical attack or just those that opinioned in ways that some disagree with? How about Unions, are they being protested for urging their members to vote a certain way and requiring contributions go to certain campaigns? Nope, they just investigate and protest and confront with violence those that disagree and oppose the results that they desired. So much for cant we all get along and change is coming with the election of Obama. Me, I have no problem with violence and confrontations and on my dark days I look forward to the days when violence is called for. Those that are pushing and bashing and confronting may be letting Pandora out of the box. 

I heard some wonder what the streets would look like and read articles claiming riots if Obama lost the election. The violence demonstrated in California and other places over this issue show that those fears might not be so far fetched. Why bother to have elections at all if the results are ignored and violence is used instead of ballots? 

Warmest regards
Brian King 

_P.S. Ray, thanks for the link and your calm and logical postings._


----------



## Brian S (Nov 11, 2008)

Thanks Ray and Brian for speaking on the behalf of the rational!!!


----------



## TimoS (Nov 11, 2008)

Brian said:


> Are these churches also being protested for getting involved in politics?



If they aren't, maybe they should be. Although we in Finland have a state religion, I wouldn't like it one bit if they actively urged people to vote for certain people/party. Now, if I was living in the USA, where I gather you don't have a state religion, I would like it even less for church to tell anybody who to vote for (or against).


----------



## Twin Fist (Nov 11, 2008)

The mormans didnt cause it to go down in flames, the numbers clearly showed that the blacks who came out in record numbers to vote for the Obamasiah also dont think too much of the right for gays to marry. THAT caused the ban to pass.

yet they are not protesting in black areas are they?

cuz they KNOW they would get thier *** busted if they try.


----------



## MA-Caver (Nov 11, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> The Mormons didn't cause it to go down in flames, the numbers clearly showed that the blacks who came out in record numbers to vote for the Obama also don't think too much of the right for gays to marry. THAT caused the ban to pass.


Thanks for that... it was one of the other articles that I included in the OP. 
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,3295255.story But I don't think it was the THAT exclusive but definitely a contributing factor. 

From my understanding after talking with several LDS friends on this matter... members contributed to the campaign against prop 8 not the church itself. The church speaks it's mind like all the others (Catholic, Baptists -- which are strongly outspoken in my part of the country -- and so on)... laying it all on a single doorstep is wrong. There were a lot of contributors to the passing of the ban. 

My thing is the way the protest had gone. Defacing property, damaging it, threats and again (dunno why this is over looked when it's the most extreme act)... swerving their cars at children. What does THAT say about the rationale of the protesters?? I think I could probably excuse just about everything else... except *THAT*! There is NO EXCUSE for jeopardizing the lives of children no matter how angry you are and no matter how many rights have been taken away, no excuse what-so-ever ... NONE!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 11, 2008)

Thank you Ray for posting the letter.  I didn't think to look at the LDS site.

Right now, and in the lead up to this, -both- sides haven't shown their best faces.  There have been alot of misunderstandings, and flat out lies put out.

As I said prior however, the LDS is being focused on as one of the primary targets, because the LDS has reportedly provided be it directly or indirectly, 70% of the funding for the anti equal rights side of this particular fight. 

Gays within the black and latino community failed to fight against the messure in significant numbers to turn the tide. They in part had the opinion that the race issue was more importent and the sexual one not important in comparison, according to some articles I've seen.

But, in looking at the hundreds of pages and opinions I've seen, there is one importent facet I havent found yet.

A clear understanding of how 2 men getting marrying will somehow drastically degrade the values, etc of a religiously performed ceremony done under the laws and tenets of the Mormon, Catholic or any church that doesn't accept same-sex relations.  

If I were to say, marry Caver, besides shocking the hell out of him, and me, would that act suddenly somehow lessen Ray or Twin Fists marriage (if they were married) to women?  Would it invalidate or somehow harm their relationship with their gods? Would it cause their children (again if they had them) to be cast eternally into a lake of liquid pokemon?  

Point blank, explain to me how, allowing Mr. George Takai, or Ellen, or John from Accounting to have the same rights, privilages, and responsibilities as you have somehow directly effects you degrades you, diminishes you, or otherwise harms you.

Because, other than "I don't like it" and "I disapprove of it" and "It grosses me out"  I can't see any valid reasons.

Oh, I don't count the "God doesn't like it" part. There are many gods out there. They don't all agree on the matter either.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 11, 2008)

TimoS said:


> If they aren't, maybe they should be. Although we in Finland have a state religion, I wouldn't like it one bit if they actively urged people to vote for certain people/party. Now, if I was living in the USA, where I gather you don't have a state religion, I would like it even less for church to tell anybody who to vote for (or against).


We do.  Our politicians worship money, and require us to make special offerings of mandatory contributions every payday to the priesthood of the IRS.
For those who say it isn't a religion, I offer that it's rules are impossible to get right, you're almost guaranteed damnation, and it's higher ups are untouchable.  All that's missing is some wine and a cookie once a week.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 11, 2008)

Ray said:


> Mr. Hubbard note these words: *any candidate for public office*
> [/b]Mr. Hubbard note this word: *substantial.  *I can attest to the fact that there the substantial part of the activities of the Church of Jesus Christ rest in 3 areas:  1) Proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  2) Perfect the Saints.  3). Redeem the dead.



I did notice the wording, it was also part of why they say "may have" and not "did" in regards to violation determination.

Regarding #3, Baptism of the Dead? Is that is the Baptism by Proxy system where the LDS has repeatedly been asked by the Jewish Church to stop proxy-baptisms of Holocaust victims? An activity that other groups such as the Catholic Church also finds, odd and questionable?

Seems like there is a case here of a powerful group forcing their beliefs on others who believe differently and want to live differently. Much like the idea of allowing non-Mormon homosexuals to marry and have the transferable and transportable rights, privileges and responsibilities of marriage.

I'd protest any group that wanted to force their beliefs on me.  Have in fact, our archives here are full of those protests.


----------



## Twin Fist (Nov 11, 2008)

from your link Bob:

*Vicarious baptism does not mean that the decedent is forced to accept the ordinance performed for him or her or that the deceased becomes a member of the LDS Church*; it merely means that the decedent has the option to accept the ordinance and the benefits which the Latter-day Saints claim baptism provides. (See Exaltation (Mormonism).)
 While members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints consider it a great service to perform vicarious ordinances for the deceased, some non-members have taken offense. To be sensitive to the issue of proxy baptizing for non-Mormons that are not related to Church members, *the Church in recent years has published a general policy of only performing temple ordinances for direct ancestors of Church members. *


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 11, 2008)

The articles from the Jewish and Catholics seem to indicate it's an ongoing concern, not an older one.   

Doesn't bother me, I've been baptised in at least 4 faiths, I figure I'm a shoe in for cloud front property.


----------



## Ray (Nov 11, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Regarding #3, Baptism of the Dead? Is that is the Baptism by Proxy system where the LDS has repeatedly been asked by the Jewish Church to stop proxy-baptisms of Holocaust victims? An activity that other groups such as the Catholic Church also finds, odd and questionable?
> 
> Seems like there is a case here of a powerful group forcing their beliefs on others who believe differently and want to live differently. Much like the idea of allowing non-Mormon homosexuals to marry and have the transferable and transportable rights, privileges and responsibilities of marriage.
> 
> I'd protest any group that wanted to force their beliefs on me. Have in fact, our archives here are full of those protests.


Mental exercise: If I have the desire to have my dead mother baptized, then is that my right? If it upsets my one living brother, is it still my right? If I wish to perform a pagan rite, or a santeria rite, what's the big deal? It's something I did, not my mother, not my brother.

Now, If I start looking at my ancestors farther back, perhaps I'm jewish and I perform the proxy rite for my jewish ancestors, then even if some of my distant relatives are upset; it's still something I did--I didn't dig up any material from a dead relative, I haven't done anything except a little paperwork on the roles of the church and a very brief rite.


----------



## Twin Fist (Nov 11, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> The articles from the Jewish and Catholics seem to indicate it's an ongoing concern, not an older one.
> 
> Doesn't bother me, I've been baptised in at least 4 faiths, I figure I'm a shoe in for cloud front property.





talk about covering your bases.............


----------



## Ray (Nov 11, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> As I said prior however, the LDS is being focused on as one of the primary targets, because the LDS has reportedly provided be it directly or indirectly, 70% of the funding for the anti equal rights side of this particular fight.


If the individual members of the church spent their money and provided 70% of the funding, then again, it is their right to do so.  If they labored for it as individuals, then it is their right.  And I'm not too sure that: if the church itself provided funding that it has violated any law.

To couch it in terms of "anti equal rights" is to slant it in such a way as politicians do (e.g pro-life, pro choice).  Just call it what it is: same-sex marriage.  If we examine issues and problems, then we need to do it honestly and to the point.  Both and either sides trying to polish a turd is dishonest.



Bob Hubbard said:


> Because, other than "I don't like it" and "I disapprove of it" and "It grosses me out" I can't see any valid reasons.


When my youngest son said he was voting for Obama because "Obama's cool" I was concerned that he should have a better reason.

I shortly changed my opinion on his reasons for voting because it is his right to vote and his right to decide in anyway he chooses.

If some Californians voted because they "don't like it" or "disapprove of it" or are "grossed out" then they could decide on that basis.  Even if I think more thought should be given to the decision, it's still the right of the voter to decide.



Bob Hubbard said:


> Oh, I don't count the "God doesn't like it" part. There are many gods out there. They don't all agree on the matter either.


Good for you, move to California and vote.  You and I can talk all we want, but we don't have a standing in the issue.  And we're probably not going to have much of an impact on the issue.

Besides: I don't have a problem that you believe same-sex marriage should be legal.  I didn't vote in the election, and I didn't enter into the disucussion until people started dissin the Mormons.  Heck, you can say you don't believe it's a true church.  You can say our beliefs our odd, you can even say you don't like hanging out with us...you can't make people vote the way you think they should.


----------



## MA-Caver (Nov 11, 2008)

Ray said:


> Good for you, move to California and vote.  You and I can talk all we want, but we don't have a standing in the issue.  And we're probably not going to have much of an impact on the issue.


 At least not until it comes to bill/issue in your respective states. 


Ray said:


> Besides: I don't have a problem that you believe same-sex marriage should be legal.  I didn't vote in the election, and I didn't enter into the discussion until people started dissin the Mormons.  Heck, you can say you don't believe it's a true church.  You can say our beliefs our odd, you can even say you don't like hanging out with us...you can't make people vote the way you think they should.



Differences of beliefs is allowed I think... as long as they're done respectfully. 

Couple of times this thread jumped the tracks of the main topic. Seems for the moment it's back on.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 11, 2008)

If you read what I've written over the years regarding voting, my views are quite strong.  Make an educated decision and vote.

I have friends, relatives and clients on both sides of the issue, some who are directly effected, some who aren't.  

I make no judgement call of the validity or invalidity of any faith, and consider them all the same. 

Regarding Same-Sex marriage, I see it as nothing more than an extention of previous rights debates concerning womens rights, racial rights, and religious rights.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 11, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> talk about covering your bases.............


Ask me if any of them were my choice......


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 11, 2008)

Ray said:


> Mental exercise: If I have the desire to have my dead mother baptized, then is that my right? If it upsets my one living brother, is it still my right? If I wish to perform a pagan rite, or a santeria rite, what's the big deal? It's something I did, not my mother, not my brother.
> 
> Now, If I start looking at my ancestors farther back, perhaps I'm jewish and I perform the proxy rite for my jewish ancestors, then even if some of my distant relatives are upset; it's still something I did--I didn't dig up any material from a dead relative, I haven't done anything except a little paperwork on the roles of the church and a very brief rite.


Put the way you did, no, I don't see anything wrong with it, as long as the relative being baptized is ok with it.  

If they aren't, they can always speak up.  Course, if they are dead, that might involve levitating the cat.......


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 11, 2008)

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how 2 men being married in California effects a man and a woman who got married in Ohio.

But let us say that Adam and Steve do get married, and go on a tri-state buggering marathon, that crosses state lines, and involves farm animals, small children, and several large potatoes. They then hijack an F16, fly to Bolivia where they are gunned down in a fearful firefight with the entire Bolivian Army, and at the end a large Gerbil named Roger asks for asylum.

How does that change, invalidate, or otherwise effect your sacred vows spoken from the heart, blessed by your god, and witnessed in your temple by the faithful?

I can't see how it does.
Unless Roger was your pet.


----------



## Ray (Nov 11, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I'm still waiting for someone to explain how 2 men being married in California effects a man and a woman who got married in Ohio.
> 
> But let us say that Adam and Steve do get married, and go on a tri-state buggering marathon, that crosses state lines, and involves farm animals, small children, and several large potatoes. They then hijack an F16, fly to Bolivia where they are gunned down in a fearful firefight with the entire Bolivian Army, and at the end a large Gerbil named Roger asks for asylum.
> 
> ...


What makes you believe that others need to explain their decision-making process to you?  What makes you think that your question could be the only thing to consider?  When people ask questions like yours, they're not usuall really seeking to understand other points of view or other reasons, they're just trying to keep an arguement going. 

The vote is over.  Legal remedies may exist to reverse the results.  

The characterizations I've seen of religous people is just as bad as the characterizations I've seen of gays, or any other group of people.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 11, 2008)

Ray,
  People get married for countless reasons. Love, Honor, Money, God, Safety, and so on.

My question is simple. How does who I marry effect you and who you marry?
Your faith is quite clear on it's reasons for defining marriage as male-female.
But there are gay mormons.
They can never marry within their faith.
If they should be able to, is something for Mormons to decide.

But I'm not talking about religious marriage, in any of my arguments.
Civil marriage.
And I see no reason why an American can't marry another consenting adult.



Oh, and concerning some of my characterizations, especially the comments of 'superstitions' and 'invisible man in the sky', let me let out some not so secret stuff here on my own path. It involves crystals, colors, spells, and a personalized panthion of gods and godesses. So, please don't perceive my comments as hammer critisisms. I see your god, Cavers God, and my God as the same, just that we perceive them and hear them a little differently. I see all of us humans as a little hard of hearing when it comes to what we refer to as God.  

As to questions, I am a Seeker of Knowledge and Truth.  If you prove me wrong, I am happy to be corrected. If you enlighten me, if you make me think, to reach outside my own box, I am delighted.  You my friend, and a few others here, have done so, and while we may never agree, I thank you and them for the opportunity to learn and grow.

Even when my swearing scares my cat.


----------



## Ray (Nov 11, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> As to questions, I am a Seeker of Knowledge and Truth. If you prove me wrong, I am happy to be corrected. If you enlighten me, if you make me think, to reach outside my own box, I am delighted. You my friend, and a few others here, have done so, and while we may never agree, I thank you and them for the opportunity to learn and grow.


Bob - thank you for the opportunity to get to know you better and to exchange some thoughts and comments.  I think you are entitled to your opinions and applaud you for having thought them out so well.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 11, 2008)

Found another news story, new information is starting to become harder to find as "new issues" drown them out.

Some interesting bits


> (11-09) 20:02 PST -- Months before the first ads would run on Proposition 8, San Francisco Catholic Archbishop George Niederauer reached out to a group he knew well, Mormons.
> Images
> Months before the first ads would run on Proposition 8, S...Archbishop George Niederauer had made critical inroads into improving Catholic-Mormon relations while he was Bishop of Salt Lake City for 11 years. And now he asked them for help on Prop. 8, the ballot measure that sought to ban same-sex marriages in California.





> The last Field Poll, conducted a week before the election, showed that weekly churchgoers increased their support in the final week from 72 percent to 84 percent. Catholic support increased from 44 percent to 64 percent - a jump that accounted for 6 percent of the total California electorate and equivalent to the state's entire African American population combined.
> 
> The shift in Catholics alone more than accounted for Prop. 8's 5 percent margin of victory.





> Mormon church members undertook a perhaps unprecedented mobilization, contributing an estimated 40 percent of the individual donations made to the Yes on 8's $30 million-plus campaign. Yet *the Salt Lake City church, which did not contribute to the campaign*, sees its involvement in politics as unusual.


Bolding mine.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/10/MNU1140AQQ.DTL


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 11, 2008)

Proposition 8 contributions
http://www.sfgate.com/webdb/prop8/

87,464 contributions, pro and con.


----------



## Twin Fist (Nov 11, 2008)

as you all know, i say let them, or anyone else that wants to lose thier mind, half thier stuff and most of thier sex life get married, i could care less.

That being said, these guys lost, they need to get over it. You dont see republicans protesting outside the obama's house in Chicago do ya?


----------



## Blindside (Nov 11, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Proposition 8 contributions
> http://www.sfgate.com/webdb/prop8/
> 
> 87,464 contributions, pro and con.



Quick crunch of the numbers:

# of CA residents who donated to oppose Prop 8: 41335
# of total people who donated to oppose Prop 8: 52927
# CA residents/total opposers who donated: 79%

# CA residents who donated in support of Prop 8: 32180
# of total people who donated in support Prop 8: 34537
# CA residents/total supporters: 93%
and just for giggles: % of UT supporters who donated : 1.6%

I'm not exactly seeing a flood of out of state support on the side of the pro Prop 8, in fact, I would say exactly the opposite.

Lamont


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 11, 2008)

Blindside said:


> Quick crunch of the numbers:
> 
> # of CA residents who donated to oppose Prop 8: 41335
> # of total people who donated to oppose Prop 8: 52927
> ...


Me either.

Interesting, ne?


----------



## MA-Caver (Nov 11, 2008)

It would be interesting to see just how many of those who donated to oppose were exactly LDS/Mormon...and what percentage were other faiths or whatnots but it's not likely that particular statistic will come out.

But I'd still like to know why is *this particular line* being ignored?? 


> During the Proposition 8 rally, as I stood with my wife and friends waving Yes On 8  signs and waving to the passing rush hour traffic, I learned several things. I learned supporters of both Yes On 8  and No On 8  liked to honk their horns. I learned the way to tell the difference is the No On 8  supporters usually accompanied their horn honking with an obscene gesture or a string of obscenities. *They also liked to swerve their cars toward the children on the curb.*


Obscene gestures and words is one thing.... trying to even pretend to want to run down children is quite something else!:angry:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 11, 2008)

So, the great balance of contributions, speaking in numbers of contributors only, came from California, and not outside the state.

More data mining is needed to trace back and map the sources however, as well as tally up the amounts, to clear up the picture and minimize the "propaganda" from both sides, neither of whom has been completely honest in the whole mess.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 11, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> It would be interesting to see just how many of those who donated to oppose were exactly LDS/Mormon...and what percentage were other faiths or whatnots but it's not likely that particular statistic will come out.
> 
> But I'd still like to know why is *this particular line* being ignored??


True, but if someone were to spend the time, it can be ferreted out, to an extent.


----------



## Archangel M (Nov 11, 2008)

Do people really get "married out of love"? Is the love any less if you live together unmarried? I believe that marriage is a twofold issue. Its a public statement of commitment which can be achieved in any sort of ceremony and its a financial/legal issue in terms of insurance, inheritance, property rights and so on. In the former case its nobody's business but theirs, In the latter it is our business because it effects public policy which we all are a part of.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 11, 2008)

I don't need diety or state to seal my relationship with my girlfriend, but after 8 years I'd like to ensure that should something happen to one of us, that the other is protected. We aren't traditionally religious so will do a civil ceremony followed by a reception of our close friends and family.  For that option to be available for all my friends, is what matters most to me.


----------



## Archangel M (Nov 11, 2008)

I think the issue is probably going to ultimately be decided with some sort of "civil union" contract of some sort. However I think a side issue here is that the gay community wants to be considered "mainstream" and this is part of an effort to that end. Separate from the "love and marriage" issue.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 11, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I don't need diety or state to seal my relationship with my girlfriend, but after 8 years I'd like to ensure that should something happen to one of us, that the other is protected. We aren't traditionally religious so will do a civil ceremony followed by a reception of our close friends and family. For that option to be available for all my friends, is what matters most to me.


 

Congratulations!


----------



## Archangel M (Nov 11, 2008)

Yes. Sorry. Congrats.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Nov 11, 2008)

Out of curiosity, I searched Wikipedia for information on 'direct democracy' as it applies to States in the Union. This isn't practised in Ontario; although, I believe the government of the Province of Alberta considered it at one time. but it wasn't pursued. I found the following of interest, though I can't attest to its political or historic accuracy.



> _Statute law referendum_ is a constitutionally-defined, citizen-initiated, petition process of the "proposed veto of all or part of a legislature-made law," which, if successful, repeals the standing law. It is used at the state level in twenty-four states: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wyoming (Cronin, 1989). There are now a total of 24 U.S. states with constitutionally-defined, citizen-initiated, direct democracy governance components (Zimmerman, December 1999). In the United States, for the most part only one-time majorities are required (simple majority of those voting) to approve any of these components.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy#Direct_democracy_in_the_United_States



Although, from the same article...



> Direct democracy was very much opposed by the framers of the United States Constitution and some signers of the Declaration of Independence. They saw a danger in majorities forcing their will on minorities. As a result, they advocated a representative democracy in the form of a constitutional republic over a direct democracy. For example, James Madison, in Federalist No. 10 advocates a constitutional republic over direct democracy precisely to protect the individual from the will of the majority. He says, "A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Witherspoon



It seems to me that this practice, while democratic in one sense, can lead to all kinds of chaos. Here we have a situation in which the rights of Californians have been defined by a state legislature, then overturned by petition and vote. It seems to me that this practice lends itself to piecemeal (rather than comprehensive) policy making. 

I imagine imflamatory messages in the media -- like the 'anti-Mormon' youtube video referenced above -- are fairly common under these circumstances. Suddenly, you have a vast population focused entirely on one issue, with an abundance of gay rights or religious agencies -- some thoughtful, some not -- competing for everyone's attention. This protest is the sad, invevitible conclusion.

There is no great surprise that protesters have targeted churches, since the churches -- all the from Utah -- have targeted them. Any violence, while profoundly disappointing, is not enormously surprising. America has seen its streets erupt before when people percieved that their rights are being ignored. 

As for the religious involvement in the vote, it may all well be above board. There really isn't a law against a preacher telling members of his or her congregation how to vote or encouraging them as citizens to speak. There is a selectiveness to this activism that sickens me. I have never witnessed this level of expensive and determined intervention by faith-based groups to protect the poor or fight the death penalty.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 11, 2008)

US law currently covers something like 10,000 volumes at the Federal level alone...
Part of the reason why the US doesn't run a real democracy is that the average citizen has no idea what's what. The "Majority" may not want gay marriage, but the "majority" also didn't want blacks to vote, goto white schools, or marry white women. Many didn't want women to vote either.  


With regard to the churches involvement, early information that I saw indicated there was, later information disagrees.  Which is why my position is, it should be investigated, and if guilty, dealt with. Plus, I don't mind being corrected on things. Sometimes, I post stuff so it can be corrected (hopefully) by others who search on different paths than me..


----------



## Gordon Nore (Nov 11, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> With regard to the churches involvement, early information that I saw indicated there was, later information disagrees.  Which is why my position is, it should be investigated, and if guilty, dealt with. Plus, I don't mind being corrected on things. Sometimes, I post stuff so it can be corrected (hopefully) by others who search on different paths than me..



Bob, I say the churches _may_ be above board, for the sake of argument. I don't have a clue. I know I'd have smoke coming my ears if, say, people from Saskatchewan tried to influence my vote in Ontario. Nothing against Saskatchewan, mind you.


----------



## MA-Caver (Nov 11, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> US law currently covers something like 10,000 volumes at the Federal level alone...
> Part of the reason why the US doesn't run a real democracy is that the average citizen has no idea what's what. The "Majority" may not want gay marriage, but the "majority" also didn't want blacks to vote, goto white schools, or marry white women. Many didn't want women to vote either.


Well it seems that the Gay communities are not paying attention to history in that regard. True that minorities in this country seem to get a bum deal for a while in this country, but eventually things come to pass for them and equality does happen. How long was it for women to get the right to vote alongside men? How long before blacks got their rights after slavery was abolished? Now we have a black president, we've had women supreme court justices and had McCain won the election a woman VP which is one step away from where Obama is right now. 
There are other minorities still struggling in this country but if they're legal citizens they now have the right to vote, hold office and be whomever/whatever they want to be. 
No marriage isn't the same right as say voting but it seems to me that "their time" isn't now but it's coming, and that right soon. One wonders can they wait a little while longer for one biased generation to pass and let another who by that time will be more accepting of the concept/ideas that the Gay community is trying to achieve? 
I see it in the next generation without a doubt. A generation ago we wouldn't have dreamed of an openly gay character in our fictional media unless they were a joke or comedy relief... anyone remember Billy Crystal's character, Jodie Dallas from the TV show "Soap" ? That was back in 1977... look how far gay characters have come since? Look how far real life gay people have come thus far. Been a long road I think... perhaps they shouldn't try for that short-cut around the block for full equality and just keep heading towards that horizon... I don't think it's as distant as they might think it is.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 11, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> Well it seems that the Gay communities are not paying attention to history in that regard. True that minorities in this country seem to get a bum deal for a while in this country, but eventually things come to pass for them and equality does happen. How long was it for women to get the right to vote alongside men? How long before blacks got their rights after slavery was abolished? Now we have a black president, we've had women supreme court justices and had McCain won the election a woman VP which is one step away from where Obama is right now.
> There are other minorities still struggling in this country but if they're legal citizens they now have the right to vote, hold office and be whomever/whatever they want to be.
> No marriage isn't the same right as say voting but it seems to me that "their time" isn't now but it's coming, and that right soon. One wonders can they wait a little while longer for one biased generation to pass and let another who by that time will be more accepting of the concept/ideas that the Gay community is trying to achieve?
> I see it in the next generation without a doubt. A generation ago we wouldn't have dreamed of an openly gay character in our fictional media unless they were a joke or comedy relief... anyone remember Billy Crystal's character, Jodie Dallas from the TV show "Soap" ? That was back in 1977... look how far gay characters have come since? Look how far real life gay people have come thus far. Been a long road I think... perhaps they shouldn't try for that short-cut around the block for full equality and just keep heading towards that horizon... I don't think it's as distant as they might think it is.


Considering a number of those who rushed to be married when it was legalized the first time had been in their relationships for 20, 30, 40! years, one has to wonder, why should they wait any longer.

In happier news, Gay marriages set for Wednesday in Connecticut.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/11/11/national/a134959S69.DTL&tsp=1



> It's unclear how many couples will get married. The state public health department says 2,032 civil union licenses were issued in Connecticut between October 2005 and July 2008.
> 
> The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled Oct. 10 that same-sex couples have the right to wed rather than accept a civil union law. Only Connecticut and Massachusetts have legalized gay marriage.



2,000 in Connecticut, and the state hasn't fallen into anarchy nor been blasted off the earth by "Gods Holy Wrath"&#8482;.  Unless you figure on the "Katrina was punishment for the gays" argument I saw floating around somewhere which might suggest the All-mighty got his LASIK from the same quack I did considering the aim was off a little bit.


----------

