Gays Lesbians Attack LDS L.A. Temple

[elder999]

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]

Yes. Sorry. Congrats.

 

[Gordon Nore]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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"™. 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.